alan said:
I do not subscribe to either the theory ore the practice of the idea that having opted to a particular means of travel, that one accepts the denigration of basic civil rights, through this idea does appear to be in vogue these days. I try not to join the merry mob.
Good post, Alan. This is exactly the kind of principled response I was hoping to elicit by bringing up the issue of security in airports...
But I wasn't trying to, er, hijack the thread into a discussion of that specific topic. My point was that whatever position you take on the balance between civil rights and public safety needs to be consistently held. You can argue, as Alan appears to (A. -- correct me if I'm over-generalizing here), that it's never OK to sacrifice civil rights in the interest of a perceived security risk, or you can argue that sometimes it is OK. If you take the latter position, then where you draw the line is open to debate, but you've established the principle. As Bernard Shaw said in another context, "Now we're just negotiating the price..."
What you can't reasonably do is argue that the civil rights of people with whom you agree or identify should be privileged over those of others,
or that the fears (security concerns) of people you disagree with are automatically less valid than your own.
Professor Anderson had a security concern based, perhaps, on a negative stereotype about gun owners. (It's a stereotype a lot of people share; otherwise the owners of this website wouldn't be so committed to counteracting it.) If you want to argue that Mr. Wahlberg's civil rights automatically trump that concern, you'd better be willing to concede Alan's point about airport security, as well. If you think it's OK to detain people in airports, when they haven't broken any laws but make someone uncomfortable because of their speech or appearance (more stereotyping), then you should at least allow that there's room for debate about the merits of the Conn. State case.
tube_ee said:
College students are overwhelmingly over the age of 18. Which makes them adults. They are no longer somebody's children.
Well... their mothers would say they'll always be somebody's children.
But 18-21 is sort of "the awkward age"... can join the military, drive, etc.... but can't legally drink, can't vote in most places, can't buy a handgun in a lot of places... etc. And the chances are fairly good that the parents are footing at least some of the college bills. So college administrations are in a bit of a tough position as far as all that "
in loco parentis" stuff goes.