|
Randy Cassingham's BlogHistorical Details and Author's Notes from This is True®
|
The War on Kids
There will probably be two responses to the first story in this week's issue: 1) I was too hard on the public library/librarian, and 2) I wasn't hard enough on her. To be sure, my tagline was judging her based on the standards of the American Library Association.
But first the story, from True's 10 May 2009 issue:
Free Weird Newsletter
Freedom of Information
An unidentified 11th-grade student in Pelham Manor, N.Y., was called into the office for a chat with the assistant principal -- and the police. The boy was reportedly researching how to conceal a gun. After interviewing the student, the police and the principal determined that there was absolutely no threat, and in fact the report was wrong: the teen was actually researching the state's laws on guns. A school spokeswoman said the boy was not disciplined, and remains in school. So who turned him in? The Pelham Public Library. "It is not our procedure to notify somebody" about patrons' book choices, said library Director Patricia Perito, but she "had to" look into the matter by informing the school. (White Plains Journal News) ...In other news, Perito has set up a security camera on the library's copy of the Constitution, so she can catch anyone who wants to research their rights as a citizen.
The ALA was founded in 1876 "to provide leadership for the development, promotion, and improvement of library and information services and the profession of librarianship in order to enhance learning and ensure access to information for all." (from their Mission Statement -- emphasis added.)
So Librarian = professional, and it's their job to ensure access to everyone to the vast and diverse information in their custody. Noble goals and a noble calling to be sure.
In 1948, the ALA adopted the Library Bill of Rights, which has been amended several times since, to declare that "libraries are forums for information and ideas" for all, and "not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views."
That "age" bit is discussed quite a bit by the ALA. "The American Library Association opposes all attempts to restrict access to library services, materials, and facilities based on the age of library users," they say in a policy paper. "Librarians and library governing bodies cannot assume the role of parents or the functions of parental authority in the private relationship between parent and child. Librarians and governing bodies should maintain that only parents and guardians have the right and the responsibility to determine their children's -- and only their children's -- access to library resources."
"The ethical responsibilities of librarians, as well as statutes in most states and the District of Columbia," the ALA's Policy Manual (Section 52.4) dictates, "protect the privacy of library users. Confidentiality extends to 'information sought or received, and materials consulted, borrowed, acquired'." Should there be a legitimate legal reason for such records to be given to law enforcement, it is "strongly recommended" that "such records shall not be made available to any agency of state, federal, or local government except pursuant to such process, order, or subpoena as may be authorized under the authority of, and pursuant to, federal, state, or local law relating to civil, criminal, or administrative discovery procedures or legislative investigatory power."
Librarians, perhaps better than all people, should know the importance of reading to the development of responsible citizens. "The freedom to read is essential to our democracy," the ALA says in its Freedom to Read Statement, but "It is continuously under attack." The obvious way to attack it is to ban or burn books in an attempt to suppress ideas. A less obvious way is to make it known that there are people watching what you read, and calling the authorities if you dare to read something unusual. That's called a "chilling effect" and certainly we would rightly be outraged to have government agents watching us in a library. So what in hell was a library professional doing acting in that capacity, informing government agents of what one of her patrons, no matter his age, was reading?
It's different because it's guns, you might say.
I don't particularly care if you're pro- or anti-gun. Let's say you're anti-gun. Do you know for a fact that the kid in the story isn't too? Maybe he was researching a school paper to argue against guns. He could certainly argue his points better if he knew and understood the laws. Let's say you're pro-gun; maybe he was researching the state's laws so he could engage in sport shooting, and ensure that he complied with all legal and safety requirements so he could do it properly. You don't know which is the case here, do you? Neither did the librarian, who violated not just the policy of her profession, but every standard of her profession to inform on the boy to government agents.
And how interesting it is that I wrote that story yesterday, and today I received a DVD in the mail of a documentary that was six years in the making. I was interviewed for it four years ago, and the movie just came out.
"In 95 minutes," the film's promo material says, "THE WAR ON KIDS exposes the many ways the public school system has failed children and our future by robbing students of all freedoms due largely to irrational fears. Children are subjected to endure prison-like security, arbitrary punishments, and pharmacological abuse through the forced prescription of dangerous drugs. Even with these measures, schools not only fail to educate students, but the drive to teach has become secondary to the need to control children."
Strong words indeed. And sure enough, the film starts with zero tolerance, which I've been railing about in True since early 1997. My hour-plus of on-camera interviewing was distilled down to just 41 seconds of screen time, but there are plenty of experts interviewed that really flesh things out; a lot of parents will be horrified at what they see, and what has been kept quiet or glossed over. (For example, did you know that Columbine High School massacre shooter Eric Harris was taking the antidepressant Luvox at the time of the shootings? He was ordered to, even though it had been shown in pediatric use, a significant number of patients taking it become manic (Source; PDF file). Violent tendencies -- he was ordered to take the drug because of his anger issues -- plus mania is not a good combination. It could lead to -- oh, I don't know... -- say, a frenzy of mass murder?)
I don't agree with every aspect of the film, but I can tell you one thing: it sure made me think. And you know how I like that! In any case I believe their bottom line is correct: schools are terribly broken, yet society blames the kids for the problems, rather than even think about reforming the entire educational system. Hence their title, "The War on Kids".
Yes, I realize the irony of the story being about a kid researching gun laws and talking about the Columbine massacre. I don't doubt the librarian had just that scenario in mind when she chose to disregard her professional standards, and it's possible she could have been right, the kid might have been planning such an attack. Well, that's exactly what the film is about: kids are assumed to be guilty until proven innocent, and the education of children "has become secondary to the need to control children." We've seen in my zero tolerance stories so many cases of kids presumed to be guilty until proven innocent -- and even then punished, because the wheels were set into motion. Frankly, I applaud the school and police in Pelham Manor, N.Y., for doing the right thing once they were forced into talking to the kid. They talked with him, got the straight story, and sent him on his way without any disciplinary action.
Yet you can still be sure that he will forever be "chilled" from too much curiosity as to where he as a citizen stands when it comes to the law, since he'll never know who is watching him, and who they're reporting to.
Too hard on the librarian? No way: I was too easy on her.
And keep your eye open for "The War on Kids". It has already won "Best Educational Documentary" at the New York International Independent Film and Video Festival. The web site is not quite ready for prime time, but it's at http://www.TheWarOnKids.com.
RSS
Most Recent Comments
Posted by Darrell, Pennsylvania on May 27, 2009:
America lost control of the public school system around 1970 when someone decided school children had rights. Prior to that schools ran very tight ships. Dictatorial leadership upheld strict rules. Teachers could teach and not time manage their pupils. Then the revolution began. Rights were lost but it appeared as though the losses were one sided. Everything has changed and not for the good.
The librarian needs to be taught a lesson in the only way she will ever understand. Actions may have consequences. Her actions should have very straightforward consequences. Termination may not be the answer, but a few week's in the street without pay may do the trick. Perhaps she could write several hundred times in longhand, "I will not violate anyone's right to privacy again." Or perhaps she could read the documents she "protected."
Posted by Mekhong Kurt, Bangkok, Thailand on June 14, 2009:
I love all your work; I *especially* enjoy your crusade against ZT.
Though I got certified when I was studying for my undergraduate degree to teach from 7th grade through 12th grade, I never did so except during my student teaching. I did, however, eventually become a university teacher, and one step removed from K-12 education, I remain greatly interested.
While I believe ZT isn't the only factor in the deterioration of education for our young people, it certainly plays a significant role.
An earlier contributor mentioned we began losing control about 1970 -- and I reckon that may be arguably about right; I graduated from high school in 1969.
Yes, we had some strict rules; violations indeed carried consequences, as they should have (and as I know from experience!). But we were gradually given increasing freedom, as we grew up, to *be* responsible. Blow it, and go to the back of the line. Handle it, and move on along.
I don't know how much of that was influenced by growing up in rural Texas and going to a school with a *total* student population, K-12, of less than 200, in a town of maybe 700-800 by the time I graduated. Heck, when I was younger, but my parents allowed me to ride my bike into town (we lived on a small ranch outside the village), if I messed up, it was just understood that any and every adult had authority to intervene, especially if I was presenting a danger to myself or others. And yessir, I did get a couple of spankings along the way -- nothing serious, mind you -- from adults who were neither my parents nor in any legal sense my guardians. But socially, they *were* my guardians, if they chose to take on that responsibility.
My Sister continues to teach kids with attention disorder in grades 5-9, and she regales me with horror stories of ZT, especially when the program first started. Someone would see one of her students taking a pill, and without investigating, call the police, who of course had to investigate. Fortunately, the local police in that nearby small town have some sense -- but sometimes townspeople, mostly new to the area, would scream "but you have to ARREST that drug addict!" Or whatever. And these kids sometimes need continuing, even life-long, medication.
In two ways, I don't have a dog in this fight: I live abroad, and I've never had kids. But I sure hope American parents take the time to check into their kids' schools, and not just about the quality of teaching (though of course that's critical), but about this dadgummed ZT stuff as well.
Cheering you on from half the planet away...
Posted by Joseph, Canada on June 15, 2009:
I just realized there's a double standard there: kids are taught that their behaviour is unacceptable and therefore they're forced to take pills to act right. But they also can't take those pills to school (or potentially to any other public place) or else they'll be expelled and/or arrested for drug use. Never mind the fact that said pills are prescribed to everyone anyway.
So they're punished for their behaviour, and then they're punished a second time for following through on their first punishment. Is it any wonder that kids lash out?
On a semi-related note, I carry medication with me whenever I travel in case I am ill, feel nauseous, or suffer from a headache. But I don't dare take any of it in public, for fear that the police will apprehend me thanks to some extreme drug law I was previously unaware of in the place I chose to visit. It's a miracle that I don't have to answer for it whenever I go through the mandatory security screening at the airport. I may be paranoid, but in this day and age, it seems paranoia isn't entirely unfounded. I mean, from the looks of it, one can't even do anything about their own ignorance of the law anymore without being arrested for it. What the kid probably should've said (although it more than likely would've backfired on him) was that the reason he was looking up the law on guns is because ignorance of said law is no excuse. See how the police would've liked that.
---
You've realized there's a double standard? Well good: you're starting to catch on! -rc