Bill could give federal oversight to private clinics for children and would require FDA inspections
In a move that could have implications for D.C.’s troubled special education system, a panel of lawmakers Wednesday passed sweeping legislation that gives federal authorities the right to inspect private children’s clinics and schools.
The bill would require the federal Department of Health and Human Services to inspect therapeutic schools, clinics, camps and ranches every two years and to fine or shut down any outfit that fails minimum standards for safety and care. It passed the House Education and Labor Committee by a vote of 27-16.
Proponents of the measure said it would protect children and their families from fly-by-night operators who promise miracle cures to mentally ill or disabled children and then warehouse the children with little regard to their safety or welfare.
Thousands of D.C. kids have been shipped to camps and clinics all over the country for decades. There have been repeated complaints of abuse and low standards, but as The Examiner has reported, D.C. officials were hardly aware of where the kids were, let alone what was happening to them.
It’s a program that will cost taxpayers nearly $210 million this year.
Tom Kiley, spokesman for health committee Chairman George Miller, D-Calif., told The Examiner that the bill was necessary to keep kids out of harm’s way.
“A number of children from the District, like thousands of children from all over the country, have been sent across state lines to residential programs where physical, sexual and emotional abuse has occurred,” he said in an e-mail. “We want to make sure that kids are safe no matter what state or setting they are in.”
The legislation has encountered resistance from trade associations linked to the lucrative private clinic and camp industry.
Opponents of the bill said it’s an unnecessary layer of government interference imposed on an industry that’s capable of policing itself.
Miller’s bill now moves on to the full House floor for passage.
As the article said, the bill passed committee and is now going to the full House. This bill is absolutely critical for the rights of youth and their health and safety as well. All NYRA members are strongly urged to support this bill. Typically NYRA is in a position where we are arguing for rights, equality and freedom against those who are too willing to strip away freedom and equality for the idea of health & safety.
This issue however is one of the rare ones where such interests align. Moreover the issue of abuse in teen residential treatment centers shows quite clearly that denying equal rights to youth does not keep them safe but instead exposes them to more danger, more harm, and more risk. These programs generally paid for by parents who just “want what’s best for their kids” are rife with physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse and mental abuse of all kinds.
It makes me sick to think that when the country is paranoid about sexual predators lying in wait for our children on MySpace there are dozens and dozens of well documented cases of sexual abuse and much worse at these camps that doesn’t get near that level of public fear and panic. Why? Why does the media focus all their fear mongering on “stranger-danger” and the Internet instead of on real threats like Tranquility Bay, Peninsula Village, Ivy Ridge and all the rest.
I can think of only two reasons: ignorance and control.
It is plausible, and for some time I assumed this was the chief reason, that most in the mainstream media simply hadn’t heard of these programs. Hadn’t heard of the abuse that regularly occurs there. Hadn’t heard of the death, abuse, and trauma that youth are subjected to.
This can no longer be assumed.
Thanks to the amazing work of Rep. George Miller the issue of abuse in the “troubled teen industry” has gotten national press exposure. Victims have had their day in the spotlight testifying in front of Congress. Several victims who I know personally were there to testify. And, to the media’s credit, they wrote stories about the bill and did pieces on the news about it. Yet compared to the coverage devoted to MySpace, video games and any other mythical dangers for our youth this coverage pales in comparison.
So my only thought left is that the main issue here is one of control. If kids are abused, killed, and traumatized for life under the watchful eye of parents or authority figures for their “own good” then society seems to be generally ok with that. Maybe the authority crossed a line, and maybe we should keep a closer eye on what goes on there, but generally nothing to get too upset over.
If, on the other hand, a young person is abused or kidnapped because of their own poor choices, well that’s simply the end of the world. They properly supervised. They weren’t properly controlled. This is the true crime and the true danger that society fears.
This isn’t to say that when left to their own devices youth don’t make bad decisions. They do. Sometimes those bad decisions have very serious consequences. But adults make many bad decisions themselves. Obviously responsible parents, teachers and mentors need to step in to avoid or mitigate the worst and most long lasting consequences that can befall their kids, but for everything else those mistakes and bad decisions are an important part of life. The beauty of bad decisions is that each and every one of them teaches an important lesson. An important lesson that leads to far more good decisions being made in the future.
When you are put in danger by someone else (as opposed to yourself) you don’t learn anything except fear and how to cope.
Misuse of authority is some how less threatening to people than misuse of freedom. While this is no doubt an issue that affects all levels of society and all institutions, it is particularly acute and troubling for youth. Thus we have hysteria over Grant Theft Auto 4 and a passing mention of teen torture camps.
But now is not the time for more doom & gloom worrying. Now is the time for action, now is the time for optomism. While the media and public at large may still be wandering in the wilderness, Congress at least has their head on straight. HR 5876 is the single best youth rights bill in Congress in years. NYRA activists, supporters, leaders and members must do absolutely everything in their power to pass this bill.
MADD just sent out the following e-mail to their supporters. They want to give Grand Theft Auto (GTA) an adults only rating because it features the crime of drunk driving (apparently all the murder, car jacking and other crimes in it are just fine with MADD). “Drunk driving is not a game and not a joke” they say. Apparently only responsible adults should drink and drive. It isn’t appropriate for “youth”.
Oh wait, wasn’t MADD supposed to be opposed to drunk driving for *everyone*? So why then would the game’s rating matter? Why does MADD think it is somehow more acceptable for adults to drink and drive than youth?
Why also do they think limiting free speech is somehow an acceptable tactic in their anti-youth and anti-alcohol crusade?
MADD is encouraging their members to write the retailers below to pull GTA4 from shelves. You’d be surprized what a few pissed off complainers can accomplish. Don’t let MADD have the only say on this subject!
Write those same retailers and tell them that GTA is just a game and they shouldn’t stop selling it because a few mad mothers are upset over it. Write them and tell them to stand up for free speech.
MADD’s e-mail:
Each year nearly 13,500 people die in drunk driving crashes and
another half a million are injured in alcohol-related traffic crashes.
This is why MADD is extremely disappointed by the decision of the
manufacturers of the game Grand Theft Auto IV to include a game module
where players have to drive drunk.
Drunk driving is not a game and it is not a joke. Drunk driving is a
choice, a violent crime and it is also 100 percent preventable. MADD
is calling on the Entertainment Software Ratings Board to reclassify
Grand Theft Auto IV as an Adults Only game, a step up from the current
rating of Mature and for the manufacturer to consider a stop in
distribution if not out of responsibility to society then out of
respect for the millions of victims/survivors of drunk driving.
If you are concerned about the content of Grand Theft Auto IV, please
contact the retailers below and voice your opinion.
Amazon.com
206-266-1000
Online contact form
https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/contact-us/general-questions.html
Best Buy
612-291-1000
Online contact form
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?id=cat12104&type=page
Circuit City
804-527-4000
Online contact form
http://www.circuitcity.com/ccd/genericContent.do?oid=209855&c=1
EB Games and GameStop
817-424-2000
help@gamestop.com
Wal-Mart
479-273-4000
Online contact form
http://www.walmart.com/cservice/cu_commentsonline.gsp?cu_heading=8
On Monday morning, NYRA’s executive director, Alex Koroknay-Palicz, appeared on Fox News’s Mike and Juliet Show. Joining him in a panel discussion of the drinking age was Candice Lightner, founder of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Since most of the panel was unreceptive to the idea of a lower drinking age, Alex broached discussion of the fact that members of the military who are under 21 cannot drink. Ms. Lightner responded by saying:
“It [the brain of 18-year-olds] isn’t developed, and that’s exactly why the draft age is 18, because these kids are malleable. They will follow the leader, they don’t think for themselves and they are the last ones I want to say ‘here’s a gun, and here’s a beer.’ They are not adults; that’s why they’re in the military. They are not adults.”
Not only is this comment insensitive to the members of the military who are mature enough for the discipline and responsibility they must take on, and insensitive to the many 18- to 21-year-olds who could be forced to go overseas and potentially die if the draft were to be reinstated, but it is also self-contradictory. MADD, and Lightner herself, have been making us think for years that teenagers are deliberately irresponsible with alcohol and that, if given the freedom to drink, would disregard the sensibilities imparted upon them and use the freedom recklessly. Now we are to believe that people under 21 will, in fact, do whatever they are told? In typical fashion, NYRA’s opponents are having us believe that teenagers are at once rebellious and malleable, at once recklessly independent and firmly under the thumbs of their parents and elders.
Whether or not one agrees with the draft or with the military enlistment age of 18, America considers 18-year-olds mature enough to die for their country, voluntarily or involuntarily, and they do so while suffering criticisms of their adulthood and their maturity like Ms. Lightner’s. In addition, whether or not one agrees with the current conflicts engaging the US military, everyone should realize it is both detrimental and inaccurate to make such insinuations about those involved in these conflicts who are willing to make so many sacrificies. However, Ms. Lightner’s comments are hardly the first such insult to these members of the military and others their age who take on enormous responsibility but are not granted the respect and privileges they deserve in return, including the privilege to responsibly enjoy an alcoholic beverage when finished with their work. Those who serve in the military provide just one set of evidence that people under 21 are capable of full adult maturity and responsibility. Many others are available by looking at the vast responsibilities taken on by this age group in homes, institutions of higher learning and the work force. What leads young people of any specific age to be irresponsible with alcohol is the social construct around alcohol that makes it a forbidden fruit until age 21 and a reasonable indulgence after that age, a social construct MADD seeks to perpetuate at all costs. This mentality makes it nearly impossible to teach young people to drink responsibly, and makes it likely that one’s first drink will be in a social and somewhat reckless setting at best and an underground and secretive one at worst. For more information, of course, see our website at http://www.youthrights.org/drinkingage.php.
If MADD, as its name suggests, truly wants to prevent drunk driving, which is undoubtedly a noble goal, they are barking up the wrong tree in seeking to simply prevent access to alcohol by those under 21. This doesn’t prevent binge drinking or drunk driving by those over 21, which is still shockingly rampant in America, and is often ineffective in preventing these ills in those under 21, who can and do find ways around the law. Instead, MADD should turn to one of its original goals which still graces its logo, education. Alcohol responsibility, and not alcohol abstinence, should be taught to those younger than 21, and the drinking age should be lowered to an age considered reasonable by the rest of the civilized world. The message coming out of MADD should be that drunk driving at any age is absolutely unacceptable. As soon as this becomes MADD’s sole message and mission, I will support them wholeheartedly and unashamedly. However, the witch hunt against those supporting a lower drinking age simply perpetuates age discrimination and hurts the much-needed goal of eliminating drunk driving both by distracting MADD from its original mission and by preventing real alcohol responsibility.
Politicians and public interest groups are always looking to protect youth. They have a long list of so-called bad guys that they believe are a danger to young people. Even if in all this, they ignore the very many actual dangers youth face every day. Maybe there are things they find much more important than the well-being of young citizens. But then, who’s going to help young people? Who really cares about them? I’ll tell you who.
That’s us! We’re the National Youth Rights Association, or NYRA for short. I’m Katrina Moncure, secretary of NYRA and board member. There I am holding my cat, Midnight.
Anyway, NYRA has many goals. We want to lower the voting age to 16. We want to lower the drinking age to 18. We want all youth curfew laws abolished. Those are our major goals, but we have lots of others, too. (more…)
Okay, well, first things first. Alex Koroknay-Palicz, our executive director, got profiled in the Washington Post, for those interested in the article (its quite decent) it can be found here. Now, having been here while the article was written, we were actually expecting something more about the organization and less about him, but hey, it was a pretty friendly write up.
The response to the article has been much less than friendly. For a good laugh at how ridiculous some people can be, I recommend viewing the comments. They can be found on the main website for the Washington Post, found here. And my god, they’re pretty nasty. They range in their virulence from accusing Alex of being a child molester, to calling him a grown up adolescent (isn’t that commonly known as an “adult” in most circles?) to just creating the most transparent of straw-man arguments. It’s pretty obvious that the vast majority of these people aren’t that bright, and in fact, some of their posts prove that in fact, people who are only 18 can write more coherently than people twice that age. But don’t take my word for it. I ask you all to join me on a wonderful odyssey of discovery, where really foolish people get to stick their foot in their mouths and we all get to mock them, I hope you enjoy it.
The first comment has some really bad attempts at sarcasm that come across as just heavy handed and inane:
“Now we could see 14-year olds puking their guts out into the fountain after a few hours of social drinking at one of the many pubs in [Dupont Circle], skeezy old men hitting on pubescent nymphets, and the entertaining sight of a 16-year old wrapping the family Lexus around a light pole every few nights. Groovy, man. Just like the 70’s…and that worked so well!”
Where to begin, where to begin? I don’t think we’ve ever advocated letting 14 year olds into bars, but don’t let stupid things like facts stand in the way of making a piss poor arguement! And skeezy men hitting on young “nymphets?” I didn’t know we issued a “pro-child molestation” position paper, but I guess I don’t know our positions as well as “tdiaz” the distinguished author of this mindless rant. And 16 year olds can already drive the family car, and if they do wrap it around a lightpost that’s like due more to inexperience behind the wheel than it is from being an idiot teenager (I know I personally was scared witless of banging up the family car and drove extra carefully, but experience helps a great deal). Either way, lowering the voting and drinking age and enfranchising youth is not going to open the flood-gates of hell and fill the streets with an army of young, drug-addled youth just waiting to bring society to its knees. A complete and utter strawman arguement, based on no logic, no evidence, and no thought.
Next:
“I am certain most of the young people contributing an exorbitant $10.00 monthly to the National Youth Rights Association are doing so because they think it will allow them to legally purchase alcohol, and they stop contributing when they realize it doesn’t…
When the drinking age was lowered to 18 in the 70s, the teen drunk driving rate got out of hand, 18-yr-olds were buying beer for 14-yr-olds, and the politicians noticed that 18- to 21-yr-olds were drinking but not voting.
Almost everyone I ever knew who agitated for underage drinking stopped caring when they turned 21.
Alex Koroknay-Palicz wanted to be emancipated from his parents when he was 14 because they wouldn’t let him have a refrigerator in his bedroom. Some day when he overhears a 17 year old girl whisper to her girlfriend that he’s a “creepy old guy,” I suspect Alex will give up on the NYRA and get a real job. I just hope he dates within his age range.”
Yeah, that’s it, we’re just doing it to get booze. In fact, check our store section, we also ship out bottles of cheap vodka and absinthe if you donate over $50 a year. Oh, and The Post got the dues wrong, it’s $10 a year, and that’s hardly exorbitant. It’s also voluntary, most of our members don’t pay it, not because they don’t care, but because even responsible youth have lots of bills to pay, especially if they’re paying their own car-insurance, or tuition, as many do (contrary to the stereo-type). Now, a fact check. Teen drunk driving has never just gone away due to a law. In fact, examining the data reveals that it did nothing but shift the drunk driving fatalities to another age demographic, instead of reduce them overall. In fact, it’s possible the amount of drunk driving over all increased.I Oh boy! Lots of lives saved by that measure huh? (this was published in a study that we link to in the downloads section of our website, feel free to read the whole thing, quite a revealing bit of research) Oh, and while we don’t advocate for a mini-fridge for all our members, it seems kinda silly that a parent would deny that to their child if he was willing to pay for it himself. And as for getting a real job? Alex seems to enjoy himself greatly, finds his job rewarding, and spends his free time with his friends, (who are, shockingly, around 23-25).
Next:
“Explain in further detail why this is a civil rights issue. Responsibility and wisdom only can come with age, time, and experience. Society the world over has decided that as parents, we decide what is in the best interest of our kids, and that they don’t know it all and haven’t lived long enough to make tough decisions. Simply put, this is YOUR personal crusade, Koroknay-Palicz, and you ought to come to terms with it.”
Why this is a civil rights issue? Seriously? Have you even read a history book? How is a subset of the population being denied basic rights on account of an arbitrary standard that has no basis in fact or logic not a civil rights issue? Wisdom comes with age? Come now, I would say wisdom comes with experience and further knowledge and understanding of self, but while that is generally coorelated to age, there is no causal relationship. A person who leads an unexamined life will be every bit as vapid and shallow at 35 as they were at 15. It’s only through introspection and a desire for growth that people change and mature. That often comes with time, but just as often does not. Why in the world should a mature 18 year old be denied basic rights if he’s more mature and responsible than someone twice his age? Why is he penalized. And how in the nine hells can you say a 20 year old who’s served in Iraq hasn’t “lived long enough to make tough decisions?” I suppose you could make the argument that an Army Corporal just isn’t mature enough to drink - just kill people and watch out for the well being of his fire team. But then you’d be a moron, which I suppose makes sense.
It Gets Better:
“Ageism against 18 year olds? Quel horreur! At least discrimination against the young goes away as they get older . Just wait until this young man turns 45 and faces ageism that doesn’t go away for the rest of your life no matter what he has accomplished or is capable of accomplishing just because he has a little gray hair. Now that’s something to worry about!”
YAY! More bad logic! This just gets better and better. First of all, age discrimination in the work force is bad. My father actually experiences this now as he is over 50, trying to find a job that pays well and rewards his experience. I can certainly say, without any reservation, that this practice of corporations is twisted, and honestly not in their best interest. BUT, and this is a large but, comparing that to stripping away the ability to make medical decisions, ability to control one’s body, ability to vote in elections, ability to decide if they want to be sent to a gulag for “re-education,” does not compare to my father not being able to change jobs whenever he wants to. If you turned 45 and the government took away your ability to vote and to choose medical treatment, I’d certainly be willing to listen to your complaints. Since the government does not do that, I have little sympathy for you. That and I dislike faulty comparisons, though it does make my job easier, for which I thank you.
Oh boy:
“This pied-piper needs a job and a more realistic cause.
Even where the kids have maturity, some of these rules are to protect you from the sleazy adults (Koroknay-Palicz). Just ran into too many of your kind before, I have a hard time believing this is anything more than your old self trying to hold onto childhood, not move the kids into adulthood…. “
Oh for crying out loud. Seriously? Are we really going the pedophile route? Aren’t we better than this? I guess not. Alright then, you sling mud, I’ll sling mud, sorry buddy, you brought this on yourself. The rules that protect kids from “sleazy adults” generally don’t deal with the people most likely to abuse them sexually. Do you know who those people are? Seeing as your ability to use the written word to communicate is a testament to the failings of the American education system, I will assume you don’t. The person most likely is that child’s mother. Second most likely? The father. Guess who else makes the top ten? That’s right! Blood relatives! And do laws protect children from these people? NO! They give these people almost complete control over youth thus making further victimization possible. Do you have kids buddy? If so, you’re infinitely more likely to be molesting them than Alex is. Hopefully child services will come by and take these poor, unfortunate souls away from you. Oh wait, you say you don’t? That I’m making claims on no evidence? That I’m just using statistics to extrapolate a likely, but theoretically untrue, statement? But wait… didn’t you just do that? Oh wait! You did! Only you didn’t have statistics on your side like I do. Heh, funny that. Idiot.
As much as I enjoy this, and I do. I really can’t get this indignant forever. There are a lot of really stupid people, who make incredibly ignorant arguments, and think they are the height of logical brilliance. They are not. And a casual appeal to rationality in a marginally mature individual reveals that quickly. I just hate how they’re allowed to make straw-man arguements and talk out of their asses with stereo-types and people don’t call them on it, while NYRA has to back everything up with 3 studies and a signed statement from Jesus Christ himself. Ageism much?
So far, interning for NYRA has been an excellent opportunity. As an incoming freshman at American University and a student of a program where along with being a full time student I acquire an internship, I was supposed to find an organization that pertained to my interests. At the time, political activism was not exactly something I had envisioned myself doing, especially due to the fact that being politically aware was something I was not. In fact, I would probably say politics was something I was more afraid of then excited about. However, after attending an internship bazaar and encountering NYRA, I realized the truth behind many of the hypocrisies and injustices our society imposes upon youth, and decided I would be enthusiastic and dedicated in supporting NYRA’s causes.
So far, my main job here has been to encourage and aid intents in forming local chapters across the country. Although at first I felt rather intimidated due to my inexperience in this area, I slowly have become quite comfortable with my position. I generally begin with emailing the members who have expressed interest, but have not been contacted in a long time. If they respond and are still interested, I provide them with all the details and information they should need to start an organization at their local school/university. Generally, this means sending them the chapter formation handbook along with advice to investigate and become familiar with their school’s recognition process. Although it isn’t required, being recognized is extremely advantageous for it allows use of school grounds, facilities, and even possible funding. I also of course usually recommend that they spread word across campus to friends in order to alert their community of their intentions in order to recruit as many other students as possible. Because I don’t want to discourage them with what seems like an overload of work and commitment, I attempt to research their specific school’s student organization policies. Generally about a week or so later, I then check up on them via phone, Facebook, or through email to see how their progress is coming along and send them any further information I may have.
Another great aspect of this internship so far is my ability to make an outreach on campus’s and at important events throughout the area. For example, on September 15, I helped set up a table and recruit members at the peace rally held directly behind the white house. Although this was my first hands-on experience and of course I felt a little intimidated, by the end of the day we accumulated nearly 130 emails and names of people interested in our organization. Along with this great accomplishment, I also began feeling well versed and far more comfortable on these issues, and not to mention our organization’s arguments and claims.
Several weeks later, yet another opportunity to spread awareness of youth rights came at University of Maryland’s two day club fair at College Park. With hopes of starting a chapter here, we knew that this was even a better chance to get people active due to the sheer size of the school, which has a student body of nearly 25,000. Like myself, I knew these were college kids with similar interests and struggles, and that they would certainly be outraged and anxious to combat the “ageism”, as we like to call it, that exists in our society. With our table set up and our paraphernalia out including articles, fliers, pins, and clipboard, we were ready to recruit. After two days at the fair, and what seemed as thousands of rhetorical discussions, we recruited nearly 300 people, including 9 who explicitly stated interest in starting a chapter.
Just last week, however, was an even more fascinating opportunity. I was sent to represent NYRA at the Democracy 2.0 conference hosted by Mobilize. Not only was this extremely daunting due to the fact that I would have to represent the entire organization by myself, but I soon found out that this summit was to be held at the Homeland Security office building. As I arrived early in the morning, I had no idea what the following day would entail, especially due to the fact that there were fully armed guards with automatic rifles posted near the entrance to the building. However, after finding the meeting and settling in, it was not nearly as bad as I had anticipated. In fact, in a very lax format, we took survey questions discussing problems and solutions our generation has as the youth in society, discussed them in small groups, and then voted on which would be added to our declaration. Similar to NYRA, most of the other organizations represented at the summit were various youth advocacy groups, and it was very interesting meeting people from all across the country united under one cause; advancement of youth in society.
Overall, I hope that my work here at NYRA not only brings aid to the organization, but helps make a difference and hopefully helps gain more respect for our voice in society as a whole. So far, two intents have proclaimed starting a chapter, and one even claims he is in the process of setting up his first meeting. I think this is a great start, and I hope it is the first of many, many more to come.
MADD is taking notice of our actions to lower the drinking age. If MADD is getting nervous we must be on the right track. Write letters to the editor of your local paper supporting a lower drinking age. We have to keep the pressure on and not wither under a MADD counter-attack.
Lets keep making them sweat!
The e-mail they sent out to their list:
One of the most studied, most effective anti-drunk driving laws ever the 21 minimum drinking age is under attack. Opponents of the law have been appearing in Parade magazine, on MSNBC and Fox News, and in newspapers trying to discredit the law and its effectiveness.MADD is fighting opinion back with the facts. The facts are:
* Almost 50 high-quality studies have found conclusively that the 21 minimum drinking age decreases alcohol-related fatalities by 16 percent
* The brain continues to grow into the early/mid-20s and that drinking before this can damage the brain
* In most countries with lower drinking ages, intoxication is much more common among young people than in the United States
To let people know about these and other facts, we’ve just launched a new Web site at why21.org that provides the truth about underage drinking to all age groups, including information for parents about how to talk to your teens about alcohol. We’re also
focused on educating young people through our elementary school curriculum, middle and high school-based presentations, high school advocacy groups, and college organizations.
We’re trying to get the word out about underage drinking and we’d appreciate your help. Please:
* Let your friends and family know about this important information
* Let your legislators know you want to keep a 21 minimum drinking age
Donate
* Help support MADD’s efforts to stop underage drinking and drunk driving - we need the financial support of people like you to keep delivering high-quality information to young people and adults.
With your support, we can stop the misinformation about underage drinking and help our youth stay alcohol free until the age of 21.
As my time as NYRA’s legal intern comes to a close, I cannot help but look back upon the lessons that I have learned by my experience with NYRA. NYRA has challenged my beliefs and has opened me up to new views and perspectives on several issues. The purpose of this blog entry is to share with other NYRA members what NYRA has taught me personally.
What had attracted me to NYRA in the first place, was its strong stand on lowering the voting age. While working for the organization throughout the summer, I saw the real need to lower the voting age. Youth today are treated unfairly in the sense that there are many laws that are imposed upon them that they do not necessary agree with. Moreover,it is very hard for them change these law because they cannot vote. As a result, governmental official ignore youth issues because youth are not considered their constituents. . If youth were given the opportunity to vote there would be a change of attitude toward the youth of our nation. For instance, the youth would be treated more fairly because they would be given a chance to represent and voice out their concerns upon issues that involve them. Also, giving youth the power to vote forces governmental official to pay attention to youth issues because the youth will be considered their constituents.
Another experience with NYRA where I have been able to learn a lot from is our attempts to fight the Washington DC curfew measure. In Washington DC, the city council of the District of Columbia was trying to pass an emergency curfew law that would raise the age to 17 years and institute the time to 10 pm. The reason why the city council felt this was a necessary measure to pass, was to keep the youth of the city safe because not to long ago a 17 year old girl was shot at a club. The city council’s reason for wanting to establish a curfew law is admirable, but its strategy is an unaffected method. The curfew law does not keep youth safe from violence because violence can occur at anyplace or at anytime, even in their own homes. Also, the curfew law penetrates the domain of parenting, which the government has no business meddling with unless a child is being harmed physical or emotional. Moreover, the best coarse of action in protecting youth is to increase security on the streets by having more police patrolling.
Furthermore, NYRA played an active role in defeating the curfew emergency measure. NYRA got a hold of information about the city council trying to pass a curfew emergency measure and quickly mobilize to fight against the proposal. Some affective methods used by NYRA was to contact all their alley organization to inform them about the curfew proposal and to gain their support. In addition, NYRA attended work group meetings that were planning the curfew legislation, which it was able to voice out against the curfew proposal. Also, NYRA was successful in bringing people to council meetings that were discussing the curfew measure to protest against the proposal. Additionally, NYRA was able to testify in front of the city council to makes its arguments against the curfew measure.
Moreover, NYRA’s battle against the curfew measure has taught me a major lesson on
persistence. To successful campaign for a changes in laws persistence is the key ingredient. Changing a legislation does not happen suddenly, it takes a long time to make an affective change. Hence, you cannot give up so easily because then you will not be successful in making the necessary changes that you want. Instead, you must be persistent and fight for the changes in the legislation.
Furthermore, attending NYRA’s annual meeting was very beneficial for me hearing different viewpoints on different issues. There were various workshops offered to people at the annual meeting that discussed an assortment of topics about major youth issues. The workshop that was the most empowering to me was conducted by an organization called Campaign for Youth Justice. Their topic of discussion was about the lack of rehabilitating methods within the the juvenile criminal system. What made the workshop so impacting was when a man spoke about his treatment and experience within the juvenile system. Hearing his experience, opened my eyes to the issues that surround the juvenile criminal system. There needs to be programs established that can rehabilitate youth that are in the criminal system so when they do leave jail they are not doomed to make their past mistakes or even worse mistakes in their lives.
Additionally, by attending the NYRA’s annual meeting I was able to witness the bond shared among the NYRA members. NYRA is not just an organization with members, instead it is an organization based on friendship. With the little time I have spent with the NYRA members, I could see that NYRA’s success is based on the friendship that were formed by people’s passion to battle youth rights.
In closure, interning at NYRA has given me valuable skills and life lessons that I am able to incorporate in my personal and professional life. I have learned that it is important to fight for things that you believe in. Also, you must be persistent in your fight to be successful in making a change or a difference. Additionally, it is important to not to stick to your views on issues. You must be open minded and hear other people’s views even if you do not agree because it only makes you into a well rounded person in the end. Furthermore, NYRA’s continue strength and success comes from the people that are involved with the organization. For its strength to continue to grow, it needs its members to continue the work and fight hard.
Councilmember Jim Graham Councilmember Tommy Wells
A BILL
________
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
__________________
To amend, on an emergency basis, the Juvenile Curfew Act of 1995 to establish new curfew hours for the summer months.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, That this act may be cited as the “Youth Summer Curfew Emergency Amendment Act of 2007”.
Sec. 2. The Juvenile Curfew Act of 1995, effective September 20, 1995 (D.C. Law 11-48; D.C. Official Code ‘ 2-1541 et seq.), is amended as follows:
(a) Section 3(1) (D.C. Official Code ‘ 2-1542(1)) is amended to read as follows:
A(1) ACurfew hours@ means:
A(A) For the period from September 16 through June 14:
A(i) From 11:00 p.m. on any Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday, until 6:00 a.m. on the following day; and
A(ii) From 12:01 a.m. until 6:00 a.m. on any Saturday or Sunday; and
A(B) For the period from June 15 through September 15:
A(i) From 10:00 p.m. on any Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday, until 6:00 a.m. on the following day; and
A(ii) From 11:00 p.m. on any Friday, Saturday, or Sunday, until 6:00 a.m. on the following day.@.
(b) Paragraph (5) is amended by striking the phrase Aunder the age of 17 years@ and inserting the phrase A17 years of age or younger@ in its place.
(c) A new section 3a is added to read as follows:
ASec. 3a. Notice and enforcement of summer curfew hours.
A(a) Within 5 days of the effective date of the Establishment of Summer Curfew Hours Emergency Amendment Act of 2007, the Mayor shall inform the public of the implementation of the curfew hours established by section 3(1)(B) by posting a notice on the District government and Metropolitan Police Department websites, and publishing a notice in a newspaper of general circulation.
A(b) The Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department shall instruct all patrol officers that appropriate care should be taken when enforcing the curfew hours to ensure proper safety and welfare of the minors remains paramount.@.
Sec. 3. Applicability.
Section 2(a) shall apply as of the 10th day after the effective date of this act.
Sec. 4. Fiscal impact statement.
The Council adopts the fiscal impact statement of the Chief Financial Officer as the fiscal impact statement required by section 602(c)(3) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, approved December 24, 1973 (87 Stat. 813; D.C. Official Code ‘ 1-206.02(c)(3)).
Sec. 5. Effective date.
This act shall take effect following approval by the Mayor (or in the event of veto by the Mayor, action by the Council to override the veto), and shall remain in effect for no longer than 90 days, as provided for emergency acts of the Council of the District of Columbia in section 412(a) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, approved December 24, 1973 (87 Stat. 788; D.C. Official Code ‘ 1-204.12(a)).
As was reported in a previous NYRA blog entry, NYRA participated in several work group sessions with DC City Councilmember Jim Graham. Graham wanted to introduce an ageist bill, but was willing to listen to some of what we had to say, and the final draft of the legislation was significantly better than what Graham was going to introduce before. While NYRA appreciates Councilmember Graham’s willingness to let us participate in the legislative process, we are still opposed to his bill for a number of reasons.
Last night several NYRA members attended a public committee hearing at which Graham’s bill was discussed at length. Towards the end of the hearing, NYRA Executive Director Alex Koroknay-Palicz, NYRA President Scott Davidson, and ACLU of the National Capitol Area Legislative Council Stephen Block testified against the bill. Mr. Block’s testimony focused on the provision in the bill that makes underage drinking a criminal offense in certain places. The remarks that Koroknay-Palicz and Davidson delivered to the committee focused mostly on the aspects of the bill that make it more difficult for those under eighteen to enter bars and clubs.
Councilmember Graham introduced his bill in response to the tragic death of Talesha Ford, a seventeen year old woman who was shot at a DC night club. In addition to making clubs safer, the bill will keep young people out of many bars and nightclubs. NYRA feels that instead of violating the civil rights of potential victims, the government should work to keep dangerous criminals out of these establishments. As Alex Koroknay-Palicz said in his testimony “…the person we need to blame is the man who pulled that trigger. The shooter is and was an adult. If this bill was enacted then, it would have done nothing to stop him from being at that club. His stray bullet would have just hit someone else and a different family would now be mourning.”
The hearing lasted about four hours, and most of the people who testified supported it. Much of the testimony did not deal directly with the issues with which NYRA was most concerned. NYRA brought a number of young people to the hearing, but they had left by the time NYRA representatives testified.
NYRA does support certain aspects of this bill. We think that having clubs submit security plans and allowing clubs to directly hire off duty police officers are excellent ideas.
Age of Reason is a group blog for the National Youth Rights Association, maintained by our members to help educate and inform the public about youth rights.
Regardless of what the law or your teachers have to say about this, you are as human as anyone over the age of 18 or 21, yet, 'minors' are one of the most oppressed groups of people in the world, and certainly the most discriminated against legally. - Grace Llewellyn
Why don't you 
Comments(1)
