[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

[amergina.livejournal.com]

Suppose, instead, the corporation made a rule that all cooks have to have received certifiation from local boards of health, like cooks in restaurants do. That sounds reasonable, right? Food-safety is important. There are more feasters than children in the SCA, though granted the outcome of an incident is probably more likely to be acute and short-term. But if we're going to regulate kids' activities, regulating feasts doesn't seem out of line. Ok, no one has a right to cook feasts -- but what would our events be like if, say, half the cooks said "nah, too much bother" and wouldn't do it? We'd have fewer feasts, or the same number of feasts with more risk of burning out fewer people. Can we survive without feasts? Sure. Would we have as much fun? I'd say no.

How would you feel about it if there had been 24 cases of food poisoning at SCA feasts in the past two years? And not isolated to any particular area...

Me, I'd start avoiding feasts until it could be proven that I won't get sick at one. Unless I knew the cook was well schooled in food prep safety.

[tashabear.livejournal.com]

Hear hear. If you would like to hear more about poor food prep standards and poisonous feasts, stop by Strawberry Fields at Pennsic and I'll introduce you to my Mistress. She has stories about feasts over her 20+ years of participation that will curl your hair and put you off your feed for days.

[cellio]

I would feel the same way. I would (and already do), as a feast consumer, do some checking around before making a reservation. It's my responsibility to satisfy myself that the cook will, in my case, most likely be able to deliver a vegetarian meal. How do I do this? Personal reputation, the cook's readiness to provide an ingredient list, maybe talking with people who know the cook if I don't, etc. If the SCA hosted an optional registration service for background checks or credentials, so that I could easily look up whether this cook has passed Food Safety 101 from the board of health, I'd avail myself of that.

It is, of course, within the rights of the officers of any local group to say "we can't afford the risk, financially or in reputation, to have you cook one of our feasts until you get this credential". It is also within their rights to say "we know you, have seen you work, and trust you". If cooks make full disclosure, I think it should be up to the hosting groups and, ultimately, the consumers to decide who's acceptable. Not the corporation.

a question

[cellio]

This isn't a perfect analogy, as in this case there were credentials involved, but: did you stop eating at restaurants when Chi-Chi's had the hepatitis problem? Or did you only stop eating at Chi-Chi's, even though their supplier of green onions also supplied other restaurants?

If there were 24 cases of food poisoning in two years, I'd ask a lot more questions before buying feasts. But I wouldn't assume that one of the 1000+ events being held this year would poison me. Statistically, getting into an accident on the way to the event is probably more likely.

Re: a question

[amergina.livejournal.com]

I didn't eat at chi-chi's much before that. I did eat out, but remember that every restaurant pretty much stopped using green onion for a while after that incident. I certainly would not have eaten any green onion at the time.

I stopped feeding my cats food that contained wheat gluten, due to the tainted wheat gluten from China.

But here the thing... these incidents occured by accident/without malicious intent.

No one accidentally molests a child.

24 incidents?

[cellio]

The original letter is unclear. Have there been 24 incidents at SCA events, or were 24 people banished for mundane convictions for crimes outside the SCA?