by Chad D. Baus and Jim Irvine

This week, an Associated Press article by Julie Carr Smyth, entitled “Ohio’s state school board urged not to arm teachers,” hit the wires and shot around the state and across the country.

The article is making waves because, according to Carr Smyth, Attorney General Mike DeWine made comments at a State Board of Education meeting that go against his previously-expressed support for arming employees in school buildings to stop an armed killer inside a building.

Other officials are quoted painting a picture of unified opposition to armed persons in our schools, both in the original AP article, and also in a follow-up article published by the Columbus Dispatch, entitled “State public-safety chief rejects arming teachers.”

After investigating the assertions and quotes presented in these articles, we can report that the truth is a far different story.

Perhaps the true goal of these articles was exposed in Joe Vardon’s opening sentence in the Dispatch story, when he suggested that the quotes contained in the articles might succeed in “…blunting any momentum behind proposals to arm teachers.” Many school boards are already moving ahead with armed protection, and it seems some are desperate to derail this progress.

Consider again the AP headline, “Ohio’s state school board urged not to arm teachers,” and consider also how DeWine’s comments are being spun by liberal Ohio blog site “Plunderbund” in it’s coverage of this article: “DeWine changes his mind on arming teachers.”

But is either headline correctly describing DeWine’s comments?

Not according to DeWine’s office, and not according to a comparison of his comments on Tuesday to those made last December immediately following the attack on Sandy Hook Elementary.