What racism looks like in middle school

Proposals to expand firearm seizures, legalize stun guns draw supporters, opponents

It’s just a typical day at school. The hallways are filled with the incessant conversation of sixth graders; seventh graders are zipping through the building like busy bees, all while eighth graders are chatting about their weekend plans. If you were to look at the heads of all the students from an aerial view, you would see that they all pretty much have blond or brown hair with a few specks of black and fiery red. This translates to the fact that the majority of the students are Caucasian. While this may not seem like a problem on the surface, as you dig deeper, you will be struck cold by the microaggressions caused by this racial imbalance.

I am Indian American, born in Connecticut and raised by two immigrant parents. I’m sure that my upbringing has made me stand out among my peers. For my parents, I am the product of trial and error and persistence. My parents came to this country and had to build their careers with a limited network; their story is very different from third- and fourth-generation Caucasians who go to my school. I am in eighth grade now, and as my peers get stronger in their political and religious beliefs, I am wondering if they are completely insensitive to other cultures.

I remember, in seventh grade, an instance when we were learning about Islam. Wewere partway through a unit on the Arabian Peninsula. While we were reading the textbook out loud in class, students were snickering and laughing at the religion, mocking their prayers. While I’m not of Islamic faith myself, having non-European roots I can feel for

Hartford Courant | Section 1 | Saturday, March 6, 2021 the people of this religion. After 9/11, Arabs were a big target of religious injustice, even if they had been living in America for decades.

In addition, the growing stereotype that all Asians, including Japanese, Chinese and Indian students, are “good at math” is truly unacceptable. I used to be flattered that people would ask me for help in math, but now I realize that it is only because of my race and not because of my competence. The only reason someone is smart is because they are hardworking and diligent.

The last instance I can remember — that is actually personal

— is when people made fun of my name, and no, it wasn’t your casual teasing. Myname is Shreya, and after watching “Shrek” in Spanish, everyone called me “Shreka.” This may not seem too have a basis in race, but how many times would someone make fun of American names like James or Sarah? The name calling led to multiple meetings with the guidance counselor, and while I wasn’t affected by it at the beginning, after reflecting more on the issue, I felt my self-esteem deteriorate.

I know that the town of Greenwich can’t help that it’s almost 73% non-Hispanic white, but what it can do is teach people to accept diversity in all religions and races. Mymessage is that if you are a minority student and you are the target of unwanted teasing or bullying, you need to advocate for yourself and speak with your guidance counselor. While Greenwich is an amazing, well-to-do town, some schools have a ways to go on diversity.

HARTFORD — State lawmakers debated Friday over making it easier to take firearms away from troubled gun owners as they battled over the Second Amendment.

The lengthy discourse came on the day that lawmakers also debated another controversial bill that would make it legal for civilians to carry stun guns and Tasers that are currently used by law enforcement.

Those topics generated strong opinions by pro-gun and anti-gun advocates at a public hearing of the legislature’s judiciary committee that lasted more than six hours. Nearly 60 people signed up to testify, while more than 550 others submitted written testimony on all sides of the issues — an extremely high number compared to most bills at the state Capitol.

Lawmakers debated a measure that would permit the carrying of stun guns, Tasers or “non-lethal electronic defense weapons” by taking them off the state’s dangerous weapons list. Police have been concerned that officers could be immobilized in a fight if civilians are allowed to carry Tasers, adding that there could have been a tragedy if the rioters at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 had Tasers with them.

Rep. Steven Stafstrom, a Bridgeport Democrat who co-chairs the judiciary committee, said the bill would mark a major change in the law because it would allow someone convicted of a violent felony to lawfully obtain and possess a Taser without having to pass a background check.

“They couldn’t own a gun, but they could possess an electronic defense weapon,” said Deputy Chief State’s Attorney Kevin Lawlor, whose office opposes the bill. “We would object very strongly” to stun guns being taken out of the dangerous weapon statute.

Walter Kupson, a member of the pro-gun Connecticut Citizens Defense League, said the bill represented an important alternative for citizens who do not want to carry a lethal weapon.

“This gives them an excellent ability to defend themselves” without carrying a gun, Kupson said. “I don’t know anyone who carries a stun gun in Connecticut. A stun gun, like pepper spray, could be utilized. They might not want to intentionally kill someone, but they want to defend themselves.’’

Police said that residents can currently keep a taser in their home if they have a dangerous weapons permit, but they are not permitted to freely carry them.

The second bill seeks to make changes to Connecticut’s longstanding “red flag” law regarding taking guns away from residents whoare deemed to be a risk to themselves or others. Supporters said the bill could reduce the number of suicides and homicides with guns.

Currently, the Connecticut law states that a prosecutor or any two police officers can conduct an investigation and file a complaint to the court regarding their concerns in order to have the guns removed. The bill would expand the law to include complaints by “a family or household member or a medical professional” who could bring their concerns directly to a Superior Court judge as proponents said is allowed in 12 other states. Only a judge could order the actual seizure of the guns.

Lawlor, the deputy chief state’s attorney, said the state should “keep the warrant requirement to just prosecutors and police” and essentially create a new, separate process for household members who want to make complaints because of their deep concerns about a person with guns.

Lawmakers said that the person filing the complaint could be a brother or sister-in-law, son or daughter-in-law, and does not have to be a person who lives with the gun owner. The bill does not include neighbors or anonymous phone calls to make a complaint against another neighbor.

Jeremy Stein, the executive director of Connecticut Against Gun Violence, favors the updates to the underlying law, which was enacted after the March 1998 shooting at the state lottery corporation in which four employees were killed before the shooter — a lottery accountant — killed himself. Connecticut became the first state to pass a so-called red flag law in 1999, and at least 19 states have similar laws.

But Sen. Rob Sampson, a conservative Republican from Wolcott, said there was no reason to change the law.

“I don’t understand why we need to change the current standard that we have, which requires the due process of law,” Sampson said. “Are we creating a crime in this legislation — and the crime is you pose an imminent danger to yourself or others? To me, that means we are establishing a new crime. ... I don’t get it. We’re punishing someone for a crime that’s not a crime.’’

Lawlor said he would not characterize it that way, adding that no one would be put in jail under this particular statute.