CHS Bonfire

An Open Letter to School Trustee Weber

Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.

Email This Story

Dear Mr. Scott Weber,

I watched and listened to the video recording of the May 15 school board meeting, where you, one of the board members, launched into an unprompted speech denigrating two other students and me. You were commenting on a Speak Your Piece broadcast from KODI on April 30.

I would like to respond to some of the things you said about the broadcast on which I was a guest, because not only did you spread false information about us, but you alleged things that simply never happened.

Here they are:

“They call themselves activists,” you said.

No I don’t. In fact I hate to call myself an activist. I call myself a journalism student. I call myself an opinion writer. I don’t call myself an activist. KODI labeled me as an activist. I didn’t label myself as one.

“They had no idea about the Second Amendment. They had no idea about firearms. I doubt they knew the difference between an AR-15 and a pterodactyl,” you said.

Mr. Weber, again you’re wrong. I can quote the Second Amendment. I know the Second Amendment, and I cherish it. I enjoy shooting, and have used firearms extensively. As I have said many times, all I want is a mandatory background check. I have been shooting since I was five, and I know what an AR-15 is, mainly because I have one in my house, along with several other firearms, all of which I can tell from an extinct flying reptile. But sure, Mr. Weber, continue to claim that we “had no idea about the Second Amendment.”

It’s very embarrassing having them on the radio calling themselves activists having no idea what they’re talking about,” you said.

Mr. Weber, I too am embarrassed. I am embarrassed that you, an elected official, have used the platform to which you were elected, to attack and degrade students, whom you have direct power over, and to further your personal agenda.

If I were a teacher I would have said that this is a good learning opportunity. Maybe we do need to bone up on what the Second Amendment is,” you said.

You’re not a teacher Mr. Weber, and I’m glad. You have proven that you either cannot or will not keep your opinion out of your job. Your job is not to teach. Your job is not to denigrate students, but to contribute to their well being without mocking and belittling them. And your job is definitely not to defend those who do.

“I don’t like when our kids are pawns of the liberal agenda,” you said.

Firstly, never call me your “kid” again. I may go to a school where you are a member of the board, but believe it or not, Miss Sax, Miss Tamblyn and I, and in fact the entire student body, are our own people. We make our choices as individuals and carry out the actions as individuals. As Mr. Keegan said, “Pawns of the liberal media or pawns of the N.R.A. There are two ways to look at it.” You can deny it Mr. Weber; however, you have given just as much or more evidence that you are in the pocket of the N.R.A. as we have given evidence that we are in the pocket of the “liberal media.” Just because one agrees with a person or a group of people doesn’t mean they are their pawn.

“If they want to go to the church and protest and walk around in the park and say nonsensical things, let ‘em do that, but not on school time. No way. That’s sacred,” you said.

Again, Mr. Weber, and I can’t stress this enough, you are insulting and demeaning students that go to a school over which you have a high degree of power. You are trying to use your position as a vehicle to ensure that your opponents are discounted. You used the word “nonsensical” to describe us. You’re trying to say that we are just blathering children throwing temper tantrums, but you fail to acknowledge the sense that we are making. You fail to acknowledge that even those who disagree with us can understand what we are saying.

What I am about is that they do their research. They had no prep,” you said.

We did prep. We did “do [our] research” on all the relevant information, but the questions asked us didn’t fall into that category. The questions weren’t relevant, and they were vain, underhanded attempts to discredit us. Just like your insinuations, as a school board member, were meant to discredit us, the questions were meant to discredit us.

“I am pro-common sense,” you said.

No, you aren’t. If nothing else, this unprovoked tirade of yours proved that you are not for common sense. You are for yourself. You own a gun shop, Mr. Weber. It is not possible for you to remain unbiased in this issue as you have a personal and professional stake in it.

Mr. Weber, you are school board member. You went into an inane, insulting rant about my two friends and me.

In a final salute to Mrs. Stephanie Bell and Mr. Tom Keegan, thank you. Thank you for standing up for us in our stead, and thank you for standing up for the much larger issue of student voice. 

And thanks to Superintendent Schulte who said he found us “thoughtful and articulate,” and mentioned people could make up their own minds about us by listening to the KODI broadcast themselves here.

Perhaps you should listen to it yourself, Mr. Weber, just in case you made all those comments without really hearing it.


16 Responses to “An Open Letter to School Trustee Weber”

  1. Jessica Case on May 22nd, 2018 2:23 pm

    Thank you, Luke Campbell, for articulately defending your views. Mr.Weber needs to be held accountable and you did so brilliantly.

  2. Benjamin Wambeke on May 22nd, 2018 4:54 pm

    First off, I just wanted to comment that the way the homepage looks now, the picture for this column just looks like Trustee Weber peeking over the other stories, which is a brilliantly hilarious coincidence.

    Second, I can’t help but notice the hypocrisy in Trustee Weber calling some of our students “pawns of the liberal media” when, in fact, the only matters of the students that Mr. Weber should be concerned about are the ones that happen on school grounds. I am, of course, referring to the two walkouts that took place this year.

    One of them was to honor the Parkland Shooting victims. Source? This quote from Trisha Tamblyn, the organizer of the event, in the Email she sent informing students of the walkout. “This is not an anti-gun rally, but rather an act of remembrance.”

    The other was done specifically in support of the second amendment, which is generally considered to be a right-wing topic. Source? It was called the Second Amendment Walkout. If a quote is needed despite the title, then take this one from Atendee Cody Edwards. “Our generation gets a bad rap. We’re young, so we have to be for change, for repealing the second amendment … but not all of us think that way – it’s important to get that out there.”

    I don’t think either side is a “pawn” for any media. I think many of these students are just exibiting their beliefs and views in a healthy non-violent way, which I am only here for. But I wonder how Trustee Weber can call one side “pawns” when, with the only movements of activism under his jurisdiction as a school board member to discuss at a school board meeting, the side he seemingly disagrees with hasn’t actually done anything yet.

  3. Tim on May 22nd, 2018 7:10 pm

    Well done Luke Campbell! Scott Weber was elected with an agenda in mind and it did not include the betterment of the students of CHS. The students are great in his mind as long as they don’t disagree with him or become “uppity”.
    Those of you of voting age, keep a close eye on the next school board election and be wary of his supporters. We can ill afford another mistake!

  4. Kaden Shirley on May 22nd, 2018 9:54 pm

    You guys act like nobody else on that school board has an agenda. Tom Keegan has a strong leaning toward one side. You guys can let this go because you are still butt hurt and offended that you keep getting called out for being stupid.

  5. Ben Wambeke on May 23rd, 2018 11:05 am

    I never reply to angry comments but I feel I need to clear some stuff up. Yes, Tom Keegan is more left leaning and definitely has a bias. Yes, all the school board members have a bias. It is impossible to be human and not have a bias. However, the issue that Luke chose to reply to is a specific incident where Trustee Weber attacked CHS Students for mostly out of school activities while completely ignoring the on and off school activities of the other side. Luke had every right to be insulted by a school board member attacking he and his friends for off school activities and saying framing comments, such as says by they “didn’t do research” when all three did, and just were not able to research questions asked of them like “When was the constitution ratified” that had no relevance to the topic at hand and I can only guess was asked to discredit the students and make them look uneducated, a dangerous idea that Scott pushed last school board meaning. Calling them “Pawns of the Liberal Media” was not only, in my opinion, deranged and demeaning, but also completely untrue, unfounded, and completely ignored the conservative activism at this school. So in my opinion, Luke had every right to call this for what it was: unfounded, insulting, and unprofessional.

  6. Elise Robillard on May 23rd, 2018 6:29 am

    I love empowered student voices! They give me hope for the future. School board members with an agenda for personal gain from their elected position (such as pushing a gun policy that benefits their local gun shop) should step down from their office. What a great learning experience for students exercising their First Amendment rights! Maybe students should run for School Board as soon as they are eligible…

  7. Bill Tallen on May 23rd, 2018 8:06 am

    Where I would differ from Mr. Weber is that it was not “the media”, it was nationwide anti-gun organizations behind the March walkout. The Women’s March organized school walkouts across the country, for that day and time, and that group’s agenda is explicitly anti-gun. If you wanted to hold a ceremony of remembrance for the Parkland victims, without supporting that nationwide agenda, you could have scheduled it on any another day, at any other time. But you did on their day, at their time, and therefore despite your disavowals, you aligned yourself with that movement. The Women’s March also organized and promoted the March 24 “March for our Lives” which Trish acknowledged on the radio was an anti-gun event.

    The WOMEN’S MARCH YOUTH EMPOWER TOOLKIT published prior to the March walkout includes this:
    “We demand that Congress enact an immediate resolution declaring gun violence a public
    health crisis and dedicating federal funding to research solutions and implement violence
    intervention programs. We demand Congress recognize all forms of gun violence, including
    violence committed by police.

    “The priority policies we support are:
    ● Banning Assault Weapons & High Capacity Magazines / S. 2095 / H.R. 5087
    ● Expanding Background Checks to All Gun Sales / S. 2009 / H.R. 4052
    ● Passing Gun Violence Restraining Order Law / S. 1212 / H.R. 2598
    ● Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act / S.1856 / H.R. 1556
    The priority policies we oppose are:
    ● Conceal Carry Reciprocity HR 38 / S 446 ”

    So really, who are you kidding?

  8. Mary Keller on May 23rd, 2018 1:35 pm

    Bill Tallen, Two points.
    1)Informed and concerned kids at CHS evaluated the youth-directed national movement for non-violent school walkouts to call attention to the problem of school shootings initiated by the Parkland shooting. As Tamblyn clearly and consistently noted, the particular CHS theme was remembrance for those who had died in school shootings. That is, they framed their walk-out to focus on their particular emphasis which was not anti-gun. You can keep calling these kids “pawns” but what position of judgment leaves you to put words in their mouth? Aren’t you making them unwilling pawns when you publicly tell them what they are saying and doing? When you insist they are kidding themselves, aren’t you denigrating the intelligence and citizenry of these kids.?

    2)As the U.S. reels from the death of ten more people, do you ask yourself if you have your eye on understanding this uniquely American problem in its proportions? The list of actions you have cited as d***ing evidence (that the kids are pawns) are nothing but the research and recommendation for laws and policies meant to reduce harm, published by adult women who are trying to meet the challenge of stopping this epidemic. As such, those bullet points are up for discussion as strategies for an adult-directed response at the national level. Not a one of the student posters during the walk out listed these items. I know because, as Mr. Berry noted in his comments at the previous school board meeting, I attended the walk out. (The oddity of having Mr. Berry provide a Stalin-esque public, recorded listing on where I have been is not to be missed as a consistent comic-tragedy, comparable to Mr. Weber’s bizarrely inappropriate outbursts. I look forward to hearing more from Mr. Berry about where and when I go places and what it means when I do in a Big Brother kind of way.) I went to stand quietly, at a distance, to show support to kids whose clearly-articulated purpose I supported. I didn’t contact, organize, encourage, or even know if my kids would be part of it. As my parents raised me, I raise my kids with the latitude to weigh ideas. I only ask that they have good questions.

    So here’s my question to you–Who are you fighting against? Your policy won the day at CHS. You helped set the priorities for the trustees–to develop a policy that reacts to violence–if a shooter is shooting, shoot the shooter by having a nearby shooter. Statistically, your policy mean that a school employee will be faced with shooting a young white male, likely a student, who has trouble fitting in and/or does not have the emotional awareness to deal with testosterone. Your solution is now in place as CKA. More good news for you–Perhaps you will soon be in place as someone training shooters, which sounds like a business plan as well as a civic engagement. Given your successes, isn’t it time to continue diagnosing the problem and working to prevent harm rather than react to it? For example, in a world where you have repeatedly raised the specter of how crazy the big world is, why aren’t you in support of universal background checks–one of the items recommended above? Background checks might be imperfect, but they are part of a larger response that merits our considered discussion. I am fighting for an adequate response to this American tragedy, and not against you. You won your priority. I would be happy to work with you as I work with other adults who are bringing our shoulders to bear on the adult responsibility to prevent harm as well as we possibly can, in light of a new, tragic American epidemic.

  9. Bill Tallen on May 23rd, 2018 6:03 pm

    Mary, you said a lot, and I’ll response to as much as I can; but you ignored the main point of my comment, so I will re-state it. Ms. Tamblyn and her friends organized and conducted a demonstration, which as described by them, by Mr. Schulte, and by other observers, followed the Women’s March “Youth Empower Toolkit” like a playbook. They conducted their walkout on the same day, at the same time, as nationwide school walkouts coordinated and supported by the Women’s March and associated organizations like your own Wyoming Rising Northwest. I know you’re familiar with that “Toolkit,” a nine-page document from which I quoted less than half a page. That national campaign had an explicit anti-gun message. My point is that if Cody students wished only to memorialize the victims of the Parkland shooting, they could have done that in a way that did not align themselves with an explicit anti-gun agenda, simply by conducting it on any other day and time. They did not do that. Their protestations that their intent was not “anti-gun” therefore ring thin. I am willing to believe that it was naivete, and not an intent to dissemble or deceive, but in either case it was a bad call. Don’t walk out of your school at the time designated by a national anti-gun campaign, and then expect us to believe that you don’t know what you’re doing, or the evident alignment of your actions with that national agenda. If Ms. Tamblyn and the others had simply said, “we believe that firearms are at fault and support the gun control agenda of Women’s March and their affiliates,” I would have still disagreed with their logic but respected their honesty.

    “Denigrating their intelligence and citizenry”? No. But I know that when I acted with similar passion in the late 1960s, I was very largely deluded – and to some extent manipulated – about the facts regarding the Vietnam war; and I recognize now that I did not have the full rights and responsibilities of citizenship until my majority, nominally and legally at age 21. Psychological science in subsequent years has concluded that full development of the human brain is not complete until sometime after that. So I am not hesitant to criticize the judgment of high schoolers, just as people whom I did not respect then, but do respect now, attempted to criticize and mentor me at the same age. This does not mean I do not appreciate people like Mr. Campbell and Ms. Tamblyn. I’m sure they hate to hear the suggestion that perhaps they do not know all they think they know, at this point in their lives – I didn’t like to hear that either. The joke “My dad was so dumb when I was a teenager, it’s amazing how much he learned by time I was 30” has more than a little truth to it.

    If you wish to criticize Mr. Weber’s opinions, or choice of words, or Mr. Berry’s, by all means go ahead. They can defend themselves as they wish. I know and respect both men, but their statements are their own, not mine, and we do not always agree. I have not called anyone “pawns” but that’s hardly worth pursuing, as any critical comment I have will be pounced upon, no matter how I articulate it. I hope you will have noted my criticism of Mr. Berry’s attack on your husband’s involvement in the CKA votes based on your political stances, or his. You are entitled to your views, as is Tom, and he was no more obligated to recuse himself than was Mr. Weber. I deeply disagree with Tom’s positions on this issue, but I respect his clear, consistent, and civil expression of his views.

    “Who am I fighting against?” No one. I am not the one bitter about the outcome of our board’s policy debate, or hypersensitive to criticism. I am pleased by the passage of Policy CKA, and look forward to its full implementation. I hope that a year from now, life and learning in our schools will go on just as they do today, while everyone present is more secure against the threat of an active shooter. That’s how it’s gone in 14 or more other states, and there’s no reason to believe it will be different here. I think you hope the same, although you don’t believe this is the proper way to achieve that outcome. I don’t expect to convince you. I can only say at this point: let it go. You lost the fight against CKA. Watch how it unfolds, and let’s talk six months or a year from now.

    Your remarks about background checks just confirm my suspicion that your stance in all of this is motivated more by hostility to the right to keep and bear arms, and a desire to deal it the death of a thousand cuts, than by any concern over school security. The background check system is deeply flawed – it can be no more effective than the inadequately and inconsistently served state databases that can identify mental illness diagnoses or criminal history of potential buyers. Ensure consistent reporting; and ensure follow-up, to include prosecution, of people who perjure themselves on the forms they submit pre-purchase. The Obama administration prosecuted none of them. Fix that, before you propose expanding this broken system to include sales between private parties, something unenforceable in any case. And please tell me how expanded background checks, given these systemic problems, would have stopped a single school mass shooting. And while you’re at it, perhaps you’ll acknowledge that the “despicable” NRA has been pushing correction of the flaws in the background check system for years.

    Honestly, Mary, you have no reason – none at all – to presume that I do not support all reasonable measures to prevent or deter school violence. I have expressed that support many times. Armed staff in the schools is one small part of the picture, a last resort when everything else fails. If prevention succeeds, their skills and courage will never be tested, and I hope that will be the case. If however, as in every school shooting in modern history, prevention fails, I do not believe in leaving the kids and their educators helpless victims during the 10 minutes or more before effective police response. Do you? Surely not.

    We share the goal of making our schools safer. What the heck are we arguing about?

  10. Tammy Schroeder on May 23rd, 2018 3:10 pm

    Mr. Tallen, None of the Women’s March Toolkit positions that you listed are anti-gun, anymore than licensing drivers and registration of automobiles is anti-car. Regulating gun sales, ownership, and use is a step we must take to preserve the freedom of all – those who use guns and those who don’t. If you can’t see it now , then you are blind. The next generation is determined that their children will be safe in school. Can you imagine how far the pendulum will swing if there are no reforms to gun laws now? Do you really want to risk that? The like the 18th amendment, the 2nd amendment has seen its day. It no longer serves its intended purpose (“a well regulated Militia”) and must yield to the common good of this country. It’s time to sit at the table instead of standing in the door with an assault weapon.

  11. Bill Tallen on May 24th, 2018 10:50 pm

    Tammy, I believe you’re wrong, but I don’t think you are blind. You could ratchet down your rhetoric a notch or two; maybe read the comment below yours in this thread and take it to heart.

    Those positions, and yours, are indeed anti-gun, by which I mean (as you well know) anti gun rights. The rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms would be drastically restricted by the measures the Women’s March supports, and it would not end there, and in the meantime, those who mean us harm would merely laugh and continue to violate the law. “Assault weapons” – however you define that nebulous term – are absolutely prohibited in, for instance, France, a prohibition that has not prevented their use by terrorists to murder hundreds over the last few years. Are you so naive as to think that more laws would restrain the tiny number of bad actors that conduct mass shootings in this country? That it would be harder for them to find weapons than it is in France?

    The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. You demonstrate that you do not understand it or the reasons for its existence, and I recommend much broader reading on the topic, as I did to Luke, Trish, and Lucille. If that does not lead you to a change of heart, then by all means, draft a Constitutional Amendment repealing the Second, and do your best to get it ratified. You will fail, and along the way maybe you will come to understand why.

  12. Tim on May 23rd, 2018 7:22 pm

    Wellllll! I was wondering how long it would take before Scott’s good buddy would jump in with his tired diatribe. Curious though why a world renowned author such has Weber has not responded? What say Scott…. I hear there are some Kidergartners that haven’t drank your type of koolaid.

  13. Ira Mickelson on May 24th, 2018 11:57 am

    You call yourselves opinion writers. All you’re doing is talking smack on people who have different opinions than you or of you. How about you talk to them face to face instead of hiding behind your screens.

  14. Kayden McCurdy on May 25th, 2018 12:58 am

    I’m with you Mr. Mickelson. The reason articles like these bother me is because it’s always a crap shoot from one side to the other. I hate posting my opinion and having someone degrade me for something I said when it was merely an opinion. Being a graduate from past year, there seems to be a significant difference between my class and yours. Maybe it’s that my class didn’t care to voice their opinions, or didnt because of the judgement from others, but your class seems to fight over most everything. I understand disagreements happen, but to an extent that people on either side of the fence get bullied by others for their opinions. When I came to Cody, it was a new experience for me. My graduating class here had more kids than my entire school district back home. I feel I was never able to speak my mind here because no one would have cared. It wouldn’t have mattered.. Now all of the sudden, the only people I see ever having a voice are the ones in “journalism”.. Come to think of it, it’s been that way all along. I wanted to do journalism when I moved here because I was in it back home and enjoyed it. When I enrolled, I could immediately tell that I wouldn’t have fit in with that class here because it would have always been me vs. them… Too bad I’m no longer a student, I sure would’ve loved to voice my opinion on these subjects. Hats off to Mr. Edward’s for making himself have a voice in support of the 2nd Amendment! Make America Great Again!

  15. Benjamin Wambeke on September 12th, 2018 9:55 pm

    Dear Ira,

    “How about you talk to them face to face instead of hiding behind your screens.” This post is a specific response to comments made about students for mostly out of school activities made by a school board member who was “Talking smack on people who have different opinions than” him to say the least, al of this with the students in question not present.

    Dear Kaydence,

    I’m sorry you feel like you would not fit in at Bonfire. We have always had the policy that if you can write well, and you can fact check your sources, then you can publish whatever you want. However, I agree that you probably would have not fit in, and I am surprised you had taken jourlism before, seeing as it seems like you lack the basic knowledge of what journalism seems. Journalists must have no discomfort in disagreeing with everyone in the room, and standing up for what they believe in even when under fire from the entire class, school, and community. A journalist understands that there is a time and a place for both political debate, and non political stories, and realizes that opinion based articles and collums are a very popular part of the press and especially High School news. All of which, you lack, leading me to be even more saddened that you decided not to take the risk and be a journalist, seeing as you realky could have learned something in that class about what real journalism is.

  16. Mary Keller on May 25th, 2018 3:29 pm

    Dear Luke, As I engage with Mr. Tallen in a public and civil conversation, I want to thank you for your letter. You are opening spaces for an important conversation. I think this tells us that the local population has many people interested in having a civil dialogue. When Wyoming Rising hosted its public event regarding civil dialogue, the crowd was standing room only. The good news, then, is that despite the crazy rhetoric of our social media times, there are a lot of thoughtful people who want to connect truthfully, frankly, and in the discussion of important issues. I think the adults should organize more of these conversations because we need more practice. It is interesting that the school board itself realized that adults in the room were not acting with civility and thus the Chair instituted the reading of their civil discussion code. However, I have been to two meetings where Trustees raised their voices to yelling and used name calling even after the rules were read, so I think civility has sunk so low that many adults don’t even govern themselves in the manner of an adult. Dear Mr. Tallen, We are arguing because you wrote to the CHS high school paper with an unsubstantiated set of interpretations regarding how these kids were kidding themselves. I don’t think Mr. Weber or you should use school platforms to put down kids who are doing their research, are merit scholars, and are writing and acting as engaged, civic-minded kids. I’m replying here because in your reply, you’ve mansplained to them, telling them they are dishonest and thus you can’t respect them, and making assertions about me that are absolutely false. You write: “I know you’re familiar with that “Toolkit,” a nine-page document from which I quoted less than half a page.” What if you are wrong? What does it mean that you will write in public things about me for which you have no evidence? I had no idea that there was a toolkit. Thank you for alerting me of such. I work on two computers and I invite you to check the web history on either of them. I’m not surprised that there is a toolkit because many adults mobilized to support the youth, but I’ve never been to it. (If your gut tells you that I am lying, then I want to ask “How does it feel to be in judgment of when other people are honest or not, when you have no evidence?” ) The kids and I have never told you that you are kidding yourself, and we have never told you we can’t believe or respect you. When you say that the kids followed the Women’s March “like a playbook,” it seems to me that you have not listened to them or to me. So here’s my question to you–what if you are wrong? All good researchers pursue their work with a thesis, and the thesis has to be falsifiable, meaning the researcher has to build into their study the systematic search for why their thesis is wrong. You’ve listed the information that you think proves you’re right, and I’m interested if you will consider what information would prove it wrong? The students did the walk out on the day of the national walk out because that’s what a national walk out is. One participates on the day of the national walk out in order to feel a connection to something bigger. It is not evidence that the Women’s March was in control in Cody, Wy, or anywhere else. The Parkland survivors called the date. The women’s march simply created a resource page as they watched the Parkland survivors generate the wave of youth activism that just might make room for a policy response adequate to this unique and tragic narrative of American schools. Luke is not anti-gun. I am not anti-gun. When you tell them they are pawns of anti-gun activism, and when you tell me how clearly you see my anti-gun bias, it seems to me that we will never be in a real dialogue with you because you put us into a world of fear –the “us” versus “them” world that divides people into anti-gun or pro-gun. You’re getting my replies because I refuse to let your scary world of us vs them stand unopposed. It’s too closed down for my experiences. Meanwhile, national polls from February and March of 2018 report that 3/4 of Americans support reasonable gun control measures. If you step beyond the confined of your anti-gun pro-gun horizon, 3/4 of us include a very wide variety of people familiar with, happy with, and shooting guns of many kinds, and still able to think about a variety of sane regulations to reduce the harm that is currently happening in American culture. The kids constructed their walk out as a memorial to the victims, but you have placed yourself in the judgment position of saying they are dishonest because you know what they are really doing. I get the image of you sitting at a chess board, and no matter what the kids say, you just keep putting them onto a square called “anti-gun, influenced by those women.” We are arguing because when you speak directly to me, you assert unsubstantiated claims. This strikes me as evidence of your MO. You MO is divides the world into two camps, and makes assertions about the “other” people that are unsubstantiated. When I read what you say about not being able to respect students because they are not being honest, that sounds like a person with a very low opinion of others, leaving you with a high opinion of . . Yourself? I mean really–what adult writes a high school newspaper to tell the kids he can’t respect them for the dishonesty of their op-ed column? How satisfied did you feel when you wrote that sentence? I guess you showed them. I welcome you any day to experience the world beyond your division of anti-gun or pro-gun, where you will find many hard-thinking, thoughtful and concerned people. Some of us are sharp shooters, some of us are veterans, some of us are retired wilderness rangers, some of us are historians, none of us are of the “same” mind, and we seek out evidence with which to prove ourselves wrong, which means we seek out the opinions of people who think otherwise. That means you’re welcome to a dialogue, and we won’t know your position until you state it. At which point it is open for discussion.

If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a gravatar.

Navigate Left
  • An Open Letter to School Trustee Weber


    The Pros of Becoming a Physician Assistant

  • An Open Letter to School Trustee Weber


    Extremity of Driving

  • An Open Letter to School Trustee Weber

    Recent Posts

    Holiday Happenings in Retail

  • An Open Letter to School Trustee Weber

    Staff Editorials

    In Defense of GSA

  • An Open Letter to School Trustee Weber


    Does Snowmobiling Tame the Wilds of Yellowstone?

  • An Open Letter to School Trustee Weber


    Cody Lacks Outlets for Substance Abusing Teens

  • An Open Letter to School Trustee Weber


    Wyoming Law Doesn’t Prevent Rapists from Suing for Custody

  • An Open Letter to School Trustee Weber


    The World Is Ending and Sooner Than We Would Like

  • An Open Letter to School Trustee Weber


    So Many Smaller Endings

  • An Open Letter to School Trustee Weber

    Staff Editorials

    Safety in Teen Relationships

Navigate Right
The Student News Site of Cody High School
An Open Letter to School Trustee Weber