We’re talking about the Cold War in my U.S. history classes. Invariably, someone will casually comment that we should, “Just nuke ’em,” as a solution to a difficult international problem when we discuss proxy wars from that era. It looks and sounds like how some adults are responding to student protesters calling for moderately tightened gun control. Hold that thought.
Years ago I listened in on a workshop with lawyers discussing negotiation tactics. They identified two basic strategies resulting in three possible results: lose-lose, win-lose and win-win. The champion strategy opens with an outrageous starting position, attempting to get everything and then some. The collaboration strategy is honest negotiation to reach a solution everyone can live with.
Best case scenario: Two collaborators negotiate and everyone goes home happy, with minimum cost and pain. Worst case scenario: A champion meets a collaborator and by artful sophistry twists legitimate concerns into oblivion, winning for one side and gravely damaging the other wrongly. One side gets nuked.
In the most common case, two champions duke it out in a form of Mutually Assured Destruction. Polarized positions drag out negotiations, drive up costs and leave everyone looking for revenge. You end up with something close to what collaborative negotiators would have in the first place and a lot of debt and bitterness on the side. Think messy divorce cases.
As a society, we approach thorny issues with the champion strategy these days. We deride those who disagree using fallacious logic. We smear them like immature bullies. It’s shameful. We’ve forgotten how to carry on civil discussions about serious issues. We’ve traded the healthy diet of honest facts and civil debate for sugar-coated sound bites of cherry-picked facts spun in our favorite echo chambers.
What has this champion approach gotten us? Bitterness. Frustration. Partisan rancor. We’re tearing ourselves apart and turning things that should unite us into divisive weapons. Adults who scamper to well-worn corners in tired old gun control debates, using smear tactics to shut down discussion with children asking for improved school safety are taking the immature approach I see in some students: Just nuke ’em.
We know better. A house divided cannot stand.
We love our rights and our children.
Come to the table in that frame of mind and let’s talk about all aspects of school safety. Let’s talk about how we can help people in crisis cope and how to ensure those who need support can get it. Let’s talk about how we can keep folks bent on doing harm out of schools and weapons out their hands. Let’s talk about how teachers can protect students in the unique context of each classroom. Let’s provide supports for these conversations, funds for physical modifications of facilities where needed, time for training, and let’s use resources we already have: local law enforcement.
I would love to see school resource officers or local law enforcement visit with teachers and help develop active defense plans appropriate for their rooms and their students. Let them have the conversation about whether teachers should consider carrying weapons. If you’re not a teacher or an officer in the schools, leave it alone. Let the professionals handle it.
Otherwise, let’s look for common ground and encourage constructive dialogue. We can start by treating those we disagree with respectfully. Calling on students to be kinder without improving our own behavior is hypocritical. Let’s be civil so we can find workable solutions to keep our schools and our children safe. Let’s champion their future by working collaboratively to solve a messy problem. None of us want to get nuked.
Deborah Gatrell
Deborah Gatrell, NBCT, M.Ed and Utah Teacher Fellow is concerned by local adults who think it’s appropriate to try to intimidate students. She’s also troubled by adults using Photoshop and meme generators to create false narratives. If you’re labeling children Nazis, stop it. Follow her on Twitter @DeborahGatrell1