The Second Amendment is looming large in this national-election year, as divisions have never been wider... what should educators be doing about it?

In Texas three professors have brought a lawsuit, challenging the imposition of the Lone Star State's concealed carry law upon public higher education.

In Cleveland, the Ohio open carry law allows citizens to roam the streets with rifles on their backs during the GOP convention.  To me it looks a little bit like Mogadishu ten years ago.

And, of course, there are all the killings: police killing young black men, black men retaliating.

And the terrorists... in Orlando in particular.

Cross the pond and we encounter a Europe every bit as chaotic as the United States.  The Nice attack, like the Orlando massacre, suggests that the body counts from these terrorists atrocities are trending upward.

And we Westerners have never been more divided about what we ought to do.

Should we deport all the immigrants from both Continents and build barriers to keep them out?

Should we launch a new Crusade in the Middle East to try to eradicate radical Islam once and for all?

The ethical issues aside, these undertakings seem Quixotic... highly unrealistic fantasies.

And what of all the guns?

Some say we should arm the good guys.  This is the Israeli approach and it seems to have some efficacy.

Or should we try to ban firearms in the US?  This too seems a Quixotic undertaking, considering the proliferation of guns in America.

No easy answers emerge for any of these questions.  And, sadly, we have never been more divided in the West than we are today.  In America it's right v. left.  And let it be noted that the right is much better armed... not unlike the Nazis v. the Communists in Weimar Germany, one might venture.

In Europe, Brexit underlines the depth of division.  And to a large degree it's over the same issues: immigration and security.

At UT-Austin, "Specifically, the professors seek the right to ban guns from their classrooms -- something the university has maintained would put it out of compliance with the new law. The professors, who argue that both state law and university policies are vague on that point, on Friday were granted a hearing for a preliminary injunction on having to allow weapons in class. It’s scheduled for early next month. Fall classes resume at the end of August."

But what are we in higher education doing collectively?  Our campuses are often the targets of lone wolf terrorists and other nuts.  We take our licks and light our vigil candles.

Bottom line: higher education is as divided as the US and Europe... perhaps more so.  Elite v. run-of-the-mill... public v. private... for-profit v. non-profit... four-year v. community colleges.  Competition is keen and many small schools are in financial crisis.

That's only one of many reasons why we seem to lack influence in the great national debate facing us over the Second Amendment and immigration and terrorism and civil rights.

You don't agree that we lack influence?  Name one college president who is a national figure?  Margaret Spellings probably comes the closest, coming out of the Department of Education and taking over the California system.  But she's hardly high profile outside of higher ed itself.

There are a few influential faculty members... but no Henry Kissinger of which I am aware.

As prior posts on this blog have chronicled, higher education is under attack by the Department of Education.  Policy is being pushed downward from D.C., whether we are talking about sexual assault or gainful employment.  We are accused of defrauding students, while we struggle to make ends meet.

At the state level, from  concealed carry in Texas to anemic budgets in the Mid-West , we are buffeted by state lawmakers as well.

Is it technology that has robbed us of our former influence upon the national debate, as Prof. Clay Christensen would have it?  Are we just not as significant in the Internet age?

Or is it a more deep-seated problem... a failure of our moral fiber?

For example, bringing this little essay full circle:  Should the UT-Austin professor have to go to court?  UT's president has said he "sympathizes" with students and faculty who oppose guns on campus.  So I might ask him what Thoreau once asked Emerson, after the former was jailed for refusing to pay the poll tax:

According to some accounts, Emerson visited Thoreau in jail and asked, “Henry, what are you doing in there?” Thoreau replied, “Waldo, the question is what are you doing out there?” 

Sympathy is not what is needed. Leadership is.  And leadership entails risk... risk of losing a well-compensated position, for example.