Now that I am not exactly young, the old saw I wish I knew now what I thought I knew when I was eighteen, often comes to mind.
The youth coordinator for the Diocese of New Westminster ponders the question of when the “shift from childhood to adulthood takes place” and laments the attempts of “the wiser generations” to “wipe out self expression in our young people”. This all relates to the teen who wore the Jesus tee-shirt, but it raises some more interesting general points.
The question of when children become adults is an existential one: children become adults when they cease behaving as children. For the pampered offspring of western decadence, this may never occur: look at Justin Trudeau. For an impoverished Ugandan family that must struggle merely to survive, it probably occurs around the age of ten.
Bemoaning the suppression of young people’s self-expression, is an odd complaint against a society where anyone, including the youngest of young people, can say just about anything and publish it on the Internet – so long as it doesn’t offend Muslims. Perhaps what the supposedly stifled Mr Colvin means is that no-one listens to what young people have to say. The answer is simple: say something interesting and people will listen. Moaning about a lack of suitable jobs and the evils of consumerism is so predictably trite it doesn’t even elevate itself to the level of dull.
From here:
I’m glad that Colin McComb’s letter [Dress codes a good way to start, anglicanjournal.com, May 10] gets beyond the T-shirt discussion because it exposes a much deeper, more dangerous mindset. The author writes: “The classroom should first and foremost be a place of learning: not a forum in which to exercise one’s freedom of expression. Children need to learn how to think before they learn how to bellow out whatever it is they’re thinking.”
Welcome to the history of childhood for the past century or so. An environment which has been built on the foundation that ‘we, the adults know things and you, the children, do not. Our job is to fill you with information and prepare you for the world when it’s your time.’
Except, when is it a young person’s time? When they leave school? These days, there are practically no entry level jobs in any industry for someone with a high school diploma. And while a college graduate might be lucky enough to get one the rapidly diminishing entry level jobs, as Colin McComb says, the modern Canadian workplace is no place for self expression. And so the children once again are, figuratively, being told that they are not yet really adults.
Perhaps the shift from childhood to adulthood takes place when a person buys a house or starts a family? But wait: Buying a house generally doesn’t happen without some support and subsidy from family. More waiting for adulthood. And in the meantime, young people become consumers.
“Children need to learn how to think before they learn how to bellow out whatever it is they’re thinking.”
This sounds all too dangerous. Almost like some sort of nationalist socialist indoctrination. (Oops. Did I inadvertantly mention “nazi”.) There is a very fine line between “teaching” a young mind “how” to think and “what” to think. All too often the left wing cross that line, sometimes by a rather extreme amount.
I do agree that schools are primarily a place for learning. How often have the right wing said it? It has been the left wing that has pushed the idea of students having freedom of expression and “free thought”. Strange how now we see the left wing saying what the right wing has been saying all along, now that an expression of a free thought goes against what the left wants anyone to hear.
David! I’m confused.
Mr Colvin seems to be argueing against McComb’s letter. As I read his argument in your excerpt, he says that McComb is wrong in saying we need to teach children how to learn before than can speak. He does this with examples that show how adults often find excuses to listen to what youth/children have to say, and ways to undermine the value of their voice. (Seems like a pretty standard message for a youth worker)
I worry your critique fails to undermine his point. You address the idea of becoming an adult, but Phil is saying that children don’t have a voice. You seem to argue that becoming an adult is when one deserves a voice, a point that actually supports mr. Colvin’s point, because you both say that children don’t have a voice now.
But then you contradict this and argue children can have a voice on the internet. Yet here you’ve confused ‘place to speak’ with ‘voice.’ It is clear from the article that Phil refers to a voice people listen to. If the child with the blog had a voice, you’d be responding to something he published about the T-Shirt in Nova Scotia, not only articles by adults.
David, please! You’re usually so good at challenging the liberals, but you failed this time. I know you can do better in rejecting the validity of Phil’s article, so please try again. Then I’ll know how to respond to his points if I ever have to bump into this less than dull youth worker!