Protectionism, the law and kids

Date: November 04, 2009; Discussion: 0 Comments

Most of us have a list of things that we believe children should not be subjected to or have to see. For some, the thought of children seeing anatomically correct, nude sculptures is very upsetting. For others, it is the thought of kids playing violent video games. While I have no qualms with children seeing non-pornographic nudity, and I do not care if mature and/or older children shoot things to gory, bloody bits in virtual worlds, the thought of children being subjected to constant advertising that they have no means of critically judging gets me up in arms. And yet, should my personal views be forced onto others? Should others’ feelings be forced onto me? Should I have to live and teach according to the moral or political rules others have set? How far should the long arm of the law reach when it comes to “protecting” children, and whose rules get to become the law? At what point are there too many rules for parents and teachers to reasonably follow?

Some things, of course, are not up for discussion. There are clear, objective reasons to protect children from certain things, at certain points in their lives. Children have developmental stages that are fairly well-documented, so we have good, scientific studies that can help us understand what children are and are not prepared for when it comes to life and learning. There are always exceptions to the rules, but individual parents and teachers should be able to cater to those exceptions, more often than not, because they are the ones who know the children in their lives. The law perhaps should not enter into personal choices that science has not found to be significantly damaging to children.

And yet, over the past decade, there have been many laws and rules set into motion that prevent some parents and teachers from doing what they think is best, while perhaps unintentionally lauding the wishes of a select few. Oftentimes these rules are not based on reason, but the ebb and flow of certain outspoken groups’ morals, politics and fears.

As an example, here are a few interesting and recent laws or rules that have been featured over at the fantastic FreeRangeKids website:

A family in Arizona, USA, was broken up for a full month, when the government stepped in and removed a couple’s three young daughters from their home. What did they do to deserve this rough upheaval of their family? They tried to get a few photos of their children bathing together developed at Wal-Mart.
In Saratoga, New York, USA, a school district decided that due to the “dangers of the world,” children should be forbidden from walking or riding their bikes to school. The district is considering becoming “more lenient” and allowing children to bike with a guardian.
Near Peterborough, Cambridgeshire, in the UK, members of an “Over 50s” group that met at a public library have been booted out, over fears that their early morning coffee drinking might pose a risk to the small children who are at the library at the same time. How? By spilling hot coffee on them. Yes, that’s the fear.
In some schools in Rhode Island, USA, parents can no longer just volunteer to help at their children’s schools or to help on field trips, as many reading this would remember their own parents or friends’ parents doing when they were in school. Instead, they must first go through extensive background checks.
In Maine, USA, kids under the age of 15 can’t witness wine tasting.
In at least one area of Georgia, USA, Webelos (Boy Scouts) cannot use a knife to earn their whittling badge. Instead, they use potato peelers, because, of course, those are much safer.

The above laws, and many others that are not listed here, suggest that personal and special interests and fears have unsurprisingly influenced the legal system, to the possible detriment of individual and adult decision-making, as well as children’s learning. Disturbingly, many of the “child protection” rules created today also have a sexist edge to them, legally or socially banning men from participating in the lives of children as teachers and even sometimes as fathers. I need not point out the negative effects this could have on children of all ages, even into adulthood.

Whether you personally agree that children under 15 should not be in the room during a wine tasting or whether volunteering parents should be subjected to background checks is unimportant. You may also fear that an adult will spill their tea on your toddler or that your son will nick himself as a Boy Scout; perhaps these fears are so great in you that you not only want to save your own child, but everyone else’s children. However, at what cost to the rest of us and to other children do these fears, and the subsequent rules and laws, come? We cannot live our lives or teach children in society if we always assume that danger lurks at every turn, that every person is a child abuser.

What might we be losing out on from all of the fine-toothed nit-picking? It is hard to guess what will result from rules and laws such as those above, but I have no doubt in my own mind that we spend so much time making policies and trying to enforce and abide by them that we are losing sight of what life and educational facilities are supposed to be about: learning.

This blog entry is under a Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial No Derivatives license. For more information about the terms of reusing this entry, see here.