cellio | [SCA] misguided intentions and bad policy (oy)

A few days ago the SCA corporate office announced a new (forthcoming) policy: because there have been problems, officers working with children and anyone running children's activities at an event must first pass a background check (details not yet provided). They're trying to weed out convicted sex offenders; I'm not sure what else they're trying to screen for.

Predictably, this has spawned a few threads on SCA discussion lists. One is about the concern that this will drive away prospective volunteers; it's an imposition (and who exactly is paying for it anyway?). Some people already complain that we don't do enough age-appropriate stuff for kids; I agree that this will make things worse in that regard. My suggestion, since the policy is about "children's activities", is to say we have no such thing: anyone is welcome to join us for coloring and nap time. That most adults won't be interested does not make it a children's activity on the books. (And why become an officer when you could just informally work with parents? There are no perks to being an officer.)

Another thread concerns parents and how if they were responsible and attentive and involved in their kids' lives, they wouldn't need to worry that the guy telling stories or teaching games is going to molest anyone. There are valid arguments on both sides (parents can't be everywhere all the time), and most SCA parents I know are reasonable, but I do wonder whether the requirement for background checks will make the irresponsible parents even more likely to dump their kids while they go off and party. Now the SCA has offered a promise that it's safe to do so. (I am very glad that a particularly problematic family has moved out of our group.)

But the thread that really gets under my skin is the "but think of the poor children!" one. A post tonight started off with this: If these background checks protect even _one_ child in Aethelmearc from sexual molestion or rape, it is worth it. It then went on with emotional appeals about the badness of molestation and abuse. Um, no one is arguing that molestation and abuse are good.

To that person I say (and said): Try this logically-equivalent statement: "If outlawing all motor vehicles saves even _one_ innocent victim from being killed by a reckless driver, it is worth it." Of course you wouldn't agree to that; while we want to minimize deaths due to reckless drivers, we recognize that there are other relevant factors, like the needs for commerce, transport to employment, and so on.

The world is not 100% safe. Any society (small "s") has to balance all of the legitimate needs of all of its members in trying to figure out where the best balance point is. Even if background checks were a silver bullet, you aren't done until you also address the problems they would impose.

(Aside: just this past week we had a local kidnapping case (adult and infant) that happened in front of a large grocery store in a well-trafficked area. Today's paper quoted a resident as saying that Giant Eagle needs to beef up its security so this can't happen again. Are you really ready to pay higher grocery costs to provide a guard stationed in front of the store? (Israelis, I don't mean you; yours is a different problem.))

I am not personally affected by the background-check rule. I'm not a parent (nor a kid :-) ), nor do I have any intention of being an officer in the SCA, nor am I inclined to run child-specific activities. But I think we're all harmed when bad "logic" drives policy. Proponents of more-restrictive policies need to support them with sound arguments, not appeals to emotion.

Threaded | Flat

What they're not grasping is that this policy is not to protect the children (though if it's a side-effect, that's not a bad thing), but to protect the SCA. If there is another incident like Ben the Steward, and the SCA is in the hot seat, they have some sort of high ground because they had mechanisms in place to at least weed out those who had records.

FWIW, if I want to be a parent chaperone on a field trip for my son's class, I have to undergo a background check.

Sorry, I substantially disagree with you.

But the thread that really gets under my skin is the "but think of the poor children!" one. A post tonight started off with this: If these background checks protect even _one_ child in Aethelmearc from sexual molestion or rape, it is worth it.

Surely it irritates you because of how badly and inappropriately it's been used in the past to infringe upon other people's liberties; with that I completely sympathize. But I feel perhaps your emotional reaction to this old vexation has overtaken your reasoned appraisal of it. This is precisely the appropriate context for that argument. Not (merely) because of the severity of the potential crime, but because of the utter non-existence of the rights violation this will entail.

I do not for a moment grant that anyone has a right to use the SCA as a context for holding children's activities. If the SCA wishes, as it evidently does, to put constraints on just who shall be allowed to run children's activities under its aegis, it is well within it's rights to put conditions upon the allocation of that privilege.

To that person I say (and said): Try this logically-equivalent statement

It is not logically-equivalent to arguing that preventing all driving. It is logically-equivalent to arguing that we should refuse to allocate drivers licenses to people who have criminal DUI records, and that due diligence consists of at least checking the db of known DUI convicts before handing someone a drivers license. Which, as you know, is precisely how our society runs.

Furthermore, your hypothetically equivalent scenario involves depriving all for the benefit of a few. But in the actual scenario, I see no burden at all upon the all or the many or even a bunch, for the benefit of a few (which will be come more), and what burden there is is not a deprivation. No one's liberties are being violated. If you don't want to do this thing, you don't have to. You do have to do it to be allowed to do this other thing which you don't have any particular right to do.

There are problems and issues with the plan as it has come to me, but none of them come anywhere close to adding up to an argument against implementation.

To address a few other points:

Another thread concerns parents and how if they were responsible and attentive and involved in their kids' lives

That entire line of argument infuriates me because of the profound ignorance it displays about just how the crime which the SCA is attempting to prevent is actually committed. Apparently the snatch-and-grab myth is alive and well in the current middle ages.

You can't have a meaningful discussion about security without understanding your threat model.

As I have read it, one of the classic modus operandi of chronic child molesters is to seek out parents to cultivate relationships with, which they do over time by being helpful, responsible, convivial people, given to volunteering and generally being the sort of fellow adult one likes to have around. Thus they curry the parents' favor and trust, and over time, the parents think it no big deal to trust this person with their children, not just as an approved of external authority figure, but as a personal friend.

The entire discussion of how parents should be around during children's activities and get to know the people running them is utter kaka. It's not that the children's activities give potential predators access to children, it's that it gives them access to parents, giving the predator opportunity to convince parents that they're trustworthy and "good with kids" so that they can then escalate to less public/supervised encounters with kids.

The threat model of child molestation is one where it makes sense to check anyone who wants to run children's activities, to protect parents from being con'd by the act, because parents, all parents, are in a very bad position to protect themselves.

What I want to know is how this will be implemented in overseas groups I can see several options...

1) We all the info on person X to the company in the USA, the pretend to do something with it.
2) We are forbidden from having stuff for kids.
3) We are expected to do local background checks and pay for them.
4) We ignore the whole thing.

Personally I'm going with #4.

Caveat: I don't know the scenario, and I don't have a good opinion of the SCA to begin with, so I can't say that I have an informed opinion on the matter. I'm not the sort to let that stop me, though. ;-) Two thoughts:

1) It seems that "No children allowed at SCA events" would solve the legal dilemma and involve a whole lot less paperwork. Making the argument might also expose the parents who expect the rest of the world to jump through hoops just so that they can avoid hiring a baby-sitter. Maybe the argument should be "Why is inconveniencing the rest of the organization BETTER than prohibiting children outright?"

2) In Pennsylvania, at least, there's already a common protocol for these things. It's referred to colloquially as "Act 34", and involves a criminal background check and an explicit clearance to work with children. The paperwork can be acquired here (http://www.dpw.state.pa.us/General/FormsPub/003671038.htm). Every school and public agency and many volunteer organizations that work with children requires clearance through these forms.

Will the SCA accept credentialing from other orgs. e.g., Rivka needed credentialing when she joined the local Jewish Cub Scout board. All of us that do the camping with our cub scouts get training as adults that includes credentialing that we don't have an urge to mess with kids.

There are a significant number of folks in professions (like teaching) or with other hobbies (like scouting) that already credential.

Otherwise, what is the SCA going to do, run people's names through the sex offender databases?

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Practical question