[SCA] misguided intentions and bad policy (oy)

[cellio]

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.

Comments

[cellio]

I considered that, but if that's what they're doing it seems like they're playing with fire. It's bad enough (legally speaking) if something happens; it's got to be much worse if they issued credentials and something still happens.

I don't know the details of the case; would Ben the Steward have been caught by a background check? (I had the impression that his record was unblemished before the SCA incidents.)

[tangerinpenguin.livejournal.com]

If I had to speculate, I'd say a hostile attorney might argue that you are already credentialling as soon as you label someone as "the youth stuff officer" within your group, so if you're going to do that you should establish a stronger due diligence paper trail via background checks.

But my first intuition was to agree with you that this was a dangerous mistake, that there has to be a better way of dealing with this that involves carefully disclaiming any credentialling (sort of like the careful wording that has been used on occasions when discussing the chiurgeonate).

That being said, I'm a software developer with an inflated sense that the knows what he's talking about (i.e. not that far removed from many of the historical policy makers within the SCA Corporate) and would therefore much rather hear a thorough analysis of the caselaw from someone who's job is actually to know the caselaw.

[cellio]

I'd say a hostile attorney might argue that you are already credentialling as soon as you label someone as "the youth stuff officer" within your group

So that's an argument for not permitting (or at least not endorsing) "youth stuff officers", which might be a good idea anyway. They haven't made that a required office for kingdoms and baronies yet, have they? (I've lost track.)

That being said, I'm a software developer with an inflated sense that the knows what he's talking about

Yeah, me too. I'd love to hear an analysis by an independent lawyer.

[zevabe.livejournal.com]

AFAIK, the required officers for a shire are Seneschal and Exchequer plus one of the following: Herald, MOAS or Marshall. My laptop has Corpora bookmarked for such occassions, but I'm not using it now.

[cellio]

Shires get off lighter with required officers; there are more requirements for bigger groups, but I can't recall exactly which. (Some come from kingdom laws rather than the corporation, so any kingdoms that have added children's officer to that list might want to reconsider.)

[kyleri]

If anyone had done a background check on Ben, they wouldn't have found a thing to worry about. The proposed rules wouldn't have kept him out of anything.

As to the rest, the only thing I want to address is this. Naptime and colouring? Yeah, I'm there. :)

[cellio]

I figured there might be takers on naptime. :-)

[tashabear.livejournal.com]

No, he wouldn't. But had there been background checks, there would have been something to show that they exercised due diligence.

Background checks are empatically NOT credentials, however. They are not saying "This person is safe around children." They *are* saying "This person has not been found to be UNSAFE around children THUS FAR." There is a world of difference, and people are attributing to them powers that do not exist.

[cellio]

Background checks are empatically NOT credentials, however.

Thank you for pointing that out. I had missed that, and I'm pretty sure most of the people discussing it on my kingdom's mailing list have missed it. Which makes it even more dangerous, actually -- people ascribe an unwarranted level of security to it, and the SCA will (probably) be even more on the hook when something happens and the liability suit comes knocking.

[tashabear.livejournal.com]

I don't think so. Just because the plaintiff thinks that the SCA had certified a predator as safe doesn't make it true, and I think the court would agree.