Soon, schoolteachers in a small town in Texas may be wielding guns along with their chalk and red pens. Though Texas law does not permit the visible possession of guns on school property, a legislature-created loophole now allows those bearing concealed handgun licenses to freely transport their weapons on campus.

The New York Times reported Thursday that Harrold, a town it described somewhat disparagingly (and perhaps aptly), as a “rural hamlet” has taken advantage of that legislative loophole. As yet, it’s the only local district in the state to do, or have done, so.

Harrold School Superintendent David Thweatt virtually took it upon himself to institute a policy wherein a few (and he’s not saying which and how many) of the 24 faculty members must tote guns. He and the school have hired a private security consultant to train the pistol-packing profs.

“Country people are take-care-of-yourself people,” he told the Times, adding that “['country people'] are not under the illusion that the police are there to protect them.”

The school has no apparent history of student violence or arms-bearing. While the “rural” area may not have gang-banging problems, it may still be full of gun-carrying citizens–a fact that could actually take some of the “cool” factor and lustre off of guns and illicit weapon-wielding in the first place. But Thweatt doesn’t seem to want to take any chances.

The seven-person school board composed of farmers and oil workers has either agreed with or largely ceded control to Thweatt, who insists he’s not paranoid but a man who likes to consider himself “prepared” and one who has opted for this selective and secretive approach in hopes of preventing any sequels to Columbine or Virginia Tech.

“In my opinion, it is the best way to protect our kids,” said board-member Coy Cato in the article. “I ‘ain’t took no poll, but I think so.”

The students and parents have, however, had some qualms with Thweatt’s decision. Certain students have approached the superintendent’s move to arm the faculty with levity (“we made fun of them,” 16-year-old Eric Howard told the Times).

Those parents who take issue with Thweatt’s vision of a safer schoolyard and classroom do so on a series of grounds. They say that the tiny town and 100-student institution are safe enough as is from the gang-violence plaguing larger cities (though a four-lane highway does run through it, providing an overpass that shelters nightly drifters); that they resent not being told about this earlier as well as being forced into compliance through a lack of other options once they did find out (“we are pretty much being told to deal with this or move,” said parent Traci McKay); that schools are no places for guns (even for protection purposes); and that teachers neither trained nor tried in combat and self-defense should not be in the position to do so, especially when faced with what one parent described as “life-and-death-situation judgments.”

Perhaps because those wielding weapons have been asked to remain anonymous, none of the teachers were interviewed in the piece, but Houston Association of Teachers Legislative Director Zeph Capo had no problem opining, “We are trained to teach and to educate. We are not trained to tame the Wild West.”

On Columbine’s ninth anniversary five months ago, I wrote a brief post wondering what so many have wondered for years: how best to prevent further school massacres, which ways best to equip students or teachers, how best to read the signs of students cracking.

It’s easy to leap onto a Thweatt, denigrating his plans as the dangerous ravings of a weapons-monger, belittling them as silly and grandiose dreams for an unlikely place or even categorizing them as the ineffective blueprints of a flea architect in the face of a lion-filled lot.

But as many questions as Thweatt’s own plan raises, I feel it only fair to admit I’m impressed by someone trying to provide an answer to a very complicated query, fraught with the grayest tones and moral dilemmas.

That said, and Thweatt’s shocking summary description of “country people” as well as his contemptuous dismissal of the town’s police aside (perhaps deserved), I feel his rationale has deep flaws.

I have contradictory reactions: the idea that anybody would have a gun in a classroom is discomforting. But then, without guns, how could students or teachers defend themselves when faced with external threats? Would arming faculty (further?) promote a sort of us v. them dynamic between teachers and students? Could recently trained teachers even be effective protection? Would most teachers having entered the profession hoping to guide youngsters and impart knowledge want to adopt this martial role? Would there be chances of a class-wide mutiny? The advantages of mystery and unpredictability aside, why arm certain teachers and not others? In the case of a violent attack, who could guarantee an assailant wouldn’t somehow chance upon (or even intuit) the unarmed teacher? Were the teacher to act as the watchman, who would watch the watchman to make sure no draconian disciplining, abuse of power or boundary-crossing would be in the process of occurring? There are times those holding weapons are the most in danger because they pose a threat; would so arming teachers place them in more danger?

On the flip side, maybe trained, armed faculty could have protected students in the past, but even were that to be the case, this random, almost haphazard and disturbing solution doesn’t sit right with me in ways that I cannot even unpack or attribute to Dickensian- or Pink Floyd-inspired fears.

I think protection is invaluable, but the way I see it, this plan seems still to have a ways to go before it can be employed, in Harrold, or anywhere.

Tags: columbine, guns, school shootings, teachers, texas, thweatt, virginia tech