Women’s March Youth EMPOWER is calling for students, teachers, school administrators and parents to participate in a #NationalSchoolWalkout at 10 a.m. on March 14 to protest Congress’ inaction in response to gun violence plaguing U.S. schools.

Are you walking out? We need to know.

Will you walk out of school tomorrow in protest of gun violence? One month after the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., students nationwide plan to walk out of class for 17 minutes to protest gun violence in U.S. schools and to remember the 17 students who were killed on Feb. 14.

Some school administrations and districts have formally announced their support or disapproval of a student walkout — some have released guidelines for faculty and staff, some have threatened students with suspension while some have planned for student speeches and an all-school moment of silence. What’s going on at your school? Let us know.

Student reporting could be a contribution to our social media coverage, a short write-up and photo of your school’s walkout or both. If you have any questions, please contact college interns Isabella Balandran (isabella.balandran@latimes.com) or Kevin Camargo (kevin.camargo@latimes.com).


  • Reply Douglas Campbell March 13, 2018 at 9:04 pm

    Students are now merely pawns in a political game, with adults — such as those here at the LA Times — trying to get them to disrupt their classes.


  • Reply Doug Campbell March 14, 2018 at 10:08 pm

    Kevin “adultsplained” to me in an e-mail:
    “We are in no way advocating for students to purposely leave their classrooms to disrupt their class time. Many of the participating schools who are protesting are part of HS Insider and they want a platform to share their stories . They are student leaders who asked us to make this a special coverage, since most of their audience are high school students. If the youth wants to share their voice, we will not neglect that. We want everyone’s voice to be heard. This just gives them the platform to do so.”

    So, please name the putative “student leaders” who asked you to make this special coverage. Why didn’t they unify and present a set of articles in their own names on this site? When you do the work they should be doing, on a website supposedly dedicated to student voices, you soil that concept. The appearance is that the LA Times is like all those other adults who are creating and pushing a “children’s crusade” — building websites, renting busses, getting demonstration permits — and now, advocating that children leave the classroom.

    Leaving the classroom always disrupts class time. Those minutes lost will never be regained — and the students doing the protesting are most often the students in need of every minute of class time. I do not think that the demonstration will change a thing — Florida had plenty of laws on the books which could have been used to strip the gunman of his gun long before the shootings occurred. The policing of this man fell down, primarily because of progressive concerns about the reporting of immigrants for criminal violations. He had been expelled from school because of threats, but the threats were never reported to the police. This non-reporting was proper under the protocol signed between the school district and the Sheriff’s department indicating that non-violent behavior (a threat is considered non-violent) would be handled outside of law enforcement — to better protect students of color and immigrants from having a criminal record. Incidentally, this type of protocol cooks the statistics regarding crime in the area and in the schools — and is a “win win” for any school district or police jurisdiction trying to prove that they’ve done their job in lowering crime — an unreported crime isn’t a reported crime, upon which crime databases are based — is it?


  • Reply Omar Rashad March 14, 2018 at 11:38 pm


    If there is one thing the National Walkout Movement has taught American adults, it is that we students are NOT “merely pawns in a political game.” Us students have a voice and are looking to call on action to be made and for politicians to start moving forward gun legislation that will properly address the fracture in current gun laws which allow for unfit individuals to purchase guns and use them in a heinous manner.

    If anything, us students are finally jumping into the limelight and talking about issues our government officials can’t stop twiddling their thumbs over. Us students are the people using their voices on platforms so that adults know that we are not just kids and students who are willing to sit quietly at school and stare at some cute dandelions. Us students are individuals who want the government to know we have ears to listen but we’ve got a mouth to talk. So, if you feel like students are being used as mere pawns, get up and do something about it. Instead of slapping away at your keyboard every time you see something you may disagree with, get up and fix the problem. It’s one thing to be that guy who knows there’s a problem and it’s another thing to actually get up and change it. I’m hoping you are the latter. Surely us students, who “are merely pawns” cannot outdo you and your efforts, right?

    So, the next time you call us students pawns, remember this small stat: Although us youth only make up about 22% of the United States*, we make up 100% of its future. Let that sink in a little bit. :)

    Warmest Regards,
    Omar Rashad

    *Per childstats.org; statistics linked here: https://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/tables/pop2.asp


    • Reply Doug Campbell March 16, 2018 at 8:51 pm

      When an adult reporter chooses to “speak for the students”, the appearance of propriety is long gone. Kevin, who responded to my e-mail, is a co-signer of the article above, and is an adult reporter working for the LA Times. You may protest that I ought to have been taught, but I’m not blind — I can see the adult hands pushing you along. Certainly pawns can undo good things — remember how many Germans embraced and endorsed the Nazis to understand that. Would that the Jews have had guns….

      I AM doing something about the problem you claim I’m doing nothing about — and I’m doing it right here in the lion’s den. You are a student and have a right to post an article here. Go ahead and try to “undo what I’ve done” — or, rather, what our Founding Fathers did. I think you will find that those who’ve recruited you for this childrens’ crusade didn’t even try a few years back when they had the greatest chance of success. We Americans love our Second Amendment and our right of personal defense — all the progressive politicians do is speak words, but never act. You are welcome to try to act against the Second Amendment, but know that California is just one State in a multi-State Union. You’ll need ratification by a majority of the States to change the Second Amendment. Good luck trying.

      Just because you are young, don’t spout that tripe that the future is your oyster and that I am going to shrivel up before your youth — because I know, as you do not yet know, that you shall grow old as I have and you’ll discover as I have that your greatest chance of success is changing the area that can be encompassed as you hold your arms out and turn. And since my keyboard is within the compass of my arms….

      There are already laws in place to prevent the unfit from purchasing guns, and those laws failed when they encountered progressive politics. Florida, like California, already had laws mandating that guns be confiscated from those convicted of crimes, or who were determined to have mental health issues. But the gunman in Florida had dozens of interactions with the law, was well known to law enforcement (as the Sheriff put it), and yet had never been arrested for assault or making threats or any of the other things law enforcement was called for. When he was expelled from school for making threats, the act was not reported to law enforcement — and suspicions for these omissions fall on a protocol the Sheriff signed with the School District to prevent children of color and illegals from having marks on their records due to arrests. So the gunman flew under the radar, with a squeaky clean record, purchased a gun, and the rest is history.

      Similarly, in Chula Vista, a perpetrator committed knifings, shootings, and rundowns (the first three victims were murdered with a knife, several other victims were run down with an automobile, and others were shot). At the time all of this happened, the perpetrator was seeing a psychologist and under California law that psychologist had the power to report him as the threat she thought he was to the police, and they would have confiscated his firearms. None of that happened, the perpetrator purchased a gun, waited out the 10 day waiting period, and the rest is history.

      Before you demand new laws, at least demand that the old ones designed to protect you be enforced to the letter.

      Furthermore, consider that gun free zones are routinely violated by criminals, and really should not exist without extensive perimeter protection. To understand this, you need to know that legislators are routinely surrounded by guards with guns, as are judges, Presidents, Governors, movie stars, and all manner of other important people — and places. Indeed, some of these, such as politicians (including some most involved with your childrens’ crusade) have concealed carry permits. Some animals are more important than others, and what they would have you deny us is exactly the thing that they would preserve for themselves. They are protected by metal detectors and x-ray machines, as should every student be. Indeed, the poster-bearers are right — they should not be in fear, but they have to be — but just look at other HS Insider articles talking about the injustice of metal detectors to understand that not only are some adults brain-dead, but some non-adults are too, because those non-adults would take away exactly the tools that keep them safe — and not just from guns but knives and other types of weapons.

      A school is just as important as the White House, an airliner, the Capitol Buildings, the California State Legislature, any courtroom, or any police station. If the individuals in these places are to be protected, and the place is to remain gun-free, they must be protected by people with guns. And that’s true of schools too.

      By the way, I do have a new law you can propose. My wife had a seizure recently and her doctor sent in a form to the DMV which suspends her driving privilege for at least six months. It’s quite a reasonable law, and the law MANDATES the doctor to do this who thinks the patient may be harmful to others. The defect in California law that allowed the Chula Vista shooter the freedom to act was that his psychologist was not MANDATED to report his potential to harm others. Perhaps that’s the loophole you need to close. Good luck closing it.

      With similar warm regards,
      Douglas Campbell


      • Reply Omar Rashad March 17, 2018 at 1:43 pm

        I do not want to debate semantics behind specific legislation or what exact changes should be enacted, that’s a conversation meant to occur face to face, not digitally via a comment feed off the online high school section of the LA Times.
        Before I go on, I want to throw something your way. In order to make their point understood and over-exaggerated, it’s very common for individuals to juxtapose a current issue with a catastrophe of the past. I would sincerely call upon you to not draw comparisons between the Holocaust and America’s current gun situation. The Holocaust, in which an incredibly large number of Jews as well as other European demographics were targeted and slaughtered under Nazi control, should not be compared with America’s currently stagnant gun situation, which is full of politicians doing nothing more than wrestling over semantics and citizens feeling discontent with inaction. This controversial gun issue is nowhere near the scope and gravity of the Holocaust; by you grotesquely juxtaposing the two is disconcerting to say the least. I would ask you to address the Holocaust with sensitivity instead of making it a talking point for your arguments so you can sprout a tiny little smile on your face while you feel like you’ve gotten the upperhand in a comments section.
        Also, I want to let you know that I am a bit disappointed that you’ve automatically labeled and characterized me based on your observations of my being young. Just because I am young, you have interestingly assumed that both our political views do not line up and do not have any similarities. You’ve also gone ahead to address me as a supporter/participator in a movement that looks to undo “what our Founding Fathers did.” It’s even more interesting that you’ve also assumed my stance on this issue and think that I endorse trying to “change the second amendment” and are wishing me “good luck” with trying to get majority of the states to ratify these changes.
        Like I mentioned before, I feel like if I were to reveal my beliefs and have an open discussion with you, it should be done on the proper platform, not in a simple comments sections, so here’s the little thing I will leave you with. In lieu of you stating you will not shrivel up before my youth, I want you to step back and realize where you are right now. You are in the comments feed of an article posted on the online high school section of the LA Times called LA Times HS Insider. This article is calling for students to document and analyze the events that occur at their school. If anything, this comments section, that you are so fond of trolling, is anything but the lion’s den you are so proud of bringing a fight to. Furthermore, this lion’s den you seek to bring a fight to, it’s nonexistent. So, instead of smudging your keyboard with oil from your fingers to once again write a response to this comment, try to find a bigger, better platform for you to voice yourself. Get out of the house, get off your computer, and look for a better place to call us students “pawns” and mindless robots who easily fall into the trap of listening to these adults you say we are listening to… Or you can stay here and keep throwing comments on our articles. It’s totally fine.
        By saying things like “I can see the adult hands pushing you along,” I really do feel like you are clueless about the purpose of this online publication. I want you to know a couple things, Doug. No one is pushing me along. No one is telling me what to do. Everything I do and say on this website is out of my own intent and direction, not from any adult.
        You see, I’m not asking you to shrivel up and let the youth take over your world. I am asking you to be receptive and open-minded about the fact that us students have something to say. Don’t assume anything about me just because I am a young student. Don’t assume I am an advocate for any cause. Also, don’t assume I am a lifeless tool being used by adults.
        So, just to clear anything up, I want you to know that no adult is pushing ANY of the students who use this website as a platform to express their voice. If you did not understand what Kevin was trying getting across to you, it is that everything we look to get published in this online publication is out of our own intention. We want to do this. This online publication is not about LA Times adults ordering us students around. It’s about us students reporting on issues that actually affect us, issues that have a direct impact on our lives. I would wish you had a better calling rather than antagonizing an online publication that recognizes the value in youth voices and the experiences and ideas and perspectives we bring to the table.

        Warm Regards,
        Omar Rashad


        • Reply Doug Campbell March 17, 2018 at 5:17 pm

          When Kevin tries to get something across to me or to you, as he did both in the article and in his response, he is, as I’m saying “adultsplaining” — and you repeating “what Keven is trying” makes it even worse. This is the first article in this area which had an adult as author, and no amount of explaining by anyone associated with the article that said adult isn’t influencing the conversation is going to fly with any unbiased observer — just as it didn’t with me — who’s certainly not an unbiased observer, but from experience can recognize shaping of the conversation when I see it.

          A classic debating technique — and not a good one — is to find reprehensible that which points out a defect in the debater’s thinking. Your side had previously reappropriated #neveragain — a strong reference to the Holocaust — to make your own points about gun control — so I’m not the insensitive one here. The Jews were first rendered incapable of defending themselves; the Nazis confiscated the guns. Then the Nazis confiscated the Jews. You might think that’s insensitive, but it’s utterly, 100%, true. Imagine hundreds of Warsaw ghetto uprisings, and imagine what an impression such a spirited defense would have made upon the Nazis — and upon the rest of the world. Or don’t — that’s your choice.

          You were the first to bring my age into this discussion, as well as your own (“we make up 100% of its future”), and I have responded in kind, pointing out your own limits that you do not see, and which will not become apparent until you have lived several more years. My objective as the one in the current generation controlling things is to give you the best future I can, and the best future for you is for you to have an unambiguous right of self defense using tools equal to or better than those the criminals use. Whatever the police use for personal protection must be available to the private party, if only because Florida has shown that the police are apt not to use their weapons to defend us. You are free to disagree with that position, and advocate for another, but I have yet to see you write even a single talking point which counters anything I’ve written.

          So far you have responded with accusations that I troll, but I note that not one of the points I’ve made, which are appropriate to the reasons behind the walkout, have been addressed by your responses. I have revealed my beliefs; you state that you are not revealing yours because (a) this isn’t the right forum, (b) I’m not the right person, and (c) I sprout a tiny little smile on my face when I think I’ve gotten the upper hand. I’m ignoring that ad hominems to which you are resorting about what I do with my life and where I choose to comment because while you are permitted to post here (and neither Kevin nor myself ought to have that same permission), I am allowed to comment here until the LA Times deems it wise to revoke my commenting privilege. After all, it is their press, and under the First Amendment, they get to control the content their press prints. And you are right about (c).

          Douglas Campbell


          • Kevin Camargo March 17, 2018 at 6:48 pm

            Hello Doug. Just in case you do not know, I am only an intern here for High School Insider and not a full-time employee that works for the LA Times. I am currently 19 years-old and a freshman in college. I do want to bring up that this is not only a high school issue. We’ve seen colleges and universities around the nation join the walkouts. Now, I am in no way pushing anyone to do something that they do not want to. If you think that I am “pushing a ‘children’s crusade'” and “advocating that children leave the classroom,” then you are incorrect. I am still a college student, and I know how valuable education is. But I also know how valuable safety is for everyone. Unfortunately, those 17 students in Florida could not have anymore class time, because the safety that they were supposed to have, was not present. So if you think that I am doing wrong by giving these students a platform, then you must also be upset at all those teachers/professors, administrators, principals, parents, and student leaders, for supporting the walkouts and providing more safety. Many high school students do not have a platform to publish their work/voice. I am blessed to be working in my college newspaper, but not all students have that same opportunity. So while students have a voracious writing-drive, this platform will still be able to offer them that opportunity.



          • Doug Campbell March 17, 2018 at 9:51 pm

            Kevin, I’m not upset at the forum — there are plenty of articles at HS Insider which fall into the three buckets of “agree”, “ultimate boredom”, and “disagree”. This is not the first article with which I’ve disagreed, and commented upon. You have writers of every level posting at HS Insider, and many, including those associated with this particular article, are debating at a high level.

            You can see in my comments what I’ve found wrong with your participation. If you commented only as a subscriber (say, an adult like me), I’d have no problem, but with adults channeling so much of this particular protest, I’m not willing to let that fact slide by when I see it. You may protest that you are “only” a college intern, but you happen to be the college intern who is the adult in the room, there’s a problem. I have college interns working part-time for me who are in charge of millions of dollars worth of equipment; I treat them as fully the equal of full time staff who are responsible for similar equipment. In other words, when you diminish your role, for good or for ill, it falls on deaf ears over here.

            As a firm supporter of every element of the Bill of Rights (which I extend to include the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments), I’m willing to debate anyone who thinks one of those rights should be limited in ways that clearly invalidate the right completely.


  • Reply Lily Richman March 16, 2018 at 10:39 pm


    My primary objection with your comment stems not from the fact that we disagree about gun control, but rather your belief that my opinions and those of my peers aren’t valid simply because we’re students or because we are the “pawns” of adults. Let me assure you that I am not a “pawn” and have been in no way coerced or “push[ed]” by “adult hands.”

    Thousands of students across the country are sick and angry that their peers have been killed in classrooms that are supposed to nurture and support them. That outrage has nothing to do with adults’ opinions and everything to do with students’ bravery, tenacity, and desire for change.

    Also, no one here is suggesting that we “undo” the Second Amendment. I don’t think common sense regulation is at odds with the Second Amendment. Did the framers envision a gun that could shoot hundreds of rounds per minute? The idea of these walkouts is instead to promote school safety and better protect our students. But, I also happen to believe that common sense background checks and restrictions on assault weapons and bump stocks could save a significant number of lives each year.


    P.S. Best wishes for your wife’s recovery.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Reply Doug Campbell March 17, 2018 at 9:34 pm

      I do not discount your opinions, but when I see adults attempting (and in some cases, succeeding in) channelling students — paying for busses, building “student-run” websites, obtaining protest permits, professionally printing posters like the one depicted on the mast of this article, and even adultsplaining for you on this site — I have my doubts as to whether you students are acting spontaneously or under the control of adults. That’s the net effect of allowing any adult to appear to control your acts — the appearance of impropriety has occurred in that moment and the reasonable conclusion of puppetry is foregone.

      You are a good debater — you point out areas of concern, put your ideas out in the public forum, and provide a basis for debate. Thank you for that. Given just the few statements you’ve made, I’m in semi-violent agreement with you. Ban bump stocks [which use the recoil of the gun to pull the trigger for the next shot] because they convert a semi-automatic weapon to a fully automatic one. I agree that the majority of us should not own fully automatic weapons, nor hand grenades, nor anti-tank rockets, nor nuclear weapons; such restrictions have passed muster at the Supreme Court. I agree with your position on background checks — but even background checks, as I point out above, won’t work if the police and the schools are deliberately withholding information from whatever database would be used. I believe in school safety — but if you are going to have a gun-free zone, you better make sure that it is as well protected at the perimeter as are those gun-free zones surrounding our legislators, judges, Governors, Presidents, and nearly every wealthy person. But I disagree with your position on what you call “assault weapons”; we are already not allowed to own assault weapons, for they allow full automatic fire which is lacking in the “assault weapons” [aka the AR-15] you are speaking about. That’s why we want to ban bump stocks — they make the AR-15 a true assault weapon — which is full automatic. The AR-15 without bump stock is, like nearly every handgun sold in America, a semi-automatic weapon — one shot per trigger pull, but the previous shot chambers the round for the next shot. You can ban it, but know that most school shootings involve handguns, not AR-15s. If you want to ban AR-15s, you put yourself squarely in the “ban all guns” category, because once one type of semi-automatic firearm is banned, the next one is just one law away.

      I’m all for required firearms training for anyone who wants to own a gun. I’m all for requiring that ammunition be statically stored separately from the gun in which it is used. I’m all for locking up ammunition and guns when they are not in use. I’m all for safety to prevent children from accessing or playing with firearms. I’m even in favor of gun-free zones — provided they are well defended by people with guns who are willing to put their lives on the line to protect those inside the zone. I’d even go so far as to advocate for smaller magazines — no more than 10 cartridges per magazine.

      Furthermore, what do you think of raising the age to possess a gun from 18 to 21? I don’t think that kind of rights curtailment is a good thing, especially given that it will do nothing to stop gun violence (consider that the Las Vegas shooting was the act of a 64 year old). An 18 year old can serve in the military, and can vote, but cannot own a gun? If the 18 year old is too young and unwise to own a gun, then one can certainly argue that those at that age and younger are too young and unwise to exercise the most precious right we have — to vote. Further, if we can curtail their expression of the Second Amendment, then why not curtail, under the same principles and reasoning, their expression of the First Amendment?

      Now, let’s move on to the subject of the Framers. You ask whether the Framers envisioned a type of firearm which would fire “hundreds of rounds per minute”. No, the Framers probably did not envision an AR-15 even at 90 — much less hundreds — shots/min. But they did envision blunderbusses, cannon, shotguns, rifles, and smoothbore muskets — all of which were in service at the time of the Revolution and in the possession of private individuals. Furthermore, the private guns were fully the equal of the guns the military used — something which is not the case today. So, if you are about to take the “if it wasn’t around at the time of the Founders, then it shouldn’t be part of any right”, let me point out that the Internet wasn’t around at the time of the Framers either, and the Framers’ ideas of First Amendment rights have certainly been extended to it. The Framers were Christians and Jews, and their ideas of religion and what one ought to be able to do, or not do, under religion informed their idea of the First Amendment; we now have Wiccans and Athiests and Muslims and Bahais and all manner of other religious observance — the First Amendment has been extended to cover those as well. The Framers didn’t include a list of acceptable religious practices, but, given that the First Amendment describes an envelope called “freedom of association”, we can guess pretty exactly — you have the right to associate with whom you will, but do not have the right to impose association on others. Ditto for the Second Amendment, which describes a “freedom of self defense and defense of community” — you have a right of defense which must not be limited by what an opponent can bring to bear against you. So, with the First Amendment being so flexible, why the sudden horror that the Second Amendment might be equally as flexible? Nearly every gun manufactured in the world today is a semi-automatic weapon, and to take all of those away from the citizenry would be to reduce us to defending ourselves with smoothbore muskets against criminals holding — wait for it…. The Framers wrote for the ages, not for an age. The First Amendment addresses a personal right of association, the Second Amendment addresses a personal right of defense. And yes, bad people can do both, using technology the Framers didn’t have, but that’s part and parcel of any right.

      Thank you for your best wishes. I wish the same, and part of the reason I’m on here so often is that I need to stay in the same room as her and so other hobbies are out the door for the interim.

      As a side effect of our conversation here, I count four people who’ve participated, and the normal population for the majority of your peers’ articles is zero.


    Leave a Reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

    WordPress.com Logo

    You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

    Google+ photo

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

    Connecting to %s