|
If you
haven’t spoken with a six-year-old lately, I’d highly recommend it.
Children that age
can own a fair arsenal of words, yet are still unjaded by life. They are also
wonderfully unfettered by reality. Superman is as real as the supermarket, the
boogey man is an actual person, and most don’t much like to think about what
skulks under the bed at night.
I remember a long car trip when my kids were about
six, perhaps a bit younger. I was explaining that their little teeth would soon
loosen and fall, to be replaced by bigger teeth. They weren’t buying it for a
minute.
It is an odd
concept if you think about it, parts just falling off and new ones growing
back. But when Mom backed me up, they believed. So I continued. “Yes. Then
your little arms fall off and your big arms grow in. Then your little legs ...”
That’s as far as I
got before my wife shushed me into silence, but by then they were tugging at
their limbs, alert for any sign of slack. Having learned a tiny bit about their
world they quickly jumped to some pretty big conclusions, loosely attached legs
aside.
Funny stuff, the
kind of innocent episode most kids experience before their judgement gels. Not
funny, though, is a legislative attempt to put the weight of government behind
the undeveloped perspective of children.
Under Assembly
Bill 2068 by Assemblyman Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, a child entering the
first grade would be questioned about whether his or her parents are unemployed
or divorced; if he or she has poor self esteem; if the child has been exposed to
violence, real or in movies or television; what kind of child care he or she
has; whether the family uses spanking in discipline; if there is mental illness
in the family; whether the family or its neighbors own guns, and; if the child
has experienced “sexual victimization.” Steinberg’s purpose, he says, is to
detect problems that could lead to violence or crime.
Sound a little
intrusive? More like a lot, akin to having a video camera in every room of your
house. Worse, since a camera can at least be counted on to record real images.
Remember the
McMartin preschool fiasco a few years back? Overzealous prosecutors and social
agencies were found to have planted bizarre sexual images involving everything
from UFOs to human sacrifice. The heart-wrenching but fabricated testimonies of
duped children led to convictions of several staff members. These were
eventually overturned, but not before lives were ruined.
Then there is
Elian Gonzalez, the world’s most famous six-year old. After his rescue the
boy’s Miami relatives invited Juan Gonzalez to come to America, and Elian said
he wanted his father. When it became clear the man wanted his son returned to
Cuba, Elian’s custodians did a U-turn, claiming the boy had been neglected, even
abused. Elian then said he was afraid of his dad. Now that Juan has custody,
the boy says he wants to go home. What Elian believes is the last thing he was
told.
The bill has
passed the Assembly and will soon find its way to the Senate. Steinberg took
the back door, choosing to amend a current law requiring student health
screening rather than introduce it on its own. An earlier version failed
because it required state funding; the final bill shifts the burden to
counties.
It also makes no
direct reference to the inquiries to be made. Instead it calls for a health
history “including recommendations set forth in policy paper No. RE9832 of the
American Academy of Pediatrics,” which contains the offending language. I doubt
many of Assemblyman Steinberg’s colleagues bothered to look it up, a likelihood
I suspect he was counting on.
That there has
been so little protest over this gross infringement comes as no surprise in a
country where citizens cheerfully answer census questions about their ability to
bathe alone and climb stairs. But if we allow it, living with decisions based
on the judgement of six-year-olds would be an ironic justice.
© 1997 – 2002 Brent Morrison
|
