Guns 'N Grads
Utah Supreme Court Just Says “No” to the U of U’s Gun Ban
By Amy Seigel, 9-14-06
Nothing says “back to school” quite like granting coeds the right to bear arms on campus. Last week, the Utah Supreme Court ruled 4-1 against the University of Utah’s nearly three-decade-old policy banning guns on campus saying that the ban goes against state law. However, the university is not backing down. According to the Salt Lake Tribune, the University president Michael Young is standing by its policy and refusing to lift the ban on weapons until he hears from the U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City where the case is now headed for litigation of federal constitutional issues. “Universities across the country uniformly prohibit guns on campus,” said Young. “We hope that, following a review of this case in federal court, the issue will be resolved to uphold our long-standing policy of keeping firearms off campus.”
The university’s policy first came under attack in 2001 when state Attorney General Mark Shurtleff asserted that state laws on concealed weapons prohibited the school from banning them from state property. Shurtleff, who explained his decision to go after the university’s gun policy by claiming that “their [the university’s] policy actually endangers their students and faculty more than it protects them,” called the recent Supreme Court decision “a victory for the rule of law.” And in the September 8th press release, Utah Supreme Court Justice Jill Parrish wrote in the majority opinion that the justices agreed with Shurtleff’s contention that “the university has no power or autonomy under the constitution that would permit it to disregard state law.”
Though the law may be clear-cut on this issue, the logic behind Shurtleff’s position is questionable. Indeed, it is this kind of reasoning that brings us such pithy, Second Amendment gems as “It’s not guns that kill people; it's people that kill people,” and convinces a certain portion of the population that students and faculty will somehow be safer if firearms are freely permitted on a university campus. In reality, since the university enacted its policy in the 1970s, there have been fewer than 30 incidents involving firearms reported on campus. According to Coralie Alder, director of Public Relations for the university, most of those firearm cases involved a crime being committed and a gun being found later someplace nearby; “Few of the incidents actually involved a victim being threatened by a gun,” says Alder.
While it is fairly simple to imagine one or two situations in which a person carrying a concealed weapon on campus might actually be able to stop a crime from being perpetrated against themselves or another person, it is equally easy to envision some similarly appalling—though perhaps not overtly violent—situations that could arise from the lifting of the U’s firearm ban. The sole voice of dissent in the Utah Supreme Court, Chief Justice Christine Durham, noted that the lifting of the ban could lead to a situation in which “the university may not subject a student to academic discipline for flashing his pistol to a professor in class,” and expressed concern that the Courts decision denied the autonomous authority of the university over academic affairs.
The understated violence of a student intimidating his professor by flashing a gun belies what is surely a more readily available image of campus violence: the helpless sorority girl fending-off her would-be attacker by pulling out a 9 mil and scaring the assailant away. Forgetting for a moment all the statistics about guns being significantly more likely to be used against their owners in these sorts of situations, it becomes clear that a vulnerable coed is likely to be a far more effective marketing tool than an intimidated professor. Make it seem like campus is really a dangerous place, and suddenly everyone wants to carry their own weapon. But the question is, would that really make anyone safer? And the answer given by the University of Utah is a resounding “no.”
Until a decision against the ban is handed down by the U.S. District Court, President Young is sticking to his guns. “Under the umbrella of the First Amendment, we believe we have an opportunity to take action when we think something is of a primary importance to the learning environment and the safety of students in the classroom. The U.S. Constitution gives us the scope and freedom to do something about it,” Young said. And indeed, he is not alone in his conviction. Other Utah institutions, including Brigham Young University in Provo, have even stricter gun policies. But whereas BYU is a religious institution—and therefore granted far more freedom in these sorts of matters (just take a look at their recent decision regarding controversial 9/11 scholar Steven Jones)—the University of Utah is a state institution dependent on state funds and subject to sate laws.
In the end, it’s hard to say whether this is a battle the University of Utah and President Young can ultimately win. Surely, academic institutions have a right to enforce policies connected to the school's academic mission. But if those policies directly contradict state and or federal statutes, should it be the rules of law or the rules of logic that ultimately win out?
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
When dealing with thorny issues, sometimes it helps to put the shoe on the other foot. Let's pretend for just a moment that the university admissions policy was flagrantly violating the civil rights (i.e. "equal justice under the law") of black applicants. One would hope the state supreme court would rightfully rule against the university, as it did in the "bearing arms on campus" case. But, the univ. administration's desire to keep the university racially segrated by appealing the state supreme court ruling to the federal courts would not be applauded by members of the student body (hopefully, at least)..
But, here we have another civil right (i.e. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed") - one determined to be so important by the Framers of our U.S. Constitution that it is listed 2nd in the Bill of Rights - being openly violated (and proudly, I might add) by this university administration.
To my mind, pink slips are very much in order.
"Foolish liberals who would read the 2nd Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like." -- Alan Dershowitz
when did a constitutional right to bear arms come under an 'academic affair'? Answer is, it doesn't. Academic affairs fall directly under education and administration of a state run university and not civil rights.
So many anti-gun individuals express all this shock and dismay that people carrying guns are going to morph in to wyatt earp and jesse james and then start duels and shootouts over who has a better dessert on their tray or some other such drivel. When did you 'enlightened' people develop such a hatred and disdain of your fellow mans/womans character and judgement?
The University is not its own state. The rule of Utah law is not suspended once you enter the school grounds, and cannot be replaced by school policy.
You might all be surprised to know that, even as a member of the journalistic left you have assumed that I am a part of, I actually own a firearm. It was a birthday present from my father last year. I use it for upland game hunting and I am not ashamed to say that I LOVE shooting…I’ve spent the past two Saturdays at the skeet range, and I actually killed my first grouse last weekend (gasp!). It might also astound you to learn that I have also considered getting a permit to carry a concealed weapon—not on the university campus, but when I go backpacking in very rural areas (as a defense against attackers of the large, hairy mammalian variety…bears and…?). I am not saying that citizens don’t have a right to bear arms. No. No. I am just saying that—come on, people—let’s be reasonable about where we bear those arms. How dangerous is the U’s campus, really? Would you feel safer walking from the math building to the union if you were packing heat? I truly believe that while the law may indeed be clear in this case, the university is well within its rights to attempt to follow a course of action that it feels is in the best interests of its students—and I still have a hard time believing that a policy allowing guns on campus will protect more students and faculty that in might endanger. Just one journalistic-left-gun-toting-girl’s opinion. Thanks for your comments!
Sorry Ms. Seigel, but I know I'll take the more positive approach by knowing that I have a fighting chance should an incident arise, due to the fact that I am armed as a lawfully conceal carry person.
P.S. I certainly agree with DKSuddeth from his/her 9-15-06 post.
The announcement notes that the University policy has never had any authority over visitors to campus who are not students or staff. The recent shooting near a college campus in Canada has highlighted the fact that a policy that does NOTHING to prevent campus visitors from carrying firearms is totally ineffective in preventing violence using guns.
The policy, which relies on prosaic sanctions such as suspension and firing, also has no effect on students or staff whose relationship with the University is being terminated and who are the ones most likely to "go postal", as everyone has seen time and again in these incidents. The incident at the West Virginia law school in which a professor was shot was resolved by other students who were lawfully carrying firearms, not by police.
Furthermore, the notion that the threat of suspension or disenrollment will deter a gun crime, when 5 years or more in prison does not, is ludicrous. Any student or staff member at the university who commits a felony with a gun (e.g. "flashing" it at a professor, thus committing assault with a deadly weapon), is going to be missing class or work for a long time, so their dismissal is going to happen anyway. Making dismissal a formal added penalty is totally meaningless.
The University's latest announcement specifies that hearings at the campus actually are held in controlled environments with metal detectors and guard searches for weapons. When you REALLY want to keep firearms out of a place, you do what airports and courthouses do: Set up metal detectors and x-ray machines and have guards (at least some of them armed) overseeing the searches. The University of Utah's policy NEVER provided any actual security screening to enforce the policy, so again, it was manifestly only a paper tiger that was never meant to be seriously enforced. It has always been merely an impotent gesture denouncing gun violence without actually DOING anything to prevent gun violence, since that would be a lot of bother and cost.
I attended law school at the Uhniversity with Ted Bundy. He carried a pistol in his VW beetle, which he parked on campus, which he used in kidnapping young women he then raped and murdered. He was committing multiple murders. Do you really think the threat of a suspension for having a firearm in his car would stop him when the threat of a firing squad did not?
Finally, it should be noted that the obvious result of the Utah Supreme Court's ruling is that the University is NOT a separate legal entity form the State for purposes of firearms law and policy. Therefore, the Federal court should dismiss the lawsuit since it fails to be a true dispute between separate entities, but is instead asking the Federal court to settle a dispute within Utah State government, which the Federal court has no power to do. It cannot tell the Utah Legislature to change its laws, and it cannot authorize the University to depart from Utah law. That, combined with the obvious ineffectiveness of the policy (as highlighted by the Canadian shooting), is the likely reason for the University's capitulation.