Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

A Ballroom Won’t Save Our Children

Opinion

A Ballroom Won’t Save Our Children
people walking on street during daytime
Photo by Chip Vincent on Unsplash

When an active shooter threat disrupted the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, the president and members of his cabinet were evacuated swiftly and efficiently. The threat ended with a shooter apprehended and a Truth Social post. Then President Trump returned to the podium, bypassing the persistence of gun violence in this country to make the case for his long-sought $400 million White House ballroom, one that would supposedly prevent criminals from entering the space. The solution to a potential mass killing was a bulletproof ballroom.

I was an elementary student when Columbine made school shootings a national emergency. The safe haven of school became a potential war zone overnight, and the fear that settled into children that year never fully left. But how could it? The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting happened when I was a new high school teacher. Parkland when I was a doctoral student. Uvalde during my first faculty position. The shooting at Brown University happened during my fifteenth year working in education. Gun violence has followed me the entire length of my educational career, from K-12 student to high school teacher to university professor. Nearly three decades later, I am still waiting for the final straw, the moment that produces gun reform and makes school feel safe again. Instead, I have more thoughts and prayers than ever, and no gun reform in sight.


What struck me watching footage from the Correspondents’ Dinner wasn’t the chaos, but the normalcy within it. In the videos, I heard the clinks and clanks of wait staff collecting plates while journalists knelt on the floor. The familiar sound of dinner being cleared became the soundtrack for cowering humans. Attendees drifted toward the floor as if unsure whether to be alarmed, as if violence was something that happened to other people, in other rooms. Those sounds and slow movements told me everything I needed to know: the people in that room had no idea what to do.

And I knew that because I’ve spent years learning exactly what to do in those situations. Active shooter drills are now standard in schools across the country, with approximately 92% of schools drilling students and teachers on lockdown procedures. We learn to lock and barricade classroom doors. We learn to cut the lights and stay still so the shooter believes the room is empty. We learn to jump out of windows and fight back against an attacker by throwing objects. We learn to play dead in order to live. We learn that silence is survival and that even when violence surrounds us, we should not make a sound.

Part of that training is also making sure no one is left without information. Every drill I’ve been a part of has a formal or informal alert system to ensure everyone stays informed about what’s happening. Even the Department of Education recommends planning how “the school community will be notified that there is an active shooter on school grounds” through “the use of familiar terms, sounds, lights, and electronic communications such as text messages.” In a K-12 classroom, no one gets left without direction. We learn together, we shelter together, we survive together.

The drills, alongside metal detectors and clear backpack policies, are Band-Aids on a wound that policy could have closed long ago. We know what to do because we have spent decades trying and failing to do it. After San Bernardino, after Pulse, after Sutherland Springs, and after Las Vegas, numerous policy proposals existed: background checks at gun shows; bans on bump stocks; laws preventing domestic abusers from purchasing firearms. Some never made it out of committee, and others were defeated along party lines. But the knowledge of what to do has never been the problem. It’s the will to change that eludes us.

We have to want to protect children more than gun rights. We have to want to redirect the urgency and funding that would build a $400 million ballroom toward making schools safe. We have to want reform over platitudes.

But right now, even if our leadership openly states that they want safety and the protection of young people, their actions prove otherwise. President Trump had a microphone, a shaken room, and a country watching. He could have discussed how easily the shooter entered that space and shared how that same ease exists at the doors of our schools every day. He could have called for policy reform rather than a ballroom renovation. He could have praised the bipartisan unity in that room and asked us to unify in our goal to end gun violence. That didn’t happen this time. But I have to hold onto hope that one day, we’ll care enough to protect children as much as we protect the spaces where the powerful gather—that we’ll stop building ballrooms and start building policy.

Stephanie Toliver is a Public Voices Fellow and a member of the OpEd Alumni Project sponsored by the University of Illinois.


Read More

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War
Toy soldiers in a battle formation
Photo by Saifee Art on Unsplash

The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War

In the Rumble in the Jungle, George Foreman came in expecting to end the fight early.

At first, it looked that way. He was stronger, faster, and landing clean punches. I watched the 1974 championship on simulcast fifty-two years ago and remember how dominant he was in the opening rounds.

Keep ReadingShow less
Calling Wealthy Benefactors!
A rusty house figure stands over a city.
Photo by Katja Ano on Unsplash

Calling Wealthy Benefactors!

My housing has been conditional on circumstances beyond my control, and the time is up; the owner is selling.

Securing affordable housing is a stressor for much of the working class. According to recent data, nearly 50% of renters are cost-burdened, meaning they spend over 30% of their take-home income on housing costs. Rental prices in California are especially high, 35% higher than the national average. Renting is routinely insecure. The lords of land need to renovate, their kids need to move in. They need to sell.

Keep ReadingShow less
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed upon entering the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building on June 6, 2023 in New York City. New York City has provided sanctuary to over 46,000 asylum seekers since 2013, when the city passed a law prohibiting city agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement agencies unless there is a warrant for the person's arrest.(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed.
(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

The Power of the Purse and Executive Discretion: ICE Expansion Under the Trump Administration

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

  • Core Constitutional Debate: Expanded ICE enforcement under the Trump Administration raises a core constitutional question: Does Article II executive power override Article I’s congressional power of the purse?
  • Executive Justification: The primary constitutional justification for expanded ICE enforcement is The Unitary Executive Theory.
  • Separation of Powers: Critics argue that the Unitary Executive Theory undermines Congress’s power of the purse.
  • Moral Conflict: Expanded ICE enforcement has sparked a moral debate, as concerns over due process and civil liberties clash with claims of increased public safety and national security.

Where is ICE Funding Coming From?

Since the beginning of the current Trump Administration, immigration enforcement has undergone transformative change and become one of the most contested issues in the federal government. On his first day in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, which directs executive agencies to implement stricter immigration enforcement practices. In order to implement these practices, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a budget reconciliation package that paired state and local tax cuts with immigration funding. This allocated $170.7 billion in immigration-related funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to spend by 2029.

Keep ReadingShow less