Cheryl Duckworth, Ph.D.
In the wake of yet another mass shooting at an elementary school, Americans are again grieving and bewildered at the failures of Republicans in the U.S. Senate, but also at security and policy failures at the local level. As an educator for more than 20 years and researcher and trainer in human rights education, I have lived, worked and taught in the shadow of the Columbine High School tragedy since the beginning of my career. Hardening schools will keep failing.
Yes, we must ban AR-15 style rifles and enact other basic gun safety laws, such as background checks. Yet, as we move forward, we need to understand that a traditional “harden the target” approach to school and community security will continue to fail. Gun control is essential and effective, but not enough – we need an entire shift in thinking from traditional security to human security.
In the wake of the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, politicians have focused their responses on traditional “hard” security measures. This includes millions in tax dollars for school security officers, despite the research on their effectiveness being mixed at best. Another example of “hardening the target” is Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) suggesting ensuring schools only have one entrance and exit, which would likely violate fire safety codes.
Public schools across America have long had metal detectors. Students have been issued restrictions, such as using only clear backpacks, or none at all. Our youngest students have been made to endure active shooter drills, which some recent studies suggest may themselves be traumatizing. All of these “harden the target” measures have clearly not stopped the carnage.
In addition to common sense gun safety laws, which Congress should send to the to President today, we need to rethink security itself and begin a move from traditional security to “human security”. Traditional security is coercive, top down and punitive. Traditional security is reactive; it is focused on infrastructure and is often ineffective.
By contrast, human security is focused on securing teachers, staff and students. It is proactive, centered in building relationships within the school and between the school and local community. Human security is restorative, community-owned and participatory. Most importantly, human security addresses the basic human needs that are essential to our survival and thriving.
A human security approach is of course focused on the kinds of mass murder we all just witnessed in Uvalde, TX, but it is also concerned about smaller, more invisible kinds of insecurity faced by students, staff and teachers. This might include health concerns, homelessness, gun violence in the community outside of school or even abuse and assaults from those meant to protect. These concerns take us far outside of the school building.
Human security improves on traditional security by including all relevant voices. What would security look like if minoritized people defined it? If we centered the voices of young people? What if women (the majority of our national teaching corps) lead the conversation? How would our ideas about security change? What if we put schools at the center of community life?
A human security approach would address the root causes of violence within and outside of schools. This involves (again) gun control laws and mental health care, but it also involves investing in and empowering local communities to meet their social, economic, educational and other needs. By expanding how we think about security and moving from a traditional security approach to a human security approach, we can finally do more than just try to respond to the next tragedy as we watch it unfold.
Cheryl Lynn Duckworth, Ph.D.
Nova Southeastern University
Department of Conflict Resolution
Halmos College Arts and Sciences
Nova Southeastern University fully supports an individual’s right to express their viewpoint and opinions. The views expressed in this guest editorial are that of Cheryl Lynn Duckworth, Ph.D., a professor in NSU’s Halmos College of Arts and Sciences, and are not necessarily those of NSU’s President or Board of Trustees.
Bio
Cheryl Lynn Duckworth, Ph.D., is a professor of peace education and conflict resolution at Nova Southeastern University. She taught high school English for nine years and has conducted research and workshops related to peace education globally. A peace-building program leader and conflict resolution policy analyst, she has served such organizations as the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy and the Center for International Education. She has lived in Zimbabwe and Paraguay, and published and presented globally on her two passions, peace education and peace economics, exploring ways to transform the economic, political, social and psychological root causes of war and violence. Dr. Duckworth has trained hundreds of students, teachers and community leaders in peace education and conflict resolution both in the US and internationally. Currently she serves as the faculty advisor of NSU’s Peace Education Working Group and on the Advisory Board of the Hope Development Organization, a women’s rights and peace building organization in Pakistan, and Women’s Promise, which advocates for and empowers women’s leadership for peace globally.
