Not by the hair of my chinnie-chin-chin

Issue 3 of U dot Conn, a thematic online magazine run and published by UConn students, centers around guns on the university campus. While working for this publication, I was charged with finding all the guns stored and carried at UConn. I was informed that only police officers could legally have lethal weaponry on campus by Capt. Craig Rich of the UConn Police Department. (Rich later qualified this statement, suggesting UConn's ROTC program may have guns. They do not, according to LTC Tony Esposito.)

So the story grew unnervingly close to a non-story. The police have guns, no one else does, case closed.

But within this simple statement are questions of real security. Is it wise to have a segmented population, where a small body of authority is armed while the general populous is defenseless by law? My worries were less about trying to arm students than about protection of private citizens.

In an extreme situation, could UConn result in another Kent State Massacre (Four Dead in Ohio), or would it be more like the University of Florida ("Don't taze me bro!")? Part of living in an open society is knowing how the government may react to (or overreact to) what it deems impermissible behavior. If things ever got out of control, will there be tear-gas and bean-bag bullets or swift suppression and automatic weapons?

With this scope in mind, I decided to find out exactly what capabilities the UCPD has. If they ever used "excessive force" in dealing with riotous students, it would be in the student body's (the public's) interest to know what to expect.

I was scheduled to meet with Capt. Rich on Monday (March 24, 2008) afternoon. When I called ahead to confirm the interview, Rich explained that he had spoken with the department's public relations division and would not "be participating in this story." I asked him if the department maintained an inventory of their firearms. Rich told me they did, but that such records would not be released to the public.

So I huffed and I puffed and I called Connecticut's Freedom of Information Commission. After a brief telephone conversation and a detailed email, I was informed that my "request is for public records that would be covered by the FOI Act."

Unfortunately, the UCPD didn't agree. According to Rich, and presumably public relations as well, the department would not release specifics for security reasons. Rich explained that most situations in which the police would need heavier armament would be times when advanced knowledge of those capabilities would help the aggressor.

The Freedom of Information Act favors disclosure, but as a nation of laws this is a decision for a court, not a counsel. With threats of FOI intervention and bad PR, Rich offered information about handguns and the everyday strength of UConn's police force, but refused to delve deeper.

The story is scheduled for publication on Thursday April 3, 2008 and will run without the full inventory -- Deadlines don't account for court time. The people may have a right to information, but strong-willed authority won't be blown over easily. The UCPD hides in its brick house... for now.

The King's Language

Colonial America followed the British policy of keeping all documents in duplicate, both in English (the language of the people) and German (used for all state business). The American revolutionaries decided this was unnecessary when the use of German was defeated in convention. In a country of many people and tongues, English was chosen to unify the newborn nation. In this sense English has always been our official language.

But to now force English-only policy through the legislature is divisive and regressive. How can we look at countries imploding over ethnic diversity with reproach when we try to install similar xenophobic policies here at home? The very basis for English as our national language is rooted in the needs of the nation. The founding conventions created a statute, not for English-only policy, but for the defense against aristocratic government.

Those who wish to learn English should have every opportunity to do so. But force by will of law should be the last resort in all circumstances.

We are certainly a nation of immigrants and a nation of liberty, which from its inception has fought for the true freedom of mankind -- not to legislate the scope of our nation's diversity. We are also a nation comprised mainly of English speakers, and to be an American is to combine cultural heritage with a certain amount of conformity (there can be no progress without unity).

Laws that dictate cultural progress and define cultural identity would be naturally exclusive and unconstitutional. Those without English skills will learn the value of conformity on their own.