A surprise lesson after the Parkland shootings

In the year since the Florida school tragedy, the student activists had to learn not to see their policy opponents as ‘bad people.’ This shift toward listening may help shape the gun debate.

Cameron Kasky, center, speaks in Parkland, Fla., last June.

Of all the school shootings in the United States, the one in Parkland, Fla., a year ago Feb. 14 helped change the national conversation about guns. Why was that? It was largely the activism of student survivors at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. Their mass rally in Washington and their March for Our Lives tour put politicians on the spot to pass some measures – not many – aimed at curbing gun violence. The teen activists flipped the narrative on victimhood by standing for something bigger.

Yet many also had to learn a lesson from their confrontational approach. In meetings with ardent advocates for gun ownership, they realized they could no longer vilify their opponents because of their views. They had to listen for shared experiences and shared goals.

“We’ve already met NRA members. They’re not bad people,” Parkland student Sarah Chadwick told The Washington Post. “We can agree, we can disagree, but we can talk.”

One co-founder of March for Our Lives, Cameron Kasky, told the BBC that he let his feelings get in the way of objective thinking. He regrets a part of his famous confrontation with Sen. Marco Rubio in which he said he could not look at the senator without seeing the shooter.

To achieve a civic goal, civility had to replace vitriol; humility had to replace the temptation to belittle.

“If I vilify half the people in this country, where is that going to bring me?” Mr. Kasky said. “I think there is so much that we can do if we all look at each other and say, ‘Where can we agree?’ Because that’s normally where the most progress is made.”

“I think the more you think about how right you are and how wrong everybody else is, the less you’ll learn. A lot of people in this country get stuck in bubbles – especially because of social media,” he adds.

The lesson learned was not only avoiding personal attacks. The students had to be open to the well-meaning intentions and the full context of their policy opponents. What fears lie behind their views? What past sadness drives their advocacy? Out of their own fears and sadness after the Parkland shooting, the students could understand similar feelings in others with different views on guns.

This shedding of stereotypes and the de-demonizing of opponents is a valuable spinoff from the Parkland shooting. The students have achieved some success in new gun legislation. Yet their more valuable contribution may be in changing the nature of the debate itself. By recognizing that “bad people” may really be good at heart, they have smoothed a path toward joint solutions.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to A surprise lesson after the Parkland shootings
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today