School Walkout: Thoughts

The student movement against gun violence is at risk of fading into irrelevance.

Hundreds of thousands of students walked out last Wednesday March 14th, waving signs of anger and of love, chanting inspiring words, yelling, listening, taking photographs, and participating in democracy. It was messy, it was dysfunctional, it was problematic even, but it was powerful. And then, save for the barrage of images flooding social media the day after, it was over. Some students have already moved on within the week- for them, the walkout was an hour-long reason to miss a Spanish test and maybe get a new profile picture for Facebook. For some students, it was just the beginning, or maybe the middle, of an extensive career in activism. Some remain awash in the energy of civic activism and impassioned by the need for change, and will actually refuse to take a pause until meaningful gun reforms are enacted nationwide. But many are already done.

When I sent a letter to my school’s administration a couple of weeks before the walkout ago urging them to rethink their involvement in the walkout, I wrote with a deep, potentially naive, faith in the maturity of my fellow students, and with profound admiration for the students already at work organizing the protest. Our youth, I wrote, “does not render us incapable”. I still believe that, as students, the optimism we derive from our young age makes us aptly suited to leadership and participation in activist movements. And I maintain utmost respect for the students of Parkland and countless others around the nation who are unyielding in their valiant and just crusade. But I am beginning to realize that our youth also does not render us infallible to the mistakes of older generations leading social movements. In order for us to maintain our position in the national spotlight and actually create the change we so frequently wax poetic about, we have to ask of ourselves some difficult questions.

The women’s march, for example, was a brilliant, heartening congregation of millions of women (and men and non-binary people) from around the world, swarming our world’s biggest cities and demanding vague positive change. More than a year later, any immediate legislative impact is still invisible. In order to lead a successful movement, we must analyze what has worked and hasn’t worked in the past. So what did the women’s march do wrong? First, in their organization, they were predominantly white and focused on issues of white feminism, and failed to successfully welcome new voices to the leadership team. Secondly, its size and scope were double-edged swords. While the images of women in a variety of foreign countries certainly generated warm feelings of global female solidarity, it also pointed to a larger issue within the protest - we were not pointed at any single federal or state policy but rather a heterogeneous set of generalized “women’s issues” and even unrelated “progressive issues”. The women’s march could not succeed partially because it did not define its own success.

The student gun reform movement, locally and nationally, faces its own set of issues, but in order for it to attain its goals of legislative reform, must seek to learn from the wins and losses of the past, and improve upon its own mistakes. Although it will vary from school to school, I know that the Lexington High School walkout organization team was not as inclusive as it could have been. The team, which I was lucky enough to be a part of in the last week leading up to the walkout, essentially functioned as invitation-only, and the organization of the event itself, while done by extremely impressive individuals, was seen as too centralized and exclusionary. For example, the list of those who would be speaking at the protest was never actually published, even within the smaller circle of organizers, and those interested in speaking were unsure of how they could be added to the list. As an important note, there were no African American or Latino students on the leadership team, which was especially disturbing to some considering the disproportionate effect of gun violence in communities of color. Although inclusion was largely delineated by initiative taken by individual students, I recognize that the insulated, homogenous structure of the organizing body may have made this difficult. The decision to play the National Anthem was also criticized due to the semi-recent controversies over black football players kneeling during the anthem to support Black Lives Matter, and although the arguments that can be made in support or in opposition to this decision are incredibly difficult and nuanced, the lack of inclusion of students of color in the decision-making process was insensitive. To those feeling excluded or offended by this choice, I apologize, and I recognize that as someone with a role in the organization process, I should have done better.

In terms of message and purpose, the walkout was somewhat more successful than the women’s march but also found pitfalls. Our demands are complex yet singular: nationwide comprehensive gun reform. However, especially as representatives of our high schools and of a ideologically diverse student body, we must consider the best way to make our message, at least during school-wide events, as inclusive as possible while also not watering down our demands. This is perhaps the most difficult balance to maintain - how can we include the most people while also generating the most impact? Should we refrain from shouting “F*ck the NRA” because of its divisive and violent nature although it is successful in raising the energy of the crowd? Should we speak about specific policy issues or should we read poems about rising from grief? For better or for worse, Thursday’s walkout included all of the above. What decisions should we make about content moving into upcoming events? In addition, we must consider that our location in Massachusetts, the state with the lowest occurrence of gun violence in the nation and arguably the strictest gun laws, must inform our demands as a smaller student-led group. The idea of national leadership, of being a beacon upon a hill shining from the birthplace of the American revolution, is certainly appealing, both symbolically and in terms of our own ambitions as leaders. However, that may not be the best model. Parkland students have shown that the most effective leadership and activism is born in the places where it is needed most. As Massachusetts students, our role here is not to claim control of the movement but rather to ask those affected most deeply by gun violence: What do you need? How can we help?

Finally, we must remember our promise: we will keep marching, organizing, and fighting until students are no longer killed in schools. In order to do so, we must keep up our spiritual energies and use our creativity to maintain our position in the national spotlight. We have to create the largest possible visible and emotional impact, week after week, so that the news cameras stay pointed at us and politicians are forced to pass the legislation we are demanding, without concessions. This will take a great deal of resolve and organizational prowess. Can we do it? I think we can.

by LUCIE NOLDEN