We recently suffered another tragedy at a public school. A student is the suspect in attacks on others, causing serious injury. While attacks on institutions become more frequent, our response is more predictable. We add more guns and guards. Perhaps it's time to look at what's occurring inside for a cause, instead of barricading people inside to protect them from people outside.
However one gets news, it's obvious that those in charge of institutions have caused mistrust. Daily, another politician is accused of misusing his or her office. School leaders, fearful of litigation, ignore professional competency in favor of political correctness. Corporate leaders lobby politicians for favorable rules. What are we teaching citizens, especially young people?
Our country, founded on Judeo-Christian principles, now fumbles in the stew of moral relevancy. A variation of an Alexander Hamilton quote says it best: “Standing means representing something, while failing means getting fooled ... by anything.” I'm not calling for a society forged in institutional religion, but it's odd that the first thing people do after most tragedies is prohibited in public institutions — praying.
Societies remain sustainable on morals, values and standards inculcated in their institutions. Perhaps it's time to examine what's taught inside our institutions that conveys anxiety to those outside our institutions.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.