Development of my Understanding of Leadership
First Year Position Paper October 17, 2019
Concealed Carry on Campus
As our places of education become the targets of mass shootings more and more, many are starting to question what can be done to prevent or defend against these attacks. This has led to the idea of changing gun laws to allow students who can legally possess a gun to be able to carry concealed firearms on college campuses. After assaults on college campuses like the Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University shootings, it is necessary to look for options to make our schools safer and be well-equipped for these scenarios. University of Maryland students should not be allowed to carry a concealed firearm on campus because it creates another unnecessary safety risk, the potential positive impact from such a policy is minimal and will hinder the ability for students to learn in the most effective manner.
​
The University of Maryland should not allow students who legally possess a gun to carry a concealed firearm on campus because the more guns that are around, the higher the risk there is for something to go wrong. In reality, a gun is a portable killing device and college campuses are densely populated areas were a lot of killing can be done in a short amount of time. This outlines the inherent risk of allowing guns on campuses. A major caveat of the guns on campus policy is that the student must legally possess a gun. This is the potential safeguard that would regulate the amount of guns on campus and whose hands they are in. But according to Guns and America, “Since 1984, 74 percent of mass shooters obtained their guns legally” (Dunn and Melgar). Even if only legal gun owners have firearms, it does not eliminate the risks associated with guns. That statistic proves that the gun laws in place do not sufficiently prevent mass shooters from obtaining guns. If such a high percentage of mass shootings are done by legal gun owners, then allowing only legal guns does not make having guns on campus any safer. Even the good intentioned gun owners can cause safety risks. Allowing students to carry concealed firearms on campus, could inspire vigilantes who want to make sure they are making use of their new found power to potentially stop a crime (Auyero). Students that will be carrying guns will most likely want to validate their new right by stopping potential crimes. This opens up a whole new element of danger when students start taking the law into their own hands. Based on the reasoning stated above, allowing guns on campus will create more safety problems instead of creating safety solutions.
If the University of Maryland allows students to carry concealed firearms, it is unlikely that any true positive impacts will be seen. The thought process behind allowing students to carry concealed firearms on campus is that it will prevent violent crimes like mass shootings because there will be people at the ready that can defend themselves and eliminate the threat. But in reality, this is unlikely to happen. According to campus police at various Georgia universities that have concealed carry laws, “to provide reports of any victim using a gun to deter an assailant… there are zero such reports” (Boedy). Georgia was one of the first states to grant firearms on campus, but the legislation has not seen the fruits of its labor. If the guns are not being used then the potential risk that a violent crime takes place with them is not worth it. Even if these statistics do not take college campuses into account, stopping a crime with a gun is exceedingly rare. According to the Violence Policy Center, “from 2007 to 2001, .09 percent of the roughly 29.6 million victims of attempted or completed crimes used guns to stop or somehow interfere with crimes” (Boedy). Based on that statistic, guns rarely make a difference when it comes to stopping or preventing crimes. If guns are not consistently and reliably being used to prevent crime, than the logic behind creating legislation that will allow them on a college campus, an already anxiety filled location, does not follow. Of the few situations where a gun was used to prevent a crime, it rarely fell into the parameters that allow students to carry guns. Only six percent of crimes that dealt with guns were stopped by people with a concealed carry license (Boedy). If the people that we want to have carrying guns are not the ones stopping crimes, then it does not make sense to allow legal gun owners to carry firearms on campus.
​
Finally, the University of Maryland should not allow students to carry concealed firearms because it will interfere with the necessary discourse that takes place in college classrooms. The college classroom is one of the prototypical spaces for debate. When you get a large, diverse group together all with different viewpoints and ideologies, debates are both natural and crucial. However, the introduction of guns into college classrooms can potentially hinder this natural discourse. Prior to these gun law changes, students felt free to express their views fully, but if students in a class are potentially carrying firearms, students will hesitate to express themselves (Phillips). The tension created when debating polarizing issues get exacerbated when there is potentially a gun in the room. The fear of somebody pulling a legally possessed gun out when there is a disagreement will stunt the effectiveness of such debates. A student at the University of Texas which is a concealed carry campus went on to say, “if we cannot have those kinds of conversations without fear, what is the point?” (Phillips). The issue of guns causing caution in the classroom is made even worse because it is concealed carry. Other students will not know who has a gun on them, so they will be in constant fear of saying the wrong thing to the wrong person and paying dearly for it.
​
There are two main arguments that argue in favor of allowing firearms on campus. The first would be that there are gun free zones on campuses which have the intended purpose of protecting students in certain vulnerable locations like dormitories, sports stadiums and fraternities (Bogost). The idea behind this is that while guns may be allowed on campus, they are eliminated from densely populated areas on campuses which decreases the potential danger of a mass shooting. While creating “gun-free” zones promote safety in theory, if these rules are not being enforced strictly, then they will be inevitably broken. Just by saying a gun is not allowed somewhere is not necessarily going to stop anybody from walking into a place like a dormitory with their gun. This argument is also counterintuitive because if people have their guns for safety purposes, but cannot have them in a majority of the campus, then there is no point to have them in the first place. The second argument in favor of allowing concealed carry on college campuses is that some students have to traverse dangerous areas in order to get to class (Okafor). Many people that commute, especially women, fear for their lives when walking around campus, and a gun offers a certain level of security for them. However, there is no evidence that supports that merely having a firearm on you will deter potential attackers (Boedy). To end, while there may be some arguments that support having guns on campus they are not compelling enough to the ones that are against. The increased risk in violence, the lack of evidence that proves that guns are effective crime stoppers, and the disruptions they will cause in the classroom show guns should not have a place on college campuses. Because of this, the University of Maryland should not allow students who legally possess a gun to carry firearms on campus.
Second Year Leadership Philosophy Paper
October 30, 2020
There are many different criteria that can be used to determine whether a leader is effective or not. Some characteristics and traits that I believe a good leader should exhibit are listening to the people they lead and operate in an ethical manner all to implement substantive change. A leader that embodies these traits is Pope Francis. In just over seven years as the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, he has changed the atmosphere of the Church from one of corruption and misdeeds, to a place known for being progressive in a time of change. He has maintained the positive message of the Church’s doctrine while modernizing its approach to current issues.
When Pope Francis first took the position, he took the name Francis because that is the name of a saint that fought poverty. He was committed to changing the current climate of the church through effective leadership. Pope Francis has utilized consensus leadership to establish beneficial changes to the Church. When taking over the position, Pope Francis took time to listen to what members of the Church wanted to see happen. Overwhelmingly, people wanted the Church to get back to its charitable doctrines that make them so proud to be a catholic in the first place. By listening to his followers, he has made a point to push for everyone in the catholic church to take these steps with him. In his sermons, he routinely calls for service. While donating to charities throughout the world fighting poverty, he has personally taken steps to help people himself. Earlier this year when there were migrants stranded in Mexico, Pope Francis donated 500,000 dollars in aid to provide those who were fleeing violence and poverty with housing and food (Stracqualursi). First, the Pope listened to what his people wanted to see. Then, he showed himself taking action to further inspire his followers to be a part of the change they wanted to see. Obviously, it is easy for somebody to tell their followers what to do, but by going out and helping people himself, he shows that he can create change by listening to his followers.
Another effective leadership trait that Pope Francis embodies is that he does not stray away from this ethics in order to accomplish goals. Prior to his time as Pope, the Catholic Church, unfortunately, was marred with controversy surrounding corruption with the Church’s money. Coming in with the new regime, Pope Francis had two choices; he could continue the unethical practices of the past or he can reinvest in the trust of his people by ending corruption in the Church. He chose the latter because, to him, financial reforms eliminate the three vices that distress him more than anything else: corruption, exaggerated clerical privilege and indifference to the poor (Rayman). Pope Francis wanted to use his position as leader of the Catholic Church to get rid of the financial corruption and commit the money they had to service. In order to make a change in the church’s financial misdeeds, Pope Francis led by example ensuring clean financial records at the highest levels of the church (Rayman). Giving up his own privilege to prove the soundness of his time in charge shows a lot about his ethics. And, him being successful stomping out corruption in the church shows how his ethical leadership led to beneficial changes.
Being the leader of something as large and polarizing may be very different than any leadership position I will ever hold. However, these traits are something that I would like to emulate on a smaller scale. In corporate America, ethics are not always given a top priority. If whatever leadership position I hold in my professional life, I would like to act like Pope Francis in regard to his commitment to ethics. Also, I would like to do something similar with how he listens to his people. If I am a leader of a team, it is imperative of me to listen to my subordinates and get their feedback on what they think is working and what is not. If I were to go in the opposite direction of Pope Francis, I would be headed toward toxic leadership which is not aligned with being a long-term effective leader. To summarize my points, effective leadership characteristics that I would like to emulate from Pope Francis are listening to the people they lead and operating in an ethical manner to put forth effective change.
Why I Chose These Papers
The first year position paper that I included was the second position paper that we had to write for our first semester class. This was the paper that I did best on so I wanted to showcase it. This also gives me a chance to compare and contrast my best work from last year with my most recent work to see how I have developed at a writer and a leader. The position paper is on the topic of whether concealed carry fire arms should be allowed on campus or not. I was given the position to write about it from the stance that they should not be allowed. This paper was very interesting for me to write because it dealt with real policy issues that are still being discussed today. This paper represents the beginning of my own opinions about leadership starting to form. Even though my position was chosen for me on this topic, I gave me a chance to question and strengthen my own theories of leadership. This leads me into my second year leadership philosophy paper. In this paper I was able to articulate what I believe makes a strong leader. I was able to translate my ideas and thoughts about leadership to present them as what I thought makes a good leader through the example of Pope Francis. This paper is important for me because it depicts me rounding out the changes of my own understanding of leadership. For example, in the first paper, I was discussing more facts and data that had over arching leadership themes. But in the second paper, I was able to place real leadership theories and ideas behind those themes.