![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cellioPredictably, 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.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-04-15 05:32 pm (UTC)Ah, yes, all those churches and synagogues which now require all their congregants to have background checks to worship there... *coff*
I hope you can see the difference between attending a worship service in a room with hundreds of others for a couple hours, and going to a sisable, spread-out city not known for good security for two weeks.
No, actually, the easiest way will be to comply. You slap your money down, get the check done, and go on with things. Pretty much anything else will be harder, for all the obvious reasons.
That's easy for the person filling the office. But now autocrats have to verify the status of not just the officers but every person who's helping to run kids' activities at the event. As an autocrat, do you even know who all your helpers are in advance? Or do you let the cook recruit kitchen help and the head toolner recruit help and the marshal in charge recruit marshals, and so on? Do I get to just push the problem down, making verification the problem of the officer in charge? That's fine with me, but I've now made work for that officer.
Is it a lot of work? Probably not, but it does add hassle, especially when you factor in non-local helpers. I can easily see it being easier to just say "nope, no official kids' activities here".
Judging from what I see in the newsletter and on the mailing list, by the way, it was already kind of hard to get people to fill this office before this happened.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-04-15 07:35 pm (UTC)Yes -- it's far more plausible to insist on background checks for the worship service than for the city, and even that the organizations most motivated to do so haven't done!
But now autocrats have to verify the status of not just the officers but every person who's helping to run kids' activities at the event.
Good point. That said, my impression -- which let us be clear, is based on the hearsay of incredibly nebulous "details" proposed so far, so take it with one of those nifty Iranian salt glaciers -- is that the requisite paperwork for this is far less than for any martial art in the society. I'm not happy to see paperwork proliferate, but as paperwork goes, it sounds like this is very modest. Making sure each of your volunteers is up to date on their background check (and has anybody thought about how background checks go stale?) is of a smaller scale than making sure all your fighters are authorized.
Do I get to just push the problem down, making verification the problem of the officer in charge?
Groups can handle it however they think best, presumably, but just as presumably they will handle it the same way we handle every other participation check: there is a minister for the group who is responsible for that. We don't generally require autocrats to insure every thrown weapons competitor has signed their waiver, that's what the Thrown Weapons cheif marshal is for, e.g.
Judging from what I see in the newsletter and on the mailing list, by the way, it was already kind of hard to get people to fill this office before this happened.
Yeah, which is actually, to my mind, an additional reason to be not too worried about it: it seems we have already established a heck of a lot of groups aren't sufficiently behind the concept to support it in the first place, the argument "But then they'll be even less willing to do it!" makes me say, "Less than not at all? What, they're going to go to other groups' events and prevent them from holding children's activities??"
This brings me to another point. Across the various journals I read, far and away the most vocal objections to this policy I've seen -- heck, maybe all the objections -- have come from non-parents who don't volunteer for children's activities. To the extent that I've heard from parents (I haven't heard from any non-parents particularly involved in volunteering yet) they've been completely sanguine with this proposal.
It bothers me that it seems we have, on one hand, uninvolved people who will not be directly effected saying "No! Think of the volunteers!" and the volunteers in question saying, "Yes, sure, sounds good to me." While I do appreciate the point that branches of the Society shouldn't go off and do their own thing with no thought to how their collective conduct impacts the whole, I do feel strongly that the people who are most effected by something, who are most invested in it, should have the most say in it.
(This is actually something I have come to feel is a substantial flaw in democracies, and is a more general flaw in the "Democracy is three wolves and a sheep discussing what to have for dinner" vein. I've decided to do my best to live accordingly. For instance, at work, I recused myself from the decision about what insurance plan we should get, because I know for many of my co-workers this is literally a life-or-death issue, and one which involves much vaster sums of money for them than for me. And I explicitly said, in my note to HR, what I was doing and why, and said that while I trusted they'd keep the discussants from breaking the bank, I wanted them to prioritize the voices of those for whom this had more effect on their lives.)
If the parents or children's activity volunteers I am hearing from were opposed to this, I would back them 100%. But they are generally for it and that carries a whole lot of weight to me.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-04-15 11:24 pm (UTC)Thanks for pointing this out! I hadn't noticed it, but now that you say it... it does sort of put an interesting slant on things. Mind if I copy/quote to my journal (with attribution of course)?
And "What, they're going to other groups' events and prevent them from holding children's activities?" made me laugh. :-)
(no subject)
Date: 2007-04-15 11:28 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-04-16 02:13 am (UTC)I'm afraid I don't follow your logic here. Contained space, limited time, and a roomful of witnesses, versus Pennsic encampments?
(and has anybody thought about how background checks go stale?)
Good point. The check is good for two years. A lot can happen in two years without anyone in the SCA being the wiser.
Groups can handle it however they think best, presumably, but just as presumably they will handle it the same way we handle every other participation check: there is a minister for the group who is responsible for that.
My group is required to have a marshal and a list minister; we're not required to have a children's officer. If we do, great -- it can be that person's problem. If we don't, whose problem is it? I suppose what will happen is that, as with archery, thrown weapons, etc, the affected communities will be responsible for policing their own, with the stick of "no activity for you at this event if you can't make sure it's legal".
Across the various journals I read, far and away the most vocal objections to this policy I've seen -- heck, maybe all the objections -- have come from non-parents who don't volunteer for children's activities.
I've seen objections from parents on my kingdom mailing list. I don't know if those parents help run children's activities. I haven't been keeping a tally of this, but will pay attention from now on.