I’ve been hearing a lot of talk lately about how teachers should be armed. This would then put the power in the hands of a teacher to protect their students. I know I made light of some things in the podcast, but the gravity of all of this has become pretty hard to escape.
The romantic image being painted here is pretty vivid. The teacher, recognizing a threat – maybe hearing a gunshot – projects in an authoritative voice: “Get down!” Students scramble to positions as the teacher loads a clip and takes position behind a makeshift barricade. The door opens halfway as the attacker bursts into the room. A student screams, but before the attacker can even turn his body to the sound, the teacher levels his gun and fires three shots into the attacker’s head and torso.
So what’s wrong with this picture?
First of all, what the heck are the logistics of arming teachers?
“You give them a little bit of a bonus, so practically for free, you have now made the school into a hardened target,” says our President. I don’t know if he’s referring to just the price of the gun and training or something, but would this involve training teachers, or is it just the “you get a gun” bonus?
What stupid teacher would take a bonus for something like this? There’s already so much that we’re expected to handle that doesn’t show up anywhere in a contract and certainly isn’t covered via income. I’m supposed to know how to use a deadly weapon to defend my students? As simple as you make that sound, let’s take a look first at how we’re expected to handle less than this.
Below is from the website of the NEA about how we’re supposed to handle fighting in a classroom.
You will notice that nowhere does it say “directly intervene and prevent harm from happening to anyone to your best ability.”
It’s very clear: Teachers are expected to watch and monitor only, not to fight or beat their students. Obviously one of the problems involves legal liability. One cheap shot on a student because you intervened, Romeo-style, and you’re in trouble!
These same teachers that are officially kept from directly intervening in a physical altercation, are now obligated to eliminate deadly threats that may very well be members of the student body he or she is tasked with protecting? What if a stray shot hits a student? What if the gun jams and a student is killed by an attacker because the gun wasn’t cleaned? What if a surreptitiously armed student pulls on the teacher because he’s already stressed about an attack taking place?
My point is when this plan invariably goes wrong in one of the billion ways that it can, whose fault is it? If the answer is “the teacher’s, because he should know blah blah blah” then I’ll tell you where you can stick your gun.
Teachers do so many things that are not accounted for when being paid. This is an old gripe but needs to be considered when you want to add being trained bodyguards and all of the liability contained with that. There’s already an absurd liability on the teacher based on the fact that they are alone with the students for so long – who else is liable if not the teacher, right?
You don’t pay me to stay after school with your students. You don’t pay me to answer your student’s texts for help. You don’t pay me for the lesson I’m making at home. You don’t pay me for the fact that I would step in and prevent your son from getting his head thrown into a wall if it came down to it. You don’t pay me for any of that.
A bonus won’t go any way toward training me to kill for you or anyone else. I didn’t become a teacher to kill, nor did any of my peers. If being prepared to kill for you becomes part of the job, you can bet the “little bit of a bonus” won’t mean anything to me. Plus, you’d have to pay me what I’m worth for the job I already do before I’m willing to believe you’ll be able to compensate me for that kind of job detail. This job isn’t one that’s compatible with that one.
I may or may not have the ability to be the hero needed in the scene depicted above. The truth is, it’s all messed up. None of it is the job I signed up to do. In fact, a lot of being a teacher is doing a whole bunch of stuff that I didn’t sign up for. You think teachers need to step up to be heroes? We’re already working on it. We’ve done what it takes without you foisting “the ability to kill a man” into our job requirements. This isn’t even cowardice or any kind of self-doubt talking. Teachers have been reacting to these attacks and there are little to no notable accounts of any of them behaving less than admirable in high-stress attacker situations.
I don’t really see the complication here. There’s no need for a semi-automatic weapon to be easy to buy. Guns are already regulated, you say? Sure. Then keep developing those regulations so it’s harder for people to buy. Stop lecturing me about the AR-15 having only the minimum power of a bullet to take down a deer because again, I don’t care about the power – a semi-automatic weapon makes a dangerous person into a deadly person way more efficiently than a pistol or any other kind of non-automatic weapon. I’m not saying that I want anyone’s guns taken away, but stop expecting me to cry you a river over this “right to bear arms” that had nothing to do with automatic or semi-automatic weapons and everything to do with being able to defend oneself and to join a militia to protect your state. Limiting the type of arms is not unconstitutional or even unprecedented. I know this because I’m in a state that doesn’t allow me to own a pair of nunchaku.
Stop talking about responsible gun owners being inconvenienced; if you having to wait another month and another background check to get your gun saves my kids’ lives and gets you to shut up about me having to decide who lives and who dies when I’m not even trusted to stop a one-on-one scuffle, then that is a trade I’d make in a heartbeat.
Static characters are surprisingly a lot harder to find because they are easy to overlook. They don’t personally undergo any real journey other than the events of the plot – instead they tend to serve as a tool for the dynamic characters of a story to react to or receive guidance from. Here are four examples of static characters. I tried to avoid literary figures like Atticus Finch, so that students have room to talk about those once they understand the concept. I instead focused on making sure that these characters were prominent in pop culture to ensure that students would be able to see the concept at work with characters they already know.
If you’re looking for examples of dynamic characters, I wrote an article about that here.
I started the last one with a Dragon Ball character, so it’s time to start with one here. If that one worked with your audience, then this one will work for those same people.
I was tempted to start with Frieza, a villain, but I decided it would actually be a more effective example if I used a hero. Villains are easy. The idea is that they don’t change, so you don’t have to feel bad when the hero destroys them. A static hero, however… how do you explain that?
Static heroes were especially popular back in the day because it allowed an audience to pick up a series easily – what you see is what you get, and you can count on them to be that way because they’ll always be that way. What happens then is that the audience begins to see how the characters around him develop. Son Goku is no exception. It is his refusal to change that makes Vegeta’s transformation so stark in contrast.
The Benevolent Fighter
Son Goku starts the series Dragon Ball as a young boy. It is revealed when he is an adult that he is a Saiyan, an alien race subjugated by the evil Lord Frieza, and that he was sent to the Earth as a baby (named Kakarot) to destroy all life there to make the planet fit for sale to the highest bidder. However, a head injury as an infant causes Kakarot to become sweet and kind, a trait that stays with him into adulthood. Raised by an old martial artist named Son Gohan as a grandson (named Son Goku), the baby retains the strength and love of fighting possessed by his race, but his nature is converted by his head injury and perhaps most notably by his adoptive grandfather’s influence into that of a generous, loving hero.
Goku retains this nature as an adult, an immensely strong fighter who wouldn’t hurt a fly. However, for such a comedic, dopey, likable guy, he sure does have a huge body count. Goku’s love of fighting often gets him into trouble and interferes with his common sense, much to the chagrin of his comrades. His rival, Vegeta, is constantly developing as a character as a result of repeated attempts to surpass Goku. In fact, most of Goku’s friends were formerly dastardly villains that are won over by his constant, consistent optimism and unrivaled work ethic. In this way, Goku – like most static characters – serves as a device for all of the other characters to change and develop around him.
Steve Rogers/Captain America
This hero is definitely well-known, both in the comic world AND in popular culture as a result of cinematic success. (Captain America: The First Avenger, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, The Avengers, The Avengers: Age of Ultron, Captain America: Civil War, and the upcoming Avengers: Infinity War).
A Patriot Lost in Time
Steve Rogers just wants to fight for his country, and he gets the chance to do so when he is recruited and made the only successful test subject for the Super Soldier Program. Frozen in ice while saving the world, Rogers unexpectedly finds himself in the 21st Century, with most of his friends old or dead. With augmented athletic abilities, and a strong sense of hope and optimism, he is regarded somewhat as the flagship member of the Avengers – and most of the time, the group’s leader.
Captain America’s moral compass is one that never wavers. You never wonder if you should or shouldn’t be cheering for Cap, even when he does things against the system. I found this especially true during Civil War: “Oh, Captain America is doing something weird? Well, he must be right, so let’s wait and see.” While he certainly changes physically, Captain America as we know it hardly ever changes.
If you’re about to quote the comics at me, shut up. Comics explore every single idea out there because otherwise they run out of story. Any prolific series is going to have an evil version, a cynical version, an elderly version, a child version, a werewolf version, a zombie version… The point is when you say “Captain America,” there will always be a very specific picture in your head. He is and always will be. He arguably has more of a “boy scout” rep than Superman does!
He’s Batman. Unless we’re referring to the Adam West goon, Batman is a pretty static hero – especially once the 90’s animated series was underway, as its popularity validated what the comics had begun doing in making his character dark and brooding.
A Force of Nature
Bruce Wayne will sometimes change, but his role as The Batman seldom does. Batman is smart, crafty, and has a ridiculous work ethic. His status as a static character does not mean that he is without flaws. He has definite trust issues that often lead to very explosive incidents with those involved – particularly the time when it was revealed that he had secret files recording the weaknesses of every Justice League member and how to exploit them in case any one of them went rogue.
Batman also has a very firm policy against killing that never seems to change – despite fighting some of the most deranged villains in comic book history, and despite suffering equally devastating losses at the hands of these villains.
Much of the interest in the Batman series comes from watching the dynamic characters around him. (Batgirl. Robin/Nightwing. Two-Face. Red Hood. The list goes on.) All of them owe their engrossing storylines to their interactions with the force of nature that is Batman. The first Robin, particularly, goes from worshipping him to resenting him – eventually becoming Nightwing and forcing his surrogate father to recognize him as an equal. Batman stays the same – no matter how the villains or even his friends try to force change on him.
Geralt of Rivia
Whether you’ve played Witcher 3 lately (I haven’t yet) and just entered the series, or you’ve been a long-time fan, it’s pretty plain that Geralt is a static hero. This doesn’t mean he’s not a badass: His character design is top-notch and distinct, with white hair, scars… he has a sword and a silver sword – come one. One for monsters, one for people right?
Sure Geralt has revelations and crises of identity – but for the most part, if you are reading or playing the Witcher series, you know exactly who you’re dealing with and what he’s going to be like.
One trait he has is a stubborn adherence to his personal code. Geralt, like most Witchers apparently, has a very specific job description; he has to kill monsters. Of course, there are wildly varying impressions throughout the world of exactly how necessary or serious this job is – though as you might imagine, respect for this job is usually directly proportional to how close a monster is to messing up the lives of those whose respect is in question. This means that sometimes he’ll get a job offer asking him to deal with a striga (a terrifying monster whose description involves the words “dead monster baby” and a tiny coffin). No problem. But in other places where the monster problem is less than common, they’ll offer jobs that let you know they obviously don’t take his job seriously. King or not, he will refuse these people. Need him to kill a dragon? Dragons don’t count as monsters to him, so no. Not to mention that for the most part, he refuses to work for free.
Well, actually it’s no hold barred for the video game, right? Fetch-em quests galore!
Geralt, for the most part, is cynical, sarcastic, and dismissive of authority. He is also very loyal to those rare few that become his friends. He has shown himself to be sympathetic to the plight of even monsters, despite his overt commitment to kill those in his path for money. He is well-aware of the fact that he literally eliminates work for himself as he does his job. I’m not currently aware of how exactly he got his powers or why he wants to be human again, but I find Geralt’s static nature to be a nice anchor when transitioning from setting to setting in his stories. Most of my journey with The Witcher is “Okay, that’s the person available, okay that’s the problem… whoa, this is interesting… where’s Geralt? Oh, there he is, good, okay I know how this story is framed now.” The experience feels a lot like watching anything based on Sherlock Holmes. (I would have used him in this article, but he’s not current in my mind, despite the riveting BBC present-day adaptation.)
Hopefully, this article helps you talk about static characters when you need it. If you have better ideas for current static characters, let me know in the comments or social media!
If you’re a Witcher die-hard that wants to tell me how Geralt is actually super dynamic, then take a moment, Internet Warrior, to reflect on your life, and on how being static isn’t necessarily a bad thing, and then also know that I’m like two books in, so if he suddenly becomes a villain or something that’s gonna come out of left field for me.