sleepystork.com

Since 1999, hundreds of school shootings have scarred American communities, yet schools with armed staff have a perfect record: zero shootings.

In an editorial this month — Colorado learned long ago that no school is safe from gun violence, a lesson Jeffco should have heeded — The Denver Post Editorial Board argued that while placing a law enforcement officer in every school poses significant financial challenges for school districts, they see no viable alternative.

The Denver Post described several benefits of having a School Resource Officer (SRO) on duty on every school campus. Beyond offering students law enforcement role models, the presence of a uniformed, armed defender on campus serves as a powerful deterrent to violence. Even the mere sight of a marked patrol car in a school parking lot can give would-be evildoers pause.

But it’s not a cure-all.

In Colorado’s Arapahoe High School Shooting in 2013, there was an SRO on the large campus. Although the shooter didn’t begin his attack near the SRO, the officer’s approach – heard by the shooter over the radio – helped limit the scope of the attack. One student, 17-year-old Claire Davis, was shot and subsequently died from her injuries. The SRO’s presence was instrumental in ending the attack before more lives could be lost or children injured. However, SROs are not a panacea, because they are human – they step away, eat lunch, or patrol large campuses, and their conspicuous presence makes them easy to avoid. There’s a better solution: armed, qualified school staff.

The Crime Prevention Research Center reports that none of the hundreds of schools nationwide with volunteer armed staff has experienced a shooting during school hours – a 100% success rate over decades. In Colorado’s 50 districts with armed, trained volunteer staff, including rural and suburban schools alike, safety records remain unblemished.

In these 50 districts, schools with armed staff have protection on site throughout the school day, thanks to the presence of multiple armed defenders. And they conceal carry. No one, aside from the security team, knows who they are. This adds an extra layer of protection for students and faculty, creating an environment where any attacker must contend with the likelihood of a rapid confrontation.

There are nearly 500 of these heroes in Colorado schools today. These volunteers are hand-picked, thoroughly vetted, and must commit to a rigorous training schedule. Critics worry about safety, but FASTER Colorado’s arduous vetting and training ensure only the most qualified carry concealed weapons. In 20 years, no armed staff program has reported a safety incident. In most communities, awareness that schools have armed staff reinforces the deterrent effect.

Although armed staffers continue to increase in numbers, why hasn’t the idea gained broader mainstream acceptance? At FASTER Colorado, we often hear that the media largely fail to share information that could raise awareness and interest in these programs. Reporters rarely highlight armed staff programs, leaving parents unaware of a proven remedy. Instead, headlines focus on tragedies and their painful aftermaths instead of prevention.

It’s time to spotlight the heroes quietly protecting our schools. Network and cable news rarely cover how widespread armed staff policies are, how safely these programs have been implemented across the country, or how some attackers may choose targets based on perceived security weaknesses. We also seldom hear the stories of the brave men and women working in schools, who willingly run toward the sound of gunfire to save children. That needs to change.

Imagine a teacher, coach, or counselor – someone your child trusts – who’s rigorously trained to protect lives, ready to run toward danger. That could transform our culture.

In Colorado, school boards hold the authority to approve armed staff in districts. Parents and communities must demand their school boards explore all options, including armed staff, to protect children. Share FASTER Colorado’s website and take an active role in creating a safer future for our students. Every day without action risks another tragedy.

Laura Carno is the executive director of FASTERColorado.org.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Going into my 26th Burning Man, I admit I was crestfallen at the news that “Midnight Poutine” was not returning. The Canadian dish is a funny mix of fries, gravy and cheese curds, and it was always comforting to know that this culinary option was available, starting back in 2009. No matter how peculiar, everything tastes great at midnight in the desert.

Because my mind lives in a spiral of political doom, it sped to: “Canadians hate America and they’re giving up on Burning Man.” Even worse, I thought, “The next thing you know, there won’t be a Swedish Meatball Camp.”

Still, this past August, 80,000 people converged in the Nevada desert to set up what aspires to be a peaceful global village. The hardest part of my years of being part of this temporary city is answering the question on my return: “How was it?”

All I can say is that it’s reunion for some, tribal for others. It would be a long voyage just to get intoxicated, dance and see some art. Perhaps there’s something hopeful to it that brings together thousands of people from all over the world.

In general, it is hot, dusty and increasingly rainy. The cheapest admission price is $550. Getting in and out of the instant town involves long waits and scary driving on Nevada State Route 447. Once there, you could feel right at home — or not.

Its origin story is that of founders Larry Harvey and Jerry James burning an effigy on San Francisco’s Baker Beach in 1986. That spontaneous whimsy outgrew the beach and ended up being planted in the dust of Nevada’s Black Rock Desert. Then, like a rhizomatous plant, its tentacles have spread, producing clones around the world. Smaller regional burns now mimic the original.

For crowd context, at least 15 college football stadiums seat more people than Burning Man’s giant campground. Of course, the football fans are only there for an afternoon while most Burning Man participants stay the seven days leading up to Labor Day. Other volunteers stay weeks after to clean it up to Bureau of Land Management permit standards, since the event takes place on public land.

There are all kinds of reasons to avoid Burning Man, and I get an earful every year.  Even though “burning” is in the name, some hate the event for burning valuable resources. To partially address this, over the years event organizers have added composting toilets and solar to the mix. Burning Man poop will help gardens grow elsewhere. Most of the art pieces, other than the centerpiece “man,” are not burned. They live second lives at parks and town squares around the world.

The other question I hear every year is: “Is there crime at Burning Man?” The answer, unfortunately, is yes — traffic accidents and every kind of bad behavior you would see anywhere else. In 2005, I was the victim of an assault by a bicyclist who never stopped to see who he’d run over. It was bad. It was solved. The perp was convicted. It has not stopped me from returning.

This year there was also a rare birth, said to be completely unexpected, and a death of unconfirmed cause occurred at the time I left.

International attendance was up overall. I worked with photographers from Iran, Ireland, France and Belgium. The largest art piece on the playa was designed and constructed–inflated actually—by Ukraine. Its “Black Cloud” artwork was magnificent while it lasted, combining music and erratic bursts of light. Sadly, it succumbed to a 50-mph blast of wind.

In the midst of war, the Ukrainian artists thought Burning Man was one of the best ways to bring attention to their gallant and determined people, who have been fighting for survival since Russian troops invaded Ukraine in 2002.

There was also a 20-foot “(Expletive) You Elon” metal sculpture that seemed like a profane waste of energy. People mostly climbed around on it to take their selfies. And about that missing Canadian delicacy — were the Canadians especially anti-America? Some swear the poutine crew had just planned to take a year off. I’m looking forward to Midnight Poutine next year.

Dennis Hinkamp is a contributor to Writers on the Range, writersontherange.org, an independent nonprofit dedicated to spurring lively conversation about the West. He lives in Utah.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Two years ago, I had the honor of sitting next to Charlie Kirk at a fundraising dinner. It was the first and only time I met him, and I was struck by his candor about what he was witnessing on college campuses. Having spoken on campuses myself — long before Charlie was probably born — about pro-life issues and the harm abortion causes women, I knew the hostility one faces when daring to speak out on controversial topics. I was eager to hear what Charlie was experiencing.

He was candid and unapologetic. More Gen Z men, he explained, were becoming conservative, while more Gen Z women were increasingly hostile — particularly to his pro-life stance.

It made sense. Roe v. Wade had been overturned, and pro-abortion groups were reacting with hostility. Clinics were vandalized, pro-life organizations targeted, and activists urged the Biden administration to arrest grandmothers praying outside clinics. The stage was already being set for the dangerous narrative that “violence is acceptable when ideas are challenged.”

That evening, Charlie seemed tired but gracious. He told me he would head straight home after his speech to be with his wife and baby daughter. I could tell that was foremost in his mind. Yet he was still there, supporting a private Christian school, because raising children with biblical values and changing the culture mattered deeply to him.

When I was in my twenties, speaking about abortion in “free speech” zones at USC, UCLA, Cal State Long Beach, and other campuses wasn’t something I thought twice about. Even when hundreds gathered and campus police showed up, I had no fear of being shot for exercising free speech. Spit on? Yes. Screamed at? Absolutely. Shot? No.

Today, that has changed. We now see increasing use of government power against pro-life groups and Christians, particularly in states such as Colorado that have positioned themselves as abortion havens.

Just yesterday morning, Colorado’s House Minority Leader — a single mother of two — resigned, citing the hateful, toxic environment at the Capitol that mirrors the violence we see nationally. As the last Colorado Republican House Majority Leader in more than a decade, I have watched in horror as those elected to represent us are shouted down, gaveled out of order mid-debate, and labeled “hateful” for challenging issues like transgenderism. These debates matter because Colorado has slid to near the bottom in quality-of-life metrics over the past decade. The legislature is now a poster child for silencing dissent. And as increasingly militant voices in our culture have joined the ranks, the environment has become even more intolerant. Lobbyists tell me it is miserable to work there.

So, is it any wonder that while Charlie Kirk trained a new generation of leaders on campuses to respectfully debate the truths they believe — life, liberty, family and marriage — he would be targeted for it? His message was 180 degrees opposed to progressive ideologue professors who teach students that opposing speech is itself a threat and that violent responses are justified when their ideas are challenged. Like children plugging their ears and shouting “No, no, no,” only now it’s not tantrums — it’s bullets.

The gospel spread after the death of Jesus. His disciples picked up the mantle, even though those same forces wanted to kill them, too. That must be our example in light of Charlie Kirk’s death. We must continue speaking on college campuses. We must continue proclaiming the truth of life in the womb. We must continue helping women with unplanned pregnancies. And we must continue defending free speech at every turn — because warriors like Charlie Kirk showed us how.
 
Amy Stephens is the former Colorado House Majority Leader and works with Save the Storks in Colorado Springs.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

In the early 18th century a French zoologist, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck proposed a theory of so-called “soft inheritance” that predated Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution based on variation and natural selection. Lamarck believed that traits acquired during the lifetime of an individual organism can be passed on to the next generation. Two examples were often cited: 1) a blacksmith develops strong muscles and his offspring spontaneously have natural strength; 2) giraffes strained their necks to reach ever higher leaves and progressively longer necks were passed along over generations.

In short, heredity advancement driven by desire. Lamarkianism considered evolution as a process that drives species toward ever greater complexity. Darwinian evolution assumes that random mutations happen all the time. Over time, the population accumulates mutations and sometimes one of them confers an advantage to the species. The advantage can be obvious (e.g., able to run faster to catch prey) or obscure (able to digest a previously indigestible food). Unlike Lamarck’s vision, this process is not directed to more complexity (i.e., intelligence). It simply improves the ability to successfully compete in the existing environment of the time and location.

Efforts to find support for Lamarck’s concept generally met with failure. In contrast, today there are many million individual pieces of evidence in every branch of biology, all of which support and none of which refute the essential correctness of Darwin’s theory. At this point, life theoretically evolved in the same sense that the water is theoretically wet.

By the 1930s the newly emerging field of genetics was growing in popularity, based primarily on the studies of the Austrian biologist and Catholic abbot Gregor Mendel. At about this same time a Ukrainian agronomist and scientist named Trofim Lysenko developed an odd, pseudoscientific version of Lamarckianism that he promoted in preference to the Mendelian concepts of heredity. Lysenko’s ideas appealed to then Soviet Premier Josef Stalin, who believed that concept of self-driven improvement was a better fit for communist doctrine than Mendelian heredity. Lysenko was appointed as the director of the Institute of Genetics of the Soviet Academy of Sciences.

Lysenko leveraged his newfound power to suppress Soviet geneticists’ opinions and to discredit and imprison them. His invalid hypotheses were thus elevated to the level of state-sanctioned dogma. Geneticists were fired from their posts and rendered ruble-less. Hundreds and possibly as many as thousands of scientists were imprisoned, and some were sentenced to death – denounced as enemies of the state.

Implementation of Lysenko’s policies predictably led to a massive famine that killed literally millions of Ukrainians. Turns out potatoes cannot will themselves to be more productive for humans. In 1958 the People’s Republic of China adopted neo-Lamaarckianism, culminating in the Chinese Famine of 1959 to 1961. I recall as a kid that if I failed to eat all of my broccoli, my grandmother would tell me there were people starving in China. She was right, but it was all on Lysenko…not me. Lysenko’s policies crippled agricultural science in the Soviet Union for decades.

Any of this ring a bell? At least Lysenko was actually a scientist, albeit a misguided one. We currently have an HHS Secretary in Robert F. Kennedy Jr. whose dissemination of misinformation about vaccines in the form of books, commentaries and public announcements is now too voluminous to quantify. He has no foundation in vaccine development, monitoring of vaccine safety, efficacy and impact, documentation of actual vaccine adverse events (as opposed to fantasy injuries) or any other aspect of vaccine technology.

Some of his personal attacks warrant lawsuits for slander. He is so far out of his depth it would take him years to swim down to the level of his competence. He has fired literally 1,000’s of HHS employees, one assumes because they were actually trying to perform the jobs they were hired to do. He fired the Centers for Disease Control director, Susan Monarez, for refusing to promote directives that she knew were scientifically unsupportable.

Several other high-level CDC executives also resigned in solidarity. Carolyn Leavitt, White House Press Secretary and professional sycophant, defended the move because any member working in the federal government who disagrees with the president’s agenda should be “shown the door.” Susan Monarez and the scientists who followed suit are heroes. Billboards praising them to the heavens should be erected in every major city in the country. Thank heavens scientific integrity is still alive and well.

The impact of Elon Musk’s arbitrary DOGE cuts is palpable. I recently attended an international conference (on my own dime) where the low attendance by American scientists, particularly young scientists, was obvious. American colleagues who were able to attend invariably had horror stories to tell. Multi-year studies were interrupted and often unrecoverable, loss of support personnel to manage animal facilities and lack of resources to purchase mice, inability to purchase routine critical supplies and equipment. This has disabled U.S. public health to an unprecedented extent; international science will still progress, but the preeminent position enjoyed by the U.S. for more than a century could be sacrificed for good.

And all of this was directed by a person with zero interest in science, much less public health.

We cannot will away nonsense science like Kennedy’s or Lamarck’s any more than a giraffe can will its neck longer or a father make his kids stronger by lifting weights, so we must stand up to the bullies and fight for America’s scientific community.

D. Scott Schmid is an associate professor of molecular, cellular, and developmental biology at the University of Colorado. 

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Denver Public Schools recently released state assessment scores for around 55,000 students who participated in CMAS and SAT testing, claiming, “… the district is making a real difference for all of our students.” Digging into the data (as EDUCATE Denver and other civic leaders did recently with an independent data analyst), a more nuanced story unfolds.

It is a proverbial “tale of two cities.” One plot line reveals that approximately three quarters of DPS white students are proficient in reading, outscoring their Colorado peers by 17 points. A parallel tale suggests that of Black, Hispanic, and low-income students who 70% or more are not proficient in reading and, in contrast to their white peers, underperform similar students statewide.

These same terrible patterns hold true in math, where over 80% of Black and Hispanic students perform below grade level and behind peers statewide. We are not making a “real difference” for most of our kids as 65% of students are Black or Hispanic. In fact, the long-term trend suggests that, for many, the situation is only getting worse.

The data is even more confusing. Over three years, test scores for all student groups went up. Up is good and we credit DPS, generally, for this trend. However, when you put the starting line at 2019, scores have just now surpassed pre-pandemic levels for DPS white students, while scores among DPS Black and Latino students are still recovering on most metrics. There is nothing exceptional about the recent rise – we are merely back to where we started, for some.

Search your school’s 2025 CMAS scores

/*! This file is auto-generated */!function(d,l){“use strict”;l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&”undefined”!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!/[^a-zA-Z0-9]/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll(‘iframe[data-secret=”‘+t.secret+'”]’),o=l.querySelectorAll(‘blockquote[data-secret=”‘+t.secret+'”]’),c=new RegExp(“^https?:$”,”i”),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display="none";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute("style"),"height"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):"link"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute("src")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener("message",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll("iframe.wp-embedded-content"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute("data-secret"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+="#?secret="+t,e.setAttribute("data-secret",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:"ready",secret:t},"*")},!1)))}(window,document);

There is a glimmer of promise when we observe growth scores. These scores reflect performance relative to an expected amount of learning for any given school year, based on typical performance of similar students the previous year. For most DPS subgroups, growth was slightly higher relative to state peers. But there, again, the group that is growing fastest is white students. Most minority students are not growing as much as peers or quickly enough to ever achieve grade level proficiency. Unless DPS can radically accelerate growth rates for historically underserved students, the nearly 50 point achievement gap between white students and students of color will only expand.

It is worth noting that DPS’ actual performance bears no relationship to the wildly unrealistic targets proposed by the superintendent and approved by the school board in January. DPS set strategic targets for minority student subgroups between 10 and 20 points higher than those actually achieved. This failure is not surprising as DPS did not articulate a realistic plan for lifting up the achievement of chronically underperforming groups. It is surprising, however, in the context of DPS’ stated success.

We celebrate the fact that some schools in the district are defying their “demographic destiny.” As measured by test scores, students of color are better served by charter schools than by district-managed schools, and some DPS charter schools have made great headway in closing the gap. There are also some district-managed schools exceeding the odds, which begs the question: What steps is DPS taking to identify and scale strategies that work?

As members of EDUCATE Denver, we invited the superintendent to speak to a forum of community members to find out. We were interested in learning about DPS’ bright spots, challenges, course corrections and efforts to leverage best practice. The Superintendent declined the invitation, refused to send a delegate, and countered that the district would hold its own forum next year – a decision we certainly hope was not motivated by the upcoming Board of Education election this November.

When test scores were publicly released in August, the district celebrated recent gains without putting them into proper perspective. Community members deserve a fuller picture, which we attempt to provide here:

With a budget of $1.5 billion and just over 90,000 students, DPS spends $11,452 per student each year. According to the data, less than one in two students are proficient in literacy and fewer than one in three students are proficient in math. Shareholders (taxpayers) of any other $1.5 billion organization would demand a complete overall of such a failing institution. (In the case of a $1.5 billion public entity whose core business is students’ futures, a more practical solution is to follow the evidence.)

So, what now? Schools and programs in DPS that are closing the achievement gap between white and minority students should be replicated urgently in other schools across the district. In addition to studying the high performers in our midst, DPS should dive into the extensive body of research that exists to identify promising practices around the country. What they will find is that higher performing school districts not only have ambitious goals; they have detailed plans to achieve them. They have leaders who talk to, and work with, their communities. They have school boards who maintain focus on student learning and monitor that plans are executed.

There is no question that DPS teachers, staff and students are working hard, but they need more direction and support. The citizens, taxpayers, and voters of Denver need to express their desire for clear goals from the school board and coherent strategy from the superintendent. It is well past time for serious conversations about the structural issues plaguing Denver Public Schools. It is our only hope for a “tale of one city” in which all children learn and thrive.

Federico Peña is a former mayor of Denver and an EDUCATE Denver member. Rob Stein is a former superintendent of the Roaring Fork School District, a former principal of Manual High School and a member of Educate Denver.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

After the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Cañon City Councilwoman Emily Tracy posted to her personal Facebook page a link to an opinion piece entitled “Charlie Kirk’s Legacy Deserves No Mourning.” The piece criticized Kirk’s past comments about women and minorities, concluding with the words: “I won’t celebrate his death, but I’m not obligated to celebrate his life, either.”

Posting an article, even without a positive comment, signals agreement, but there is nothing in this piece, harsh and partisan as it is, condoning Kirk’s death. Nevertheless, the Cañon City Council voted to draft a censure motion after an irate crowd demanded the councilwoman’s removal.

If anyone should be censured, it is any public official who uses this tragedy to punish political opponents. Rather than kowtow to vengeful mob sentiment, Cañon City council members should dismiss the censure resolution when they meet again in October.

Also, former state House Minority Leader Rose Pugliese should rethink her post calling for the governor to fire Jazmin Murguia, a suicide prevention coordinator for the Colorado Department of Public Health. Murguia’s profanity-laced social media post criticized people for expressing grief about the conservative firebrand while remaining silent about other tragedies. Abrasive, even hateful, the post nevertheless did not in any way rejoice in Kirk’s murder. Unless she is exhibiting partisan bias in her social work practice, her job should not be threatened. The same goes for teachers who have been suspended for posting criticism of Kirk or his supporters.

There is a difference between lauding the murder of an innocent human being and criticizing the victim’s opinions and statements, between condoning violence and suggesting the public outpouring of grief is selective or disproportionate.

As long as there are politicians who seek to lower flags or have Kirk’s body lay in state, there will be those who react strongly, if sometimes tactlessly, to these actions. Lionizing the deceased as a martyr will likewise. When people like Rep. Troy Nehls, R-Texas say, “If Charlie Kirk lived in Biblical times, he’d have been the 13th disciple,” I have to respond to my errant Christian brother, “WTF dude, have you no shame?” (For those looking to cancel this column, WTF is short for “withstand thoroughly faulty hermeneutics”).

Kirk was an influential activist and commentator who successfully launched a conservative youth movement and whose tragic death is understandably grieved by those who knew and admired him. Even so, he is not an appropriate candidate for canonization.

Some public officials have bigger plans for using Kirk’s death to silence those with whom they disagree. In addition, to urging listeners to call employers of people they think are “celebrating Charlie’s murder,” Vice President J.D. Vance said on a recent podcast the government should use its power to target liberal organizations starting with the Ford Foundation and the Open Society Foundations.

Attorney General Pam Bondi said the administration would “go after” those engaging in “hate speech.” She backpedaled her remarks after backlash from pundits right and left. Her boss did not give ground, however. When asked by a reporter about Bondi’s comments, President Donald Trump said, “We will probably go after people like you, because you treat me so unfairly, it’s hate.”

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr threatened on a podcast to withdraw ABC’s broadcasting license after late-night television host Jimmy Kimmel said that “the MAGA gang” was trying to characterize the murderer “as anything other than one of them” and trying to score political points. The first assertion is wrong. Kimmel’s show was then canceled. I don’t watch late-night television but found the FCC’s threats chilling. The government should not be dictating network content.

Of course, the Trump administration is not the first to use an act of violence as a pretext to attack free speech rights. Others have tried. If successful, Democrats will be the first to lose their rights, but Republicans will follow. The next unethical president on the left will happily use whatever government bludgeon this administration fashions to pummel the right.

Krista Kafer is a Sunday Denver Post columnist.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.