![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
||||
Home |
About Us |
Issue Index |
Advertise |
Contribute |
Subscriber Services |
Editor's Blog |
|
![]() Our Quotes Archive
|
from Life Learning magazine,
July/August 2004 Twelve years ago, I met someone who has
continued to force me to reevaluate the way our government and society
view children. He’s a capable American citizen, informed, intelligent
and interested in the process of government. He’s my 12-year-old son,
and although he knows more about the process and the candidates than
many adults, he won’t have the right to vote for six more years. Lawmakers have gone to a lot of hard work and expense to make the
process of voting fair and polling places accessible to everyone. Yet
there are millions of young Americans – some as informed as my son – who
are denied participation in the process which will govern them. When my son was very young, I watched his reasoning process grow and
change, and my understanding of human learning and ability evolved. He
was talking, understanding people and being understood without one
English lesson. He was walking without ever studying anatomy or gross
motor skills development. He surprised me almost everyday until my
narrow expectations of children crumbled and I came to realize that
every child is born suited to a life as a human. Yet, our society puts
children into a small, not-quite-ready-to-be-a-person box and tries to
hold them there. We have in place a number of age-based laws that define when young
people are ready for certain rights and aspects of life. These laws
offer no protection to young people that could not be provided by means
other than age-based laws. Instead of considering natural and personal
abilities or limitations as factors that would determine an individual’s
readiness for ever increasing experiences and responsibilities, we set
the arbitrary criteria of age. In Escape from Childhood: The Needs and Rights of Children
(Ballantine Books, 1974) John Holt wrote: “I urge that the law grant and
guarantee to the young the freedom that it now grants to adults to make
certain kinds of choices, do certain kinds of things, and accept certain
kinds of responsibilities. This means in turn that the law will take
action against anyone who interferes with young people’s rights to do
such things. Thus when the law guarantees me the right to vote, it is
not saying I must vote, it is not giving me a vote. It only says that if
I choose to vote it will act against anyone who tries to prevent me. In
granting me rights the law does not say what I must or shall do. It
simply says that it will not allow other people to prevent me from doing
these things.” Thirty years later, our government still says we are unqualified to
vote the day before their 18th birthday, but magically qualified the day
after. While this is only one of many ways young people are
discriminated against, it might be the most serious. For while the
government is making laws affecting young people, those young people are
not, in tern, capable of affecting government. One of the arguments against eliminating voting age restrictions is
that it would be unfair for mere children to make decisions that would
effect the lives of adults. It’s a hypocritical argument when one
considers all the decisions made by adults that effect the lives of
young people. These include curfew laws; driving age restrictions;
restrictions about purchase of certain types of music, magazines, video
games and movies; and compulsory school attendance. Even worse are laws
allowing corporal punishment; there is no other member of our society
who can be physically assaulted without any means of legal recourse.
Equality before the law, it seems, is not meant for
everyone.
While children are considered too young to have a valid political
opinion, too young to be allowed to select their own music, too young to
attempt to pass a driving test, they are, in many states, old enough to
be tried as adults if they commit a crime. Whatever arguments can be made today to deny young people the right
to vote have been made before in opposition to women voting, to minority
civil rights and to lowering the voting age to 18. In the end I think it
comes down to fear. Thinking about giving power to those who’ve
deliberately been made powerless makes people nervous. This is not a new
fear. In 1776 John Adams said this: “It is dangerous to open so fruitful
a source of controversy and altercation as would be opened by attempting
to alter the qualifications of voters; there will be no end of it. New
claims will arise: women will demand a vote; lads from 12 to 21 will
think their rights not enough attended to; and every man who has not a
farthing will demand an equal voice with any other in all acts of
state.” Women do have the right to vote today. Held down for more than a
hundred years we are participating in the process and our nation
survived the controversy Adams feared – evidence of the evolution of our
system and a hopeful reminder that ideas and governments can change and
grow to serve all the people. Deb Lewis lives and unschools in Deer Lodge, Montana with
her husband David and son Dylan. She’s a frequent contributor to online
unschooling forums and the Montana Unschooling Newsletter.
This is one of a limited number of articles available in full for free
on this website. To read more articles like this,
subscribe today. |
Marketplace![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
The term "life learning" refers to a form of homeschooling that is focused on the child and avoids the trappings of school. It is sometimes called "unschooling," "radical unschooling," or "natural learning." Life learning children live and learn naturally, with the support of their families, based on their own interests and their own timetables, and without curriculum, tests, or grades. Go here, here and here for a more comprehensive explanation. Copyright © 2002 - 2012 Life Media | About
Us | Contact | Advertise | |