Becoming a more egalitarian individual in respect to age is a continual process.  It requires constant examination of all the habits, ideas, and attitudes we develop in life.  In general we learn how to behave and how to think from the people around us.  Our thoughts on politics, our mannerisms, our religious beliefs, our tastes in style and culture all come from the society in which we live.  This presents a challenge for the youth rights activist since our society is a very ageist society and we are unconsciously influenced by it.

From time to time I try to examine these subtle manifestations of ageism and expose their roots and the harm they cause.  Coming home from work today I noticed a young man wearing a very baggy t-shirt and pants.   It seemed like it would be extremely hot to wear what he was wearing.  What makes this story interesting is that I used to wear baggy clothes.  Now my tastes have changed and I prefer more form-fitting clothes.

For a split second as I was considering my switch from baggy to fit clothes I congratulated myself.  As if I had finally solved the mystery of ultimate clothes size comfort and poor fools like the guy on the street were still struggling in discomfort and ignorance.  But was I truly an enlightened clothes wearer now?  No, not really.  My tastes had simply changed.  There is nothing objectively better or worse about baggy clothes.

But why did I have such a gut level initial reaction?
(more…)

Comments(0)

When I first read of the opening for an internship with the National Youth Rights Association, I had to read the name twice. “What are Youth Rights?” I asked myself. I believe that I know at least a little about the world. I know that there are children who suffer from starvation and poverty each day in the United States and across the world. I know that the education that youth receives never seems to steadily improve. Yet what ‘rights’ does a high school sophomore have other than not being forced into labor and saying no to drugs.

Growing up in Chattanooga, Tennessee, I understood that I had privileges. I was privileged to learn to drive at 16. I was privileged to see movies with ratings between G and P-13. I was privileged to work in a grocery store and save tip money to buy clothes. Actions such as voting, assembly and free speech were important to me, but they didn’t seem that relevant. Who cared what I thought of the state of the government? It wasn’t until I was a high school junior when I actually began to apply the U.S. Constitution to the freedoms I have. So, reading that teenagers were actually upset that they couldn’t vote was a surprise to me.

Then I thought of this very valuable word called incentive, which brought me back to my freshman year in college, 2004. It was November, during the Bush and Kerry race for President. On voting day, I woke up and rushed to my car to pass the building where voting was taking place to get to my psychology class. “I’ll vote on my way home,” I said to myself while driving. I hadn’t chosen a candidate, and honestly I didn’t see that much coming out of my single measly vote. But after a day of classes and an incident that kept me from making it back to the voting polls in time, I came home only to be disgusted at the news broadcasts with the hyperactive graphics on the screen and the bouncy reporters trying to interpret them and declare a winner. I complained to my father for over an hour about my disappointment with politics but only to be silenced when he said, “you still should have voted.” I didn’t vote because throughout my adolescence, I never developed an appreciation for the opportunity, the right and arguably the duty to vote.
I told myself that I would vote later because I would’ve risked missing class if I did it that morning. But if I really valued my right to vote at age 18, in the midst of a critical election, I would’ve left early that morning to do so. But voting didn’t seem like a right or duty to me, it was simply an optional privilege. The National Youth Rights Association is important because it provides young people with that incentive to voice themselves and to take advantage of rights that are not even valued by many adults. As I work this summer to help people across the states in starting chapters, I hope to give them a spark that will keep them focused on using their rights whenever they can.

Comments(1)

My school’s youth rights club recently distributed a survey in history classes to see where students currently stand on various youth rights issues. We ended up getting back 742 responses, approximately half the school. First, we attempted to recreate a recently published survey that showed that many more students consider themselves capable of voting than consider others their age capable of voting. Our results definitely confirmed this. 60% of students said they were capable of voting, but only 25% trusted must high school students to vote.

Another interesting result was that students actually bought into the voting age as something other than arbitrary. 50% of 14-year-olds, 51% of 15-year-olds, 55% of 16-year-olds, 64% of 17-year-olds and 89% of 18-year-olds considered themselves capable of voting.

Surprisingly, the most acceptable age restriction to students who responded was the driving age (70%), followed by dress codes (50%). Least acceptable were restrictions on free speech further than those applied to adults (12%). 31% believed that schools should require mandatory community service, 25% believed that curfews can be justified, 27% believed random drug testing should be allowed on students and 29% for random locker checks. 96% of students believe that schools should provide education on current events.

All in all, I was impressed by the results. Respondants in general didn’t seem to consider ageist restrictions justified, and many gave youth rights-friendly answers. I was especially impressed with the results for students’ free speech and privacy rights, which were very important to people who answered the survey. However, to some extent, students surveyed did believe what they hear about themselves and their peers in terms of voting ability.

Following this, on May 1, we invited Alex Koroknay-Palicz to lead three discussions at the school on curfews, voting age and student rights. A number of students came during their lunch periods and one teacher brought a government class to two of the discussions. While it was a fairly small group, everyone was very involved and interested and the discussion was extremely active. More details and photos are here: http://www.youthrights.org/forums/showthread.php?t=11030&page=2

Comments(0)

Proposed Bills: S.0133, H.0026, H.530

The Vermont legislature is currently passing a bill that will ban hand held cell phones while driving (for teen drivers or for all drivers depending on whether the house’s version or the senate’s version passes). It will also make not wearing a seatbelt a primary violation, meaning the police can pull people over if they see someone not wearing their seatbelt. And most controversially, the house’s version will ban youth drivers from driving between 12:00am and 5:00am unless going to or returning from a school function or a job.

A law that bans cell phones is legitimate as long AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT DESCRIMINATE BY AGE. According to the associated press in an article “Several states bar teen drivers using cell phones”, studies show that youth drivers impaired and distracted by using a cell phone have average reaction times equal to senior citizens. If this is such a big safety concern then why only address youth impairment? Senior citizens must be even more dangerous when using a cell phone. This law could not pass if it restricted only senior citizens from using cell phones, even though they would be doubly impaired. The house’s ban on hand held cell phones is acceptable morally if possibly ineffective, but banning even hands free phones for youth and not for adults is discriminatory and unjustified. The senate’s ban on youth using cell phones on the road is even more broadly discriminatory.

The teen-driving curfew is completely unjustifiable, and can be seen easily as discriminatory in light of the exceptions that go along with it. Apparently the only acceptable things for a teen to do (at night or otherwise) are school, school related activities, and work. The other objections that were given were equally condescending. Turkey hunting, family duties and other such, legitimate, and wholesome activities were cited as justified excursions that would be banned by the law. Are teens unfit for social interaction? The law clearly is aimed at late night teen parties, but is it acceptable to say that teens should not be able to have parties in the nighttime? Apparently because some youth drinking parties exist, all gatherings should be illegal. Of coarse adults have infinite legitimate reasons to be on the road at night, including social gatherings if I know anything about the minds of adults, but the legitimate things that would justify teens on the road at night are only school and work (and maybe hunting, family necessity, or some such other question). Even the progressive Vermont legislature is disturbingly ageist, a hotbed of discrimination against Vermont’s youth.

Also making lack of a seatbelt a primary violation will do more to help law enforcement circumvent the law than to strengthen safety regulations.

“Every study shows seat belts save lives. Every study shows seat belts save money. Every law enforcement agency in this state supports primary seat-belt enforcement.” said Rep. Andrew Donaghy, R-Poultney.

Why would representative Andrew Donaghy care what law enforcement agencies think about seatbelt requirements? Law enforcement’s is not an expert on safety measures, especially not seatbelts. Even if Vermont law enforcement had performed their own research on seat belt effectiveness, their bias would make their recommendations worthless. If a police officer can pull anyone over for not wearing (or supposedly not wearing) their seatbelt, it gives them more freedom to detain people for other reasons. The police already take advantage of primary violations like failing to use a turning signal or hanging something from a rear view mirror to stop youth suspected of going to or leaving a party, and the seatbelt law would only make it easier for them. Even if they can only claim that they saw a seatbelt off, once a car has been stopped they can ask questions and look in the car towards whatever goal they have.

Comments(0)

More good voting age news out of Europe:

The governing assembly of the central Swiss canton (state) of Glarus decided Sunday to lower to 16 the age at which citizens can participate in local and cantonal elections.

Despite heavy rain, the traditional open-air “Landsgemeinde” assembly of citizens approved the proposal by the Young Socialists to lower the voting age from 18.

It took three shows of hands before the cantonal chief Roebi Marti declared that the proposal had been narrowly approved. As is traditional, no vote totals were announced.

Glarus is the only one of the 26 Swiss cantons to have lowered the age from the national standard of 18. The vote left unchanged the minimum age of 18 to hold cantonal offices.

Swiss canton drops voting age to 16

Comments(0)