WANTED: A CULTURE OF SELF-DEFENSE

By Michelle Malkin

There's no polite way or time to say it: American colleges and universities have become coddle industries. Big Nanny administrators oversee speech codes, segregated dorms, politically correct academic departments and designated "safe spaces" to protect students selectively from hurtful (conservative) opinions -- while allowing mob rule for approved leftist positions (textbook case: Columbia University's anti-Minuteman Project protesters).

Instead of teaching students to defend their beliefs, American educators shield them from vigorous intellectual debate. Instead of encouraging autonomy, our higher institutions of learning stoke passivity and conflict-avoidance.

And as the erosion of intellectual self-defense goes, so goes the erosion of physical self-defense.

Yesterday morning, as news was breaking about the carnage at Virginia Tech, a reader e-mailed me a news story from last January. State legislators in Virginia had attempted to pass a bill that would have eased handgun restrictions on college campuses. Opposed by outspoken, anti-gun activists and Virginia Tech administrators, that bill failed.

Is it too early to ask: "What if?" What if that bill had passed? What if just one student in one of those classrooms had been in lawful possession of a concealed weapon for the purpose of self-defense?

If it wasn't too early for Keystone Katie Couric to be jumping all over campus security yesterday for what they woulda/coulda/shoulda done in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, and if it isn't too early for The New York Times editorial board to be publishing its knee-jerk call for more gun control, it darned well isn't too early for me to raise questions about how the unrepentant anti-gun lobbying of college officials may have put students at risk.

The back story: Virginia Tech had punished a student for bringing a handgun to class last spring -- despite the fact that the student had a valid concealed handgun permit. The bill would have barred public universities from making "rules or regulations limiting or abridging the ability of a student who possesses a valid concealed handgun permit . . . from lawfully carrying a concealed handgun." After the proposal died in subcommittee, the school's governing board reiterated its ban on students or employees carrying guns and prohibiting visitors from bringing them into campus buildings.

Late last summer, a shooting near campus prompted students to clamor again for loosening campus rules against armed self-defense. Virginia Tech officials turned up their noses. In response to student Bradford Wiles's campus newspaper op-ed piece in support of concealed carry on campus, Virginia Tech Associate Vice President Larry Hincker scoffed:

"[I]t is absolutely mind-boggling to see the opinions of Bradford Wiles. . . . The editors of this page must have printed this commentary if for no other reason than malicious compliance. Surely, they scratched their heads saying, 'I can't believe he really wants to say that.' Wiles tells us that he didn't feel safe with the hundreds of highly trained officers armed with high powered rifles encircling the building and protecting him. He even implies that he needed his sidearm to protect himself . . ."

The nerve!

Hincker continued: "The writer would have us believe that a university campus, with tens of thousands of young people, is safer with everyone packing heat. Imagine the continual fear of students in that scenario. We've seen that fear here, and we don't want to see it again. . . . Guns don't belong in classrooms. They never will. Virginia Tech has a very sound policy preventing same."

Who's scratching his head now, Mr. Hincker?

Some high-handed commentators insist it's premature or unseemly to examine the impact of school rules discouraging students from carrying arms on campus. Pundit Andrew Sullivan complained that it was "creepy" to highlight reader e-mails calling attention to Virginia Tech's restrictions on student self-defense -- even as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence rushed to capitalize on the massacre to sign up new members and gather e-mail addresses for Million Mom March chapters. "We are outraged by the increase in gun violence in America, especially the recent shooting at Virginia Tech," reads the online petition. "Add your name to the growing list of people who are saying: 'Enough Is Enough!'"

Enough is enough, indeed. Enough of intellectual disarmament. Enough of physical disarmament. You want a safer campus? It begins with renewing a culture of self-defense -- mind, spirit and body. It begins with two words: Fight back.

THE INARTICULATE BARACK OBAMA

By Michelle Malkin

The next time an MSM outlet describes Barack Obama as "articulate," I suggest you send them this audio link. My friend Jessica McBride sent it along, and man, is it painful. It's from his speech yesterday in Milwaukee--tying the Virginia Tech massacre to Iraq, Darfur, Don Imus, and everything but the kitchen sink. Jessica provides a bit of transcription:

He said we are a violence obsessed culture. "We glorify it, we encourage it, we ignore it." In what honestly was a very boring, dry, rambling speech, he then listed a litany of examples of how violent we are. He excoriated "verbal violence" and specifically mentioned Imus but, tellingly, not Ludacris. Then, he mentioned violent crime in Milwaukee, and other examples of how violent we all are. In one bizarre example, he said that he was also talking about the "violence" of men and woman who lose their jobs to other countries. HUH?

And then he mentioned IRAQ...He started out by saying that our culture of violence is rooted in our supposed incapacity to understand we are all connected fundamentally as people (kumbayah!). We are still trapped in a belief that we can impose our wills on each other and differentiate ourselves and make ourselves feel better from one another because of the accidents of birth or race or gender, he said. We still think about our role in the world and foreign policy as if the children of Darfur are somehow less than the children here, and so we tolerate violence there. And then he said in that context:

"We base our decisions in terms of sending our young men and women to war not on the necessity of defending ourselves but the belief that somehow with military force we can achieve aims that should be achieved through diplomacy and alliances."

Really, just try listening to the whole thing. This man wants to be leader of the free world.