President's Pen
"For the Children"
Lately, we have heard from many politicians who say that they want to do things "for the children". Since they want to make such claims, it is only fair to consider what they have actually done "for the children".
First, let us consider education. The solution offered by our officials is to continue pumping more and more money into the public schools. A quick glance at statistics from the federal government's own 1999 Condition of Education report by the National Center for Education Statistics would seem to indicate that performance has not improved over the past few decades. At the same time, education spending has increased drastically. Perhaps the most disturbing part of this report is that in 1996, only 20 percent of high school students were able to answer four out of five political knowledge questions correctly. Perhaps students are learning something, but it seems that they may not be learning the correct things. If our officials really wanted to do things "for the children", then they would work on bringing the curriculum into the 20th century before it ends. Everyone has different interests, abilities, and level of motivation. It simply doesn't make sense to have the same curriculum laid out for everyone. Students should be able to make choices about what they want to learn. Another crucial change that needs to be made "for the children", is the elimination of compulsory schooling laws. Young people who don't want to be in school only slow down the learning of, and in some cases even endanger, the students that do want to be there. Half of the battle is won once young people are given choices about the direction that their education will take. At the same time, young people should have the right to pursue an education even if their parents would rather they stay home and work the fields. The best way to accomplish this is to eliminate compulsory education and eliminate the legal distinctions between adults and young people. Finally, the attempts of public schools to control or punish nonconformity through means such as school uniforms and profiling simply must stop. It is obvious that many are talking out of both sides of their mouths when they speak of America as a "melting pot", and at the same time want to punish students simply for being different.
Secondly, politicians believe that they are "for the children" when they legislate the behavior of young people with standards that would never be required of adults. For example, it is politically beneficial to take attention way from the massive health problems of cigarette smoking and alcoholism among older people, by focusing on status offenses by young people. Recently, MADD has even equated drinking by young people with cocaine usage. Any attempt to make this correlation for older people, say in the 30-40 range, would be met with outrage and disgust. It is not difficult to see that young people learn behaviors from their elders, and that as long as older people want to smoke, drink, and whatever else, younger people will want to as well. Take the so-called crisis of teenage pregnancy, for example. It is statistically shown that the vast majority of babies born to teenage mothers are fathered by much older men. Yet, the stigma is entirely placed on the teen mothers, and young people are then told that such activity among adults is "none of their business". If adults are not willing to serve as examples for how they want young people to behave, then they should not expect that behavior from young people in the first place. In the area of auto safety, simple enforcement of existing traffic laws which apply to all age groups would succeed where graduated licensing laws have failed. Strict enforcement of drunk-driving laws would greatly increase traffic safety and decrease the alcoholism problem in this country. However, these solutions are not proposed because adults can vote and would just as soon prefer to shift the focus entirely to young people. It is the mark of a hypocrite to suggest that it is all right to ask men from ages 18 to 20 to fight and possibly die for this country, while telling them that they cannot drink or even enter a bar.
Finally, there are some things that politicians can do "for the children". The first is that they should work for the decrease and eventual elimination of legal barriers placed upon young people. A young person should have legal standing in court. This is true empowerment for the children, and it would help to eliminate many parental abuses. It is doubtful that gulag schools which imprison young people against their will on the whims of their parents would proliferate if the legal distinctions between adults and young people were greatly reduced. Some have opposed this saying that it would destroy our society and make it impossible for parents to control their children. In response, I say that the continued beating down of our young people is what will destroy our society, because young people are the future. Those advocating parental control are also missing the point, which is that if parents would treat young people with the dignity, attention, and respect they deserve, and not as objects to be controlled, then the problems currently facing young people would likely be greatly reduced. Correspondingly, the problems among the next generation of adults will be reduced, and our country, and indeed the entire world, will be the better for it. Next, politicians should stop trying to control youth through status laws. It is proven that it simply doesn't work, and it is also un-American. There should be no second-class citizens in the United States. Finally, politicians need to focus on the real problems in this country and stop scapegoating young people. Violence, alcoholism, drug abuse, and whatever else, are problems that affect our entire society, not just young people, and they need to be dealt with accordingly. A politician who works to achieve the ASFAR Declaration of Principles is truly one that is for the children. I hope that politician exists somewhere. Maybe it will be you someday.