Our country is shaken up today and trying to find answers, one day after the horrifying shooting at the United States Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC by a racist, anti-semitic extremist, killing an innocent security guard named Stephen Johns, and it happened not two weeks after another crazy extremist gunned down Kansas abortion provider George Tiller.
Naturally, we have everyone talking about the problems in our society with bigotry and hate crimes, with the fear of more domestic terrorism from crazy extremists. With it comes another question. How do these people get so hateful?
While I of course do not have a definite answer on that, there is a rather large portion of the population that can very easily be made to learn only hate and denied any access to information contrary to the hate. Those people are children and teens.
Because “everyone knows” that it is a parent’s job to instill values into their children, that parents have a “right” to raise their children however they see fit, it is believed that parents have the “right” to decide what information and media their children receive. It’s a common fall-back our free speech allies use against video game restrictions and library censorship, that it should be the parents and not the government or any other non-parent entity who decides what children read, play, etc. In that particular no-win this-or-that, whether parents or the government should be deciding what kids should be reading or playing, obviously the parents is the option to go with, but it’s really annoying that to so many these are the only two options, completely ignoring the rather important third option of “neither”, that the kids themselves should be the only ones to make that decision. (more…)
A number of news stories have come out lately about concerned groups seeking to ban books they find objectionable or inappropriate for kids, for a variety of reasons. One group in Wisconsin successfully got several teen books banned for depicting homosexuality. In Tennessee, some parents are trying to get books removed from library shelves for discussing sexual abuse, racism, self-cutting, and a number of other issues. They are also trying to remove a book about anorexia believing it would encourage teens to become anorexic. The list goes on.
The National Youth Rights Association opposes these efforts to “shield” teens from supposedly objectionable literature. Teenagers’ minds belong only to themselves and are not there for adults to mold as they wish. The only person who should be making decisions about what books a young person reads is that young person herself. Not her teachers. Not her principal. Not some “concerned” group of citizens. Not even her parents. She, and only she, is the one to make that decision. (more…)
I’m going to ask a question that is often asked in regards to issues with youth: where are the parents? Of course, this question is always asked with very different meanings.
Just today, two sources have inspired me to ask this question. The first was this blog post by a feminist blogger I’ve been following on Twitter. It contains accounts of how she as well as some of her commenters have suffered sexual abuse in the past (unwanted activity ranging from touching of breasts, grinding, all the way up to full on rape), that which for varying reasons they did not even recognize as abuse right away. They still felt very violated, of course, but were pressured into keeping their mouths shut, that it wasn’t a big deal and they shouldn’t be making a big thing of it. Which served only to shame them more, causing them to remain quiet and more ashamed when abuses got more severe, even in cases of rape. And in most of these cases, they were around 14 years old, give or take a couple years.
Very saddened by these horrible stories, I asked myself why they didn’t realize what was happening was truly wrong, that they had every right and reason to feel violated and expect the perpetrator to be punished for treating them inappropriately. Of course, this question was answered right there in that entry, as well as several others this blogger has written on the subject. The victims felt immobilized because of shame, as mentioned already, as well as fear that if they made it known they felt abused they would be subject to worse abuse. So we’re left with them having to suffer in silence.
Increasingly, children seem to have no standing in the public sphere as citizens and as such are denied any sense of entitlement and agency. Children have fewer rights than almost any other group, and fewer institutions protecting these rights. Consequently, their voices and needs are almost completely absent from the debates, policies and legislative practices that are constructed in terms of their needs. This is not to suggest that adults do not care about youth, but most of those concerns are framed within the realm of the private sphere of the family and can be seen most clearly in the moral panics mobilized around drugs, truancy and kids killing each other.
And:
As the protocols of governance become indistinguishable from military operations and crime-control missions, youth are more and more losing the protections, rights, security or compassion they deserve in a viable democracy. The model of policing that now governs all kinds of social behaviors constructs a narrow range of meaning through which young people define themselves. Moreover, the rhetoric and practice of policing, surveillance and punishment have little to do with the project of social investment and a great deal to do with increasing powerful modes of regulation, pacification and control - together comprising a “youth control complex” whose prominence in American society points to a state of affairs in which democracy has lost its claim and the claiming of democracy goes unheard.
As if hearing such a forceful defense of youth from one of the foremost advocates of our cause wasn’t enough to make my day, I noticed he also quoted me. Very cool.
This was posted to the NYRA forums on January 15. It’s about time that someone thought about the power of science and did an actual statistical investigation into the risks of online social networking. The result? Social networking sites aren’t nearly as dangerous as some people would like us to think. I was particularly interested in this comment in the article: “Some fall prey, and the results are tragic. That harsh reality defies the statistical academic research underlying the report.” Tragic events do happen, of course. These events are terrible but extremely rare. Almost every beneficial technology ever invented can have tragic consequences in very rare circumstances, from electrical wiring to the airplane. So the report does not, as this commentator seems to imply, ignore the real threat of online solicitations of children. The report presents these events as exactly what they are: statistical rarities that are tragic when they occur but occur in very small numbers when compared to the number of users of sites like Facebook.
I don’t mean to discount the tragedy that social networking has brought to some families. However, child predators are not somehow unique to the Internet, and social networking sites do not allow them unique access to children. The Internet represents a cross-section of society. As this article states, online communities, like real communities, are populated mainly by well-meaning people. Like real communities, they possess the occasional person who will want to do harm to others. Of course, this person could also be a teacher at school, a member of the church or even a member of a child’s family (in fact, the latter is statistically far more likely than any of the other possibilities mentioned.) Tragedies will always occur. However, the way to avoid tragedy is to be careful. Just like nobody would protect their children from predators by keeping them home from school, and just like the benefits of getting on an airplane far outweigh the very unlikely possibility of a crash, it does little benefit to shield children from the Internet.
Often ignored are the very real benefits of the Internet, and even of social networking itself. Spending hours on Facebook may not be the best assistant in getting work done, but such social interactions are important for normal development. Students who aren’t allowed to talk to friends during classes need time to do so after school. When friends live far away, chatting online may be easier and more convenient for parents and children. Social networking sites can also be used to keep up with friends, such as those from camp, who one might be unlikely to see in person again. One can even interact with people of similar interests from around the world, teaching about other cultures and imparting lessons of tolerance and acceptance in a way a lecture could not.
While there are dangers to any technology, social networking sites, like most technologies, provide benefits as well. When simple, common-sense safety procedures are followed, the benefits of these technologies can outweigh the unlikely risks
So I’m doing some research on Redding v. Safford (more on that later) and I see the US Supreme Court granted certiorari to another case on the same day as Redding. It looked to be about special education and who gets the bill for it. Somewhat dry stuff from a youth rights perspective, so I was about to move on when I noticed something from the LA Times description:
An Oregon case the justices agreed to take up will decide a dispute over special education.
Federal law says schools must provide a “free appropriate public education” to students with a disability. This can include paying tuition at a private school, but it is unclear whether parents first must try a public program before they can claim reimbursement for the cost of a private school.
Last year, the 9th Circuit said the Forest Grove School District must pay the $5,200 monthly cost of a private program for a child with attention deficit disorder. The court will hear the appeal in April.
The ‘disability’ the student had was ADD. That seemed like an odd disability to require a special private school. I probed deeper.
In the case at hand, unidentified Oregon parents decided to withdraw their son from the Forest Grove School District because they felt the student was not receiving adequate education and services.
During his freshman year of high school, the boy was referred for an evaluation to determine whether he had a learning disability that qualified him for services under IDEA. The team of specialists unanimously concluded that student, known in filings as T.A., did not have a learning disability and therefore was ineligible for special education. T.A.’s mother, who attended the meeting, agreed with that determination. No one ever followed up on either the reference to “[p]ossible 504” in the psychologist’s report or the references
to “suspected ADHD” in the School District’s staff meeting notes.
At some point during the next year, T.A. began using marijuana. Eventually, his use became regular, and he exhibited noticeable personality changes. T.A. ran away from home. The police brought him back a few days later. T.A.’s parents took him to a psychologist and, eventually, to a hospital emergency room.
Dr. Fulop, a psychologist hired by T.A.’s parents, met with T.A. a number of times in early 2003. Dr. Fulop held several lengthy sessions immediately after T.A. ran away from home, and he eventually diagnosed T.A. with ADHD, depression, math disorder, and cannabis abuse. Dr. Fulop recommended a residential program.
His parents enrolled him in Mount Bachelor Academy, a residential private school that describes itself as “designed for children who may have academic, behavioral, emotional, or motivational problems.” His parents requested a hearing to require the school district to evaluate T.A. in all areas of suspected disability. A multi-disciplinary team of school officials acknowledged T.A.’s learning difficulties, his diagnosis of ADHD, and his depression, but a majority found that T.A. did not qualify under the IDEA in the areas of learning disability, ADHD, or depression, because those diagnoses did not have a severe effect on T.A.’s educational performance.
Many red flags went up after reading this, so I looked into Mount Bachelor Academy. Sure enough, the Fornits crowd have their eye on the program. It sounds like one of the behavior modification programs we all know and love (i.e. hate).
After some brief searching I have yet to find any information about the case on Fornits, CAFETY, CAICA, or ISAC. So either I’m wrong in assuming Mount Bachelor Academy or the advocate community just hasn’t been alerted yet. Well I’m happy for NYRA to break the news!
I just let CAFETY know, they/we are mobilized on it. I e-mailed Bazelon. I need to spread the word to everyone else as well. The more help the better.
This was recently posted in the Behavior Modicification board on the forums. The post tells the story of a boy sent to a treatment program by his father without the mother’s consent.
Despite this being a sad story, nothing struck me as particularly surprising about it. People send thier kids off to behavior modification programs everyday. It was only a matter of time before a kid was sent off without both parents consent. I didn’t notice anything odd until the second or third time I had read the thread. The title stuck out to me. “14 year old boy robbed from his mother and put in a program,” the title read. “14 year old boy ROBBED from his mother….”
Why do we defend the rights of youth? Among the numerous reasons, we’ve had enough of the testimonials.
So many young people come to us with their accounts of their lives at home and school. To what many people would dismiss as dramatic teenage whining, we listen. Unlike everyone else in their lives, we take them seriously. Why would they be the liars, but their parents and teachers are necessarily telling the truth? Their ages? Obviously a poor factor there. What else? Oh, you mean age was the only reason? Well, in that case, your theory is faulty, so let’s go with that the young victims are truthful.
Each year, over 2,000 children and teens die at the hands of their parents, and 350,000 more are severely abused. Why don’t we hear about this? Because, God forbid, the media or politicians make any statements pointing out fault with the traditional family. Instead, they’d rather pretend the greatest dangers to a kid are that he watches Dragonball Z and plays Mortal Kombat, and conveniently ignore that his father beats him every night. And, of course, only the former will be called into blame when he shoots up his school someday.
Young guys get hauled off to spend the night in jail because they shoved their mothers, as the police have no interest in the abuse the mother was causing beforehand, and simply tell the young victim that she had every right to do it.
Girl is forced into a psychiatric ward because her parents insist she is crazy, and the ward takes their word for it rather than testing her. The reason she is having these issues, most likely the psychological torture her parents put her through for years, is unimportant to these people.
Corporal punishment remains a legal parenting tool, even for teens. People don’t want to believe parents would hit their kids for reasons other than discipline. They’ll pretend the girl getting brutal swats from a belt on a regular basis because she disagrees with her father’s political views doesn’t exist.
And the abuse only breeds more abuse. The abused grew up with this distorted idea of love, so this is what they give, as they become abusive spouses and parents themselves. They believe their children are theirs to do as they wish with, just as their own parents believed of them. And the casualties are numerous and societally overlooked.
Don’t forget the infamous behavior modification facilities. Parents can just ship their kids off to these places if they don’t like their behavior. The facilities institute “tough love” measures to “cure” teens of undesirable behavior, but most of these places are unregulated and utilize potentially deadly restraint practices, and brutal disciplinary measures. Dozens have died, and hundreds more come out psychologically damaged. Why must they endure this? They have no trial. Their parents merely signed a form, and off they went. But does the media care? No. They’re more interested in Barack Obama’s priest’s anti-American remarks than the suffering of innocent American teens.
So it’s up to us to make the change. Once we get the voting age lowered and empower youth to realize they are entitled to the same human rights as adults, that they do not have to live as oppressed children but as capable young citizens, then we can see some real change. Kids are abused because their abusers believe them to be inferior and subhuman, and no one cares enough to tell them otherwise. Kids are property, and they believe the extremely dangerous and lethal excuse that this is for their own good.
So next time you think youth don’t need rights or that their suffering is petty, you seriously need to take a closer look. Prepare to be appalled. Prepare to be unable to sleep at night knowing the prevalence, wondering what’s going on with the young voiceless residents in your neighbor’s house. This can’t continue.
It was early last month when Jane Hambleton of Fort Dodge found the bottle under the front seat of her 19-year-old son’s pride and joy.
Her next move was a call to The Des Moines Register’s classified advertising department:
OLDS 1999 Intrigue
“Totally uncool parents who obviously don’t love teenage son, selling his car. Only driven for 3 weeks before snoopy mom who needs to get a life found booze under front seat. $3,700/offer. Call meanest mom on the planet.”
The son soon found himself on foot. And the meanest mom on the planet became the target of accolades from across Iowa and beyond.
Hambleton, 48, a disc jockey, said she has fielded more than 70 telephone calls from emergency room technicians, nurses, school counselors and even a Georgia man, who wanted to congratulate her.
“The ad cost a fortune, but you know what? I’m telling people what happened here. I’m not just going to put the car for resale when there’s nothing wrong with it, except the driver made a dumb decision,” Hambleton said. “It’s overwhelming, the number of calls I’ve gotten from people saying, ‘Thank you, it’s nice to see a responsible parent.’ So far, there are no calls from anyone saying, ‘You’re really strict. You’re real overboard, lady.’ ”
Steven Hambleton, a freshman business major at Briar Cliff University in Sioux City, obviously was not one of the callers. And he didn’t feel much like talking when contacted Tuesday.
“I don’t think you can print” his response to the ad, his mother said. “He’s very, very unhappy.”
Jane Hambleton described her son as a great kid who does excellently in college and is active in church. But she’ll stick to her guns, even though Steven Hambleton said that the bottle of alcohol wasn’t his, and that someone else had left it in his (former) car.
For the record, Mom believes him.
But she and her husband set two rules when they bought the car at Thanksgiving: No booze, and always keep the car locked. The car sold within two weeks, but Hambleton said she will continue the ad for another week - just for the feedback.
“A couple in Hubbard bought it for their 19-year-old son,” she said. “I told the kid when they were leaving, ‘Do not have any booze in that car. And if you do, don’t hide it under the front seat.’ “
When you are finished vomiting, come on back here for commentary.
Basically some self-righteous mother decided to sell her 19-year-old son’s car because she found an alcohol bottle in it. If that weren’t enough, the ad she put in the newspaper to sell the car explicitly stated she was doing this to get back at him, that he had “violated her car rules” so she was punishing him.
So let’s review. No indication that he was actually drinking and driving. She saw something in his car she didn’t like and decided he wasn’t allowed to have it anymore, so she sold it, something he loves (and who can blame him, I love my car, too!) behind his back and without his consent. She found an alcohol bottle, so she decided to make his life hell.
If only it stopped there! Because of the little ad she put, explaining what she was doing and why, a lot of people decided to call her up and congratulate her! She was being this big bad “tough disciplinarian” on her (adult) son, so everyone thinks she’s some kind of hero. At first, I thought this was just a lot of media exaggeration, until I went to the article itself and saw the comments. I’m still having trouble keeping my lunch down after reading that.
So what does this mean? It means it is socially acceptable to publicly humiliate a teenager. I mean, what if this woman had done this to her husband instead of her son? Would you be congratulating her? Might be some, but there’d be a lot more people probably complaining to her that she had no right to do something like that to a “grown man”. That would probably not even be newsworthy. But humiliating your son gets you national commendations.
I mean, I can’t imagine how he feels right now. His mother betrayed him, stole and sold something he loved, and now the whole state and beyond is laughing at him and saying he deserved it, that his mother needed to be strict with him. Betrayed by a loved one, lost a major cherished possession, and publicly humiliated and called out.
And what for? Because there was a beer bottle in his car and he’s under 21? Has our society gotten so hysterical over the thought of anyone under 21 even being near alcohol that this sort of widespread mocking is called for? I mean, if he was actually drinking and driving, maybe, but it was not stated if he was in the article, and it would have said if he had, so I’m going to assume he is innocent of that.
This is the power parents have over their children, even ones over age of adulthood. It is appalling. It is inhuman. Worst of all, it is a disgusting perversion of the concept of love in our society. To love is to make someone miserable based on your own personal morals? Well, if that someone is under 21, then yes, I guess it is.
This blog entry is partially a response to the e-mail below, and partially a general comment, so not everything is gonna be directly related to or in response to this quoted bit:
Well that is definitely an issue but not the only one. There are many steps it making this country bearable again and that isnt my only concern. Granted it is an issue but i think we can live without alcohol for a little while. What about our right to privacy? You know the patriot act allows the government to tap into your phone lines and listen to your conversation with just a flick of a switch. No questioning. The war is out of hand and just about everyone is either against it or fed up with it. I am personally more concerned about that rather then when I get to drink a beer and when I don’t. I would hope that would not be your ONLY reason for selecting a candidate…
The Patriot Act is extremely mild compared to the many infringements on privacy that young people are subjected to. If you care about the right to privacy, consider the following.
The Patriot Act doesn’t require that individuals submit to random, suspicionless drug testing as many schools and indeed some parents are now requiring. Unlike drug testing at work, youth usually don’t have any choice whether to be at school or live with their parents.
The Patriot Act doesn’t allow authorities to search through an individual’s property without probable cause like schools do with lockers and parents do with everything.
The Patriot Act allows for increased use of wiretaps and monitoring of e-mail but nothing close to the kind of tracking software parents regularly place on their kid’s computers that tracks and records every keystroke and action taken with the computer. Every website, every word typed, every program used is recorded and sent to parents.
The Patriot Act may allow the government, in some cases, to look at what books you are checking out, but it doesn’t outright ban you from looking at or listening to certain books, movies, websites, magazines and music like age restrictions do.
While not part of the Patriot Act, no doubt you are alarmed by the increasing use of security cameras in public places watching our every move. That pales in comparison to the ways teens are tracked. Parents have taken to putting GPS tracking devices into backpacks and cars. Plus many cell phones now have GPS enabled on them and parents use those to track their kid’s movements. Furthermore there are computers parents install in cars that record every turn you make, how fast you go, how complete a stop you make, etc.
More directly, parents are even installing cameras in their kid’s bedrooms to monitor them at all times. Or removing their bedroom doors so they have no privacy whatsoever. This is all perfectly legal and happens all across the country.
As you of course know, the government (via schools) controls what clothes you wear, how you style your hair, whether you can have a cell phone or other electronic device, and what you can say or write in school. The Patriot Act doesn’t come close to that.
The war is indeed an important issue. But who is it that we are sending overseas to fight and die in that war? Young people. Young people who probably weren’t old enough to vote for the politicians that sent them to that war. Young people who risk their lives in the desert and are not treated as equals in this country or given the respect they deserve for making such a sacrifice. They return home and unlike most Americans can’t open a can of beer while watching a football game, or go out to a bar with a few buddies, or even attend many concerts. Over 645 young Americans have died in the desert while never being respected as equals in the nation that sent them there.
The infringements on the privacy of youth are more extreme than the Patriot Act ever was or will be, and affect far more people on a daily basis. After being raised as youth with no expectation of privacy is it any wonder people don’t value privacy as much when they get older and get into power? And while I’m not going to say that the drinking age is more important than the war, it directly relates to the war and is another injustice heaped upon young people that absolutely needs to be addressed.
Youth rights isn’t just some side project or a somehow a selfish, small issue that distracts from ‘bigger’ issues out in the world. I know you didn’t say that, and I’m not saying people should vote only on the basis of youth rights, but youth rights is a HUGE issue that deserves a lot more attention and respect than it currently gets - even from NYRA members. Cause if we don’t put youth rights first, who will?
Finally, if you (and this isn’t just directed to you) oppose the Patriot Act and the War and invasions on privacy and everything else, did you vote for candidates who opposed those policies? Were you able to or were you prevented from voting by the voting age? Who knows how different the country would be today if you and your peers were able to vote.
Youth rights is directly intertwined with all other issues you care about in society. It should never be put on the backburner, even in an election year.
It is idle to talk of civil liberties to adults who were systematically taught in adolescence that they had none; and it is sheer hypocrisy to call such people freedom loving. - Edgar Friedenberg
Why don't you 
