I see pretty appalling news stories every day on the youth rights news wire, but I have to say this one really got to me.

Basically, school officials in Arizona forced a 13-year-old to strip down all the way, even removing her underwear, just because they suspected she had some ibuprofen. This happened four years ago, and her mother rightfully took this to the courts, only for the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals to side with the school.

You know, you can say all these laws on youth are there to protect them and serve their best interests, under the delusion that adults always know better, but who was being benefited here? Certainly not the girl. What is she and other students being taught when they can be personally violated because of a mere suspicion that they may be carrying a perfectly legal substance?

I mean, at work, there’d be nothing wrong with me having, taking, or giving some ibuprofen to a coworker. We even have a first aid box with some ibuprofen packets for us to use whenever the need arises. Now, if I had cocaine or something, then yes, I’d lose my job and get arrested, and if this girl had cocaine, then I could see some real reason for the strip search.

But ibuprofen? The mild anti-inflammatory pain reliever sitting on our store shelves under the labels of Advil, Motrin, and others? Why am I, a 24-year-old lab assistant, allowed to take some for a headache or offer it to a friend with cramps, yet if a 13-year-old student does it, she’s basically a drug pusher?

You don’t care about her. That’s the truth. These zero tolerance regulations on students, this outright hysteria over drugs and teenagers in general, does not benefit the students in the least. It benefits school administrators who want to look good to the public who doesn’t know any better. Slap together some sensationalist news stories about teens and drugs, get the public terrified that drugs are everywhere, make them want a quick solution, and there you have teens once again being scapegoated so those in charge can make their constituents think they’re solving a problem.

Never mind that this girl was essentially sexually abused. I mean, why was removing her underwear even necessary? That sort of thing should only be done by law enforcement when an actual law is being broken, but in this case, wouldn’t happen because she was breaking no laws. The school just wanted to exert their control.

And that’s the other thing this is about. Most laugh it off, but it’s true. Those in charge think they can get away with treating teenagers so carelessly because, really, they don’t consider them their equals. They believe them to be lesser beings over whom they must dominate. They use the excuse that it’s for their own good, but who was this benefiting? If the girl had the ibuprofen, who is she harming? Theoretically, she could have taken the whole bottle if she wanted to kill herself, but that’s a stupid excuse, since there are so many other ways to kill yourself. Could she have given some to a student who was allergic or otherwise could not have it? Well, it’s up to that student to know better. That isn’t a terribly hard concept for a 13-year-old to grasp. Then again, it does seem a hard concept for their adult overlords to grasp.

No, this is just another example of adults impressing on youth over and over that they are not equals, that being equals is dangerous, being adult is dangerous, being self-reliant is dangerous. Only an adult can choose for herself to take a mild pain reliever or offer one to a friend. When a teen does it, she’s a criminal who has thus sacrificed the right to her own body.

So, yeah, tell me. How is this protecting them? Only thing protected here is the overflated adult chauvinistic ego, which seriously needs to come down a few pegs.

Comments(0)

I’ve taken a few courses on Constitutional Law, I’m not a lawyer, I’m not even a paralegal, but I feel I have a firm enough grounding on the fundamentals of Con Law to feel relatively confident in talking about constitutional guarantees to free speech.

In a story that seems to come right out of the 1700s, a mother of a teenage girl in Gillette, Wyoming wants to ban the book “The Shell Lady’s Daughter” from school libraries because, and I’m quoting, because I couldn’t make up more amusing wording if I tried: “The teenagers in the book show such a lack of moral integrity.” Ladies and gentlemen, she wants to ban the book because the characters might not be upstanding members of society.

Now, what is it these teenagers do that shows their “lack of moral integrity” ? An excellent question. A reasonable person would assume it has something to do with racist remarks, perhaps violence, drug use, betrayal of trust, theft or other such crimes. A reasonable person would be wrong, quite wrong. The “objectionable” material in question is nothing more than mention of, and once again, I’ll quote because it’s just that much more amusing: “sexual relations between teenagers, sexual thoughts, promiscuity, masturbation, deceiving parents, suicide and self-inflicted pain.”
I’m sorry, sexual thoughts show a lack of moral integrity? I must be a complete and utter reprobate then, as well as everyone else over the age of 12! And thoughts of suicide show a lack of moral integrity? Are you joking? I hope that’s a joke because what they really show is the character is going through a period of mental anguish, something that far too many people, especially teenagers, suffer through in silence. To say that a person having thoughts like that “lacks moral integrity” is a gross insult to everyone who suffers in pain and silence because they’re too ashamed to speak about their feelings and get help. If there’s any sort of justice, then there’s a special circle of hell for people who make those who are depressed feel like something is wrong with them, that they somehow “lack moral integrity,” instead of showing some empathy and pity by trying to help them.

What really gets me about this story, what just baffles me, is that the woman complaining about this book, which, incidentally won the American Library Association’s Best Young Adult Book in 1983, says that instead of giving youth books that might have some relevance to their life, that might help them make sense of the incredibly dizzying array of problems teenagers face, is to instead teach them to “cherish their purity.”

Heavens forbid we might try to give people a book that speaks to the unfortunate experiences that almost all teenagers go through in growing up. No, instead let’s give them books that show people living in a bubble, “cherishing their purity” and thus make those who don’t behave that way feel even more isolated and alone. Does this woman even remember what growing up felt like? Does she remember the loneliness and shame that came along with maturing? Does she really want to exacerbate that by making teenagers feel even more like freaks than they may already? What kind of sick twisted desire is that?

Thankfully, educators show a bit more compassion for youth than this deluded mother does. A librarian at the school has been quoted as saying “It’s a good coming-of-age story about a girl who is dealing with a lot of issues that girls deal with at that age. We can’t shelter our kids from reality. These are things that they are going to deal with in their life.”

Yes they are. And when they do, it’ll be comforting for them to know it isn’t abnormal, that other people go through these things too, and that there is an end to them. Teenagers already feel that the issues they go through already make them freakish, abnormal, strange, or “corrupted.” Giving them books that show that this isn’t some abnormal phenomenon can help them cope with their problems and issues that, to any normal person, are a bit overwhelming. Isn’t that what we should be trying to do?

The full article can be found here. Thanks to Monarch91 on the forums for posting the news story for this issue.

Comments(0)

It may seem strange that I posted “Part 2″ after this title, but there was in fact a Part 1. It was posted December 8, 2006, so you have to go back quite a bit to find it. The post was about the opposition a few other students and myself were putting up to a local 7PM curfew for October 30 and 31. I hoped to post an update sooner than this, but it’s better late than never. Here’s the update I promised.

After about 8 months of near-silence (with the exception of a couple e-mails) from the village, I e-mailed the local chapter of New York’s ACLU affiliate. They contacted the village, who agreed to discuss the curfew again at their meeting this past Monday night. I spoke again, and the reaction of the board was fairly similar to last November. The trustees didn’t even remember seeing our suggestions for alternatives to a curfew, which were sent to the village in January. However, one board member did seem more supportive, on constitutional grounds. I had to leave early, but someone from NYCLU who came spoke after I left and was, I heard, received in a similar way.

Tuesday, I heard from a fellow activist that she had been called by the village clerk, who said that a bill had been introduced to repeal the curfew, which would have a public hearing on October 22. An e-mail to the clerk confirmed this. I quickly sprang into action, contacting other supporters, and attempting to get people to attend the public hearing. I’m also attempting to meet with the police, whose recommendation to keep the curfew is a major reason it’s still on the books.

It’ll be tough getting the support together in a month, but if we can and we get the bill passed, it will be a major step for youth rights. Our opponents are many and determined (one approached me after I left the meeting on Monday and began arguing with me about it and vowing to prevent it from being repealed), but mass movements can get something done. Hopefully, this can become a mass movement. Only time will tell.

To hopefully be continued…

Comments(0)

First, I’d just like to introduce myself, my name is Bryan Jennings and I’m an intern at NYRA’s National Office, cozy little place that it is, here in Washington DC. I’m at American University for the Semester, but I usually go to Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster Pennsylvania. Those interested in knowing more are free to ask.

Anyway, I watched parts of the Democratic debate last night in between writing a paper for homework and doing my assigned readings and I have to say I was disappointed. Hillary really dodged a lot of questions that should have warranted honest and straight forward answers. What is more sad is that this evasion and obfuscation is seen as a demonstration of skilled statesmanship. To think, not answering a direct question is seen as a quality that makes for a great leader. If it wasn’t so ridiculous I’d call it amusing.

I was also underwhelmed by the perennial favorite of the youth, Barrack Obama. I’ve said it for some time, but I feel that man has very little in terms of policy ideas or true vision for the country and more of a nebulous view that something is wrong, but he’s cautiously optimistic things can all be put right. That’s what gets me about Obama, the cautious optimism. Not that optimism is bad, Winston Churchill, the best Briton since… well… anyone, said that he’s an optimist since he didn’t see the point to being anything else. But Churchill had passion and bold ideas, the “Blood, Sweat, Toil and Tears” speech was not one of cautious optimism, but of a man that honestly knew how to lead. Obama’s answers to questions were… luke warm at best, and when he could have gone after Hillary for dodging questions, he refused to make it confrontational. While I applaud the idea of backing off bitter political infighting there are times when you just need to call people on their BS.

My favorite point in the evening though only lasted a few minutes. A mother of two teenage boys asked the candidates, starting with Joe Biden, if they would support the government no longer strong arming states with highway funds to adopt the 21 year old drinking age. Not the usual sort of question asked in a presidential debate, and one that I thought was interesting, being a 20 year old and living on a dry campus. Biden, to his credit, didn’t pull any punches and attempt to placate people who might disagree. However, his position was one of adamant opposition to lowering the drinking age, on the grounds that alcoholism is a problem in this country. He made some comment about 300,000 children being born deformed by alcohol.

I’ll give Biden the benefit of the doubt on the numbers, though 300,000 seems incredibly high considering the national population of 300 million (that would mean that roughly .1% of the population of America is born deformed by alcohol every year). However, how many of those births are happening because of people drinking under 21? Does the drinking age prevent alcoholism? Isn’t alcoholism a problem of alcohol abuse instead of alcohol use? He also says that drinking leads to many cases of drunk driving. But again, numbers show that more drunk driving happens with people over 40 (Something I didn’t know until I worked here). Also, in a related study, it was shown that most house fires are caused by fire! I wonder when they’ll set a “fire-starting age” to regulate our nation’s fireplaces and wood stoves? He then talked about negotiating health care prices or something? I didn’t really follow it. Astonishingly, Biden’s response received no applause. That’s right. None.
We then move on to another of the Democratic longshots who still remains a very prominent Senator, Chris Dodd. I really like Dodd, I interned with him over the summer. I think he’d make a good president, but his view on alcohol is, like many politicians, backwards. He said that the evidence is “overwhelming.” Indeed it is Senator, but not in the way you think. After we raised the drinking age drunk driving was reduced in the 18-21 year old age bracket. The problem is, it went up, by a nearly identical number in the 21-24 year old age bracket. What more, it didn’t change at all in those areas that already have a 21 year old drinking age before the law went into effect. Oh, and I forgot to mention, 40 year olds still cause more drunk driving accidents than both those age groups put together. The evidence, as the good Senator says, is overwhelming. Dodd also received no applause.

Richardson was up next and he too was opposed to lowering the drinking age back to a reasonable level. He did say how the focus should be on rehabilitating those who abuse alcohol and putting money into medical research in general, he also talked about the importance of educating people about alcohol which is not a horrible answer. Sensing something of a pattern, the moderator, Tim Russert, asked if any candidates supported the drinking age being lowered. I was pessimistic, perhaps I should take lessons from Obama, but to my general astonishment, Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich were the voices of reason. Gravel, in his usual tone of “Angry Man Scaring Teenagers Off His Lawn” had this to say:

“I think we should lower it so that anyone who can fight and die for this country can have a drink!” and finished by pointing accusingly at the camera.

The audience went wild, apparently Gravel said something that resonated with voters. Who’d have thought? Not to be outdone, Dennis Kucinich put forth an even more bold proposal:

“I think that not only about service, but we have to have confidence in young Americans and a president who reaches out to them and talks to them about drinking responsibly is much better than a president who tells them ‘Thall Shalt Not’ because young people will do what they do. But they’re looking for leadership from a president, I’m ready to provide that. Of course they should be able to drink at age 18 and they should be able to vote at age 16.”

That got more applause and a bit of laughter, my guess would be on the comment on voting. Putting aside his cute little bit of self-aggrandizement on leadership, Kucinich basically said what NYRA has believed all along: that we need to have faith in young people and that if you give them responsibility, they’ll respond positively. The comment about the voting age was really the most shocking thing to me, and apparently to Kucinich’s campaign as well. According to a NYRA member that actually works in his campaign, no one in the campaign expected him to say that.

I’m glad he did though. Kucinich and Gravel are both seen as longshots, no question, and I don’t realistically see any of them capturing the general election if they somehow manage to make the primary, but having politicians, elected officials, officially endorse what is easily one of the most common sense policy ideas NYRA has is very encouraging. I wished someone of the stature of a Dodd or a Biden had said the same, but I didn’t expect much less, they’re Senators, they’re used to not causing controversy unless it’s very well staged on their terms. (Well, except for Biden, the man knows how to run his mouth, but he’s certainly gotten better).

I also wonder how much of politician’s opposition to lowering the drinking age comes from the remarkably powerful lobby MADD has. They have a multi-million dollar budget, and are strong political advocates, and it’s tough not to sympathize with their position. I think drunk driving is awful too, I just completely disagree with how they approach it. Who knows, maybe one day someone over there will actually agree their approach isn’t working and start playing for the good guys. Until then, we’ll have Kucinich and our friend from Alaska to carry on the fight. And us of course

Comments(1)