Creeping definitions

[Beavah 205]

Yeh see this a lot, eh? Anytime folks (or lobbyists) want to push a harder-line response, they try to expand da definition of something. Da parent thread got me thinkin' about how bad it's getting in youth programming. Yeh see increasingly expansive definitions of things like bullying or sexual harassment or youth protection. Trying to sweep any and all negative behavior into some policy-governed or criminal category. So pretty soon da six year old who gives a classmate a peck on the cheek is guilty of "sexual harassment" and treated the same as the corporate CEO who makes sex with his intern a requirement for continued employment.

 

I think some poor behavior is just poor behavior, eh? Not everything has to be criminal, and good people workin' with kids don't need a policy in order to do the right thing.

 

Child abuse and neglect is a terrible thing, eh? It's defined in most states as when a parent or custodian deliberately harms a child physically (or in some cases emotionally) by action or inaction. Because parents/custodial adults have special rights over their children, and because the effect on abused children is so horrific, da law allows, and may require in those cases for a special social services agency to take reports based on suspicion so that it can conduct an investigation.

 

Not all bad things that happen to children are abuse or neglect, eh? Thank goodness! Abuse and neglect is so awful precisely because it's committed by those who are entrusted with custodial responsibility for the child's welfare. And because of that special relationship, yeh need to allow reporting based on suspicion because it's hard to see what goes on behind da closed doors of a family.

 

Physical abuse of children by other non-custodial adults is of course an awful thing, and a crime. But it's not quite of the same character. And therefore it's not treated da same way.

 

Lots further down the chain, just plain hollerin' at a kid may be inappropriate. Sign of a poor coach or teacher or scouter. Or, in some cases, it may be appropriate (like when da kid tosses a rock off a cliff toward a trail below, nearly killing someone). But even when inappropriate, it ain't the same thing as child abuse. Claiming that it is is just ridiculous, and makes light of the horrible nature of real emotional abuse of a child by a guardian.

 

I think we should try to avoid that sort of "expansive definition" in scouting. I don't think it does youth a service. I cringe to think of the mess that the current lobbyist driven anti-bullying legislation is going to make of schools. A lot of bad behavior just can't be addressed by laws and policies, eh? It's just bad behavior that has to be addressed by people.

 

So me, I always tell scouters and units that respondin' to ordinary bad behaviors by kids and adults is why we're here, eh? Scouting exists to teach kids about behaviors and choices. That's what we do. There's no reason to retreat to policies, extensive bylaws, definitions, da cops, or da executive in an office 2 counties away. We all know what's right.

 

Beavah

 

 

 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Well, as far as bullying goes, that's the whole problem. It was NOT being adequately addressed by people, so it HAD to be addressed by laws and policies. Of course, the laws and policies still have to be enforced by people, which is the weak point. But at least now the parents of bullies can't say there's no policy against it.

 

We all know what's right.

 

I'd say that's mostly correct as far as it goes. When dealing with youthful misbehavior, there is a general consensus about what is right and what is wrong. But when it comes to how to deal with particular instances of misbehavior, I think the consensus breaks down. Additionally, these days there is often more interference with the "corrective" process from the parents of the wrongdoer than there used to be, which further complicates things. The teacher or Scouter can tell little Johnny that his behavior was wrong, but if the parents get the youth home and tell him he didn't do anything wrong, the kid isn't going to learn anything.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

[BartHumphries 10]

Well, a kiss on the cheek is basically the only kind of sexual harassment that a six-year old knows about (usually, hopefully). It's wrong. Yes, about as wrong as punching someone. Leaving a bruise is not the sole definition of physical harassment. Violating someone else's personal space, not just smack talking and "getting up in their face" but physically grabbing them and doing something is something that should be nipped in the bud.

 

Now, for a first offense, what's appropriate? Usually just a reprimand. For a second and third, what's appropriate? Well, it depends on whether or not verbal reprimands work. Counseling? Grounding? Having to go talk with a principal? Suspension? Suspension is probably wildly inappropriate for a first offense, presuming that someone just didn't know better.

 

Sometimes, though, the thing a person is punished for is the straw that broke the camel's back. Maybe they were dropping ice cubes down people's shirts, maybe they were "sycing" people out and making the person flinch or smacking them on the shoulder or back "playfully" hard enough to cause pain and finally, finally, verbal reprimands every day all week for just being a mean kid in the school classroom just haven't seemed to do anything and the thing that ostensibly they're being "harshly" punished for is just the straw that broke the camel's back. I've seen that a few times before.

[rdclements 10]

Yeah Beavah, I'm right there with you. There are too many people throwing around terminology that in a legal sense may be very precise, but that gets used too loosely in practice.

 

A scout with an axe left in the bed of his pickup truck after a campout is arrested from bringing weapons to school. Before 2001, I carried a Gerber multiplier on hundreds of flights each year. Today I would be called a terrorist.

 

An ASM yells at a youth. Not good behavior, but then an overzealous parent complains to the charter org leadership, the story catches fire, and the guy has to find a new church because he is not safe around children.

 

A child puts a message on facebook that he wants to shoot his teacher because he feels like he was graded too harshly. Parents jump all over the principal for not going into a lockdown because of the "terroristic threats".

 

A teacher intervenes to stop 2 kids in a shoving match. One falls down and the teacher is fired for child abuse.

 

If you watch enough cable news, you'll be convinced that millions of illegal aliens are coming to kidnap your children and force them to work for the taliban. They get paid to keep you watching, not keep you accurately informed.

 

There's no end in sight.

[evmori 11]

How much does the taliban pay? Are there health benefits?

[Oak Tree 15]

Ed - I'm guessing 'nothing' and 'no'.

 

In general, it does seem to be a common tactic to label something that you don't like as some generally agreed-upon evil.

 

You don't like the way an adult is behaving towards a kid - label it child abuse or youth protection.

You don't like the way someone behaves towards someone of another race - label it racist.

You don't like the way someone behaves towards a gay - label it homophobia.

You can see it on both sides - the crusty old man labels his son's behavior as 'girly'. Or someone is a 'bigot'.

You don't like what your doctor did, so you call it malpractice.

 

You also have the 'better-safe-than-sorry' phenomenon - we want to ban all weapons, so we'll cover anything that might conceivably be used as a weapon. Schools are particularly guilty of this type of thing. Speech, drawings, etc - can be labeled as threatening.

[BartHumphries 10]

You're right about schools banning anything that resembles a weapon. The tough plastic forks that could really do some damage if you stabbed someone were just fine for kids to use back in high school. But the plastic knives with tiny nubbin teeth? Only available in the teacher's lounge, because they were "knives". Never mind that the forks were capable of doing far more damage than those thin plastic sticks with little bumps they called knives, because they were called knives they were banned.

 

Nowdays, the school district has seen how ridiculous this is and the forks are almost sporks and the useless knives are back in the cafeteria.