In America, we are taught it is unjust to discriminate. Discrimination by race is wrong. Discrimination by gender is wrong. Discrimination is wrong wrong wrong, except when it comes to age.
Citizens cannot drive untill till they are 16.They cannot vote, make their own decisions, buy porn, or drive while on the phone until 18. They cannot drink until 21 etc. The list could go on forever. I have mixed feelings about discrimination on age. Do I want 5 year olds looking at porn, driving, and voting? Not really. However, what is the difference between 17 an 18 or 20 and 21.
The first aspect of discrimination by age is the legality behind it. It is perfectly legal. The Constitution and Laws of the United States condone discrimination by age and apply it constantly. The Constitution gives the right to free speech correct? Wrong. The Constitution gives those over 18 the right to free speech. Parents can take away this right at any time they like. The Constitution creates a nation of liberated people correct? Wrong. The Constitution gives those over 18 the control of their own life.
I think that age discrimination itself is a hard topic to argue simply because it is necessary but at the same time people mature at different ages. Does there need to be a voting age requirement? yes. However where it has to be is rather unclear personally. Some people begin looking into politics, following elections, and having opinions at 14. Some start at 16. Some people never do. Why should an 16 year old child educated on the issues with a thought out opinion not get to vote, but the 25 year old homeless person who does not even know the candidates have the ability to vote.
Do children need to be cared for and under the control of their parents? Yes. However, when does one stop being a child. Maturity is different for everyone. I know 14 year olds more capable to make thier own independent decisions that some 18 or even 24 year olds.
As I said at the beginning of the post I have mixed feelings about the issue. Obviously, I am biased because I am under 17 and victim to age discrimination. However, my age does not change the issue. What is your opinion of age discrimination? How do you set a universal age requirement when everyone has a different maturity level and background?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
hey mark, i like that you hit this topic but obviously there cant be any method devised to check people to a certain age for whether or not they should get to vote/be responsible for themselves. Any such method where some system decides your maturity and readiness to be politically involved would be over regulating our lives to the point of complete socialism.
Also, just to mention i dont agree with the 24 year old homeless comment. While the man not knowing the names of the candidates is a valid assertion, the simple fact that he is homeless cannot be a reason to ostracize him from politics and sounds quite discriminatory and elitist to me. Two things i know you are not.
Mark--I agree with what you're saying but I think you can look at in a different way. I don't really see it as age "discrimination" since discrimination connotes something delibertly unjust. The government is just trying to set standards since it is impossible to test everyones maturity level. Although I too wish I could vote, I dont feel victimized by having to wait another year.
-Georgia Thomas
I agree with both of the comments above. The age discrimination is more of a set of guidelines. The government doesn't have the funds nor the time to organize something to "test for maturity" among all teenagers to see if they will be ready to vote or if they already are. I guess the whole point of having an age limit is just for universality. People are generally mature by the age of 21 or at least educated enough to make decisions for themselves in the world of politics. So is it unfair to those who took an initiative earlier on? Yeah, but would you rather allow a great majority to vote simply so that the rest of the more qualified students but part of the minority can vote?
"In America, we are taught it is unjust to discriminate. Discrimination by race is wrong. Discrimination by gender is wrong. Discrimination is wrong wrong wrong, except when it comes to age."
Discrimination by race and gender is permanent unless a civil rights movement takes place.
Age restrictions are lifted after a certain age - in short, it's only temporary.
You're only a stone's throw away from being able to vote. I don't see why you're impatient.
However, for future considerations concerning minor's voting rights, I suggest instituting a test on how well a student knows about politics and government. Should this student pass the test, he/she would be able to vote before the age of 18. Now, I'm aware that some (many probably) adults are not politically versed yet have the right to vote. It is harder to institute a standards test towards the adults as opposed the kids all gathered in school. The second, and more important, problem is that it would be shot down by civil rights groups everywhere.
I agree with Kevin about the test. However, I think that it should be a test given to all would-be voters, above and below 18. Everyone would have to display knowledge of the current political scene to be allowed to vote on it.
-Ilan Seid-Green
Hey Mark, i totally agree with your argument, especially the part about the well-informed teenager having more right to vote than the homeless guy. I really liked the part about people maturing at different times.
While I agree that we as minors suffer major age discrimination, I can't help but bring up that we aren't the only ones "discriminated" against. Adults, also, suffer the same injustice, just on the other side of the spectrum, so to speak.
Mark,
I know how you're feeling my friend on age discrimination because I, Like you feel the same barriers. However, there are a few examples that I would like to point out to you. First, there are some legal circumstances where a non-legal aged teen can become an emancipated adult like when a kids parents pass away or abandon him/her. Another example that is very close to home is the Hillsdale attack. The perpetrator was 17 at the time the act was committed yet he is still being tried in court as an adult due to the severity of the crime. Lastly, the driving age is different in other states because the states have tested and experimented with allowing different ages to drive before settling upon a driving age that each state finds suitable.
The age restrictions that have been set in place did not just come from the sky but are a result from many years of statistical research, observation, and debate. As a kid soon to become a "legal" 18 in October, I'm a little scared actually. We all joke how we'll be able to buy cigarettes, pornography, to register to vote, and join the armed forces but in all seriousness this age brings a new level of responsibility. As much as age discrimination can bite sometimes, I think I'm OK with the concept and trust that the ages set in place for certain things are fair.
Keeping Time like a Rolex,
Seth Klebe
This post reminded me of the first quiz that Mr.Silton gave us. It covered topics needed for immigrants to become actual "American Citizens". Personally, I think that more than half or even three quarters of my class failed that quiz. So, what I am getting at is that there is reason why we are recommended to take a government course before we reach 18 (for some of us at least). Even though it would be nice to vote considering a sad percentage of Americans vote anyways (yay our votes count more!) I believe allowing high school students to vote when they have finally developed some understanding of the world and has experienced some sort of pressure and responsibilities leads to an ultimately more educated pool of votes. Maybe we could lower the age limit? But then again, considering that many sixteen year olds recklessly drive and get into car accidents nowadays.. I'm not so sure about how responsible we really are. Also I'd like to add that the years when kids actually had to work when they turned ten produced more responsible adults quicker. In a way, involvement in the workforce definately should contribute to who gets to vote or not. (not saying homeless people or the unemployed shouldn't.. I'm just saying in terms of responsibilities). Nowadays, students are required to stay in school longer in order to get a better job in the future. I think they are forcing us to stay in school longer since people are living longer! Grr. Best to leave it as it is. The system isn't discriminating...it is just logical to wait until kids are more in tune with the world around them before handing them a vote that determines their own future.
Hey Mark,
I think what you're saying here is interesting. It's definitely true that we set sometimes arbitrary standards for at what age certain things can happen, especially in light of discrepancies within the United States or world-wide.
I agree with comments above about "discrimination" perhaps having a connotation that doesn't reflect your message. Really what it is, in my opinion, is a reflection of limitation as established by the government.
Truly, these age limitations are a government assertion that parents are not entirely sovereign when it comes to what children can and cannot do. Many decisions are made in the home through a child's upbringing exclusively by the parents, but some are dictated by the government. So to answer the final questions you posed, Mark, I'd say that government regulations are not always reflective of maturity levels, but when you try to implement a state-wide or nation-wide standard that is an inevitable side-effect.
--Ari B
I think that the point that most of the comments are heading toward is the idea that these age limits do not in fact work. Age is indeed a poor scale when it comes to measuring maturity.
I think that it is saying something when you have a democratic system of government with people who are "adults" but have the same mindsets as immature and irresponsible teens (okay sure some teens are mature but you get the point.
Modern American mass-media society somehow incubates a sitcom, virtual society that never actually faces the template of reality on which to mature. How can a country stand on such a foundation?
3 a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually.
This is merriam-webster.com/dictionary deffinition of discrinination. It takes as you can see more then one person to make the choice of age and laws. Witch means that more then one person sees fit to have set rules to protect certian individuals. Even tho i do agree that certian people are more mature then othere laws are there to protect people and most but not all people under 18 still cant make decisions for them selfs. And dissing on the homless voter is not mature so think are you mature enough to vote while respecting other voters oppions? Because thats maturity.
"I agree with Kevin about the test. However, I think that it should be a test given to all would-be voters, above and below 18. Everyone would have to display knowledge of the current political scene to be allowed to vote on it."
As much sense as test would make for people 18+, it would be too controversial.
Remember how literacy tests were used to bar black people from voting?
Although the purpose of this test is different, it is reminiscent of those literacy tests.
"The age restrictions that have been set in place did not just come from the sky but are a result from many years of statistical research, observation, and debate."
Sounds logical to me. Remember in psychology how the enviroment has influence over the cognitive development of the adolescent?
"Also I'd like to add that the years when kids actually had to work when they turned ten produced more responsible adults quicker. In a way, involvement in the workforce definately should contribute to who gets to vote or not."
Why can't school be like a full time job? Having APs make it feel that way.
"Age is indeed a poor scale when it comes to measuring maturity."
Maturity is never an easy thing to measure right before an election. It takes time to know a person before deciding on his/her maturity level. It just turns out that age is the best thing we can come up with.
This blog needs a mandatory spell check.
Looking at this post and these comments, while I agree with much of what people are saying, I find it necessary to bring up another point of view. Many are mentioning that maturity and knowledge of our nation's current state of affairs as absolutely crucial to eligibility to vote.
Lily mentioned very briefly that "In a way, involvement in the workforce definitely should contribute to who gets to vote or not", and I must strongly agree with this statement.
While there may be many who are our age, or maybe even younger, who understand this nation's situation better than many legal adults, it must be noted that there is much knowledge and experience that we do not know or have. We may proudly believe that we know a lot, but in the end there are things with which we have no experience.
I must also mention that while there are those exceptions who do in fact have the knowledge and experience to make such important decisions, many underage persons do not yet have the impact on society (that is, they neither provide for themselves, nor a family, pay taxes, etc) that entitles them to decide on things that actually impact the world in which people live and work.
I conclude by once again mentioning that there are always exceptions, and should anyone fall under those exceptions, I mean no offense.
Yo Mark my man! I totally agree that in some cases, age is not the best way to decide whether someone should be allowed to vote or not. However, it's the best we have. Setting an age limit for voting is a lot easier than going around to every single person under 18 and finding out whether they are smart enough to vote or not!
I definitely agree with the point you made about the homeless man in contrast to the teenager. Its true that at any age there is a wide spectrum of maturity and that it does not seem fair to have less freedoms than someone maybe five years older whose level of maturity is clearly inferior.
As a senior who is sixteen I know that I didn't think it was fair for other people in the same grade to be able to test for their licence when I could not even test for my permit. Especially those who in no way seemed as close to responsible as I viewed myself.
So then I tried to come up with a system in which it would be fair
...and I could not. Even with some sort of test, discrimination would possibly just occur in the opposite direction. Like those who
were excellent drivers but did not have say a college education that would have allowed them to pass this hypothetical test.
The line has to be drawn somewhere in order to keep the system from becoming completely chaotic with endless lists of regulations
and exceptions.
-Jessica Barney
I feel like a lot of people are expressing the feeling that they agree but do not know how a better system would work. I would agree. The system sucks but I cannot think of a better solution
As for the problems some have with the word discrimination: yes the word has a bad connotation and this circumstance does not necessarily lend itself towards that connotation,it is still treating a certain group of people differently because they are part of that group.
"Even with some sort of test, discrimination would possibly just occur in the opposite direction. Like those who
were excellent drivers but did not have say a college education that would have allowed them to pass this hypothetical test."
Your thought here also applies to politics, among other things.
A few people have the potential to become greatly, thoughtful voters, but lack the education to pass a potential test (the one I suggested earlier for high schoolers).
You have to think of it this way: education unlocks ability.
Those few people who have the potential to become great voters cannot be so, until they are educated. That potential voter's political skill (the test I suggested in an earlier comment) test is meant to prevent people from voting until they have reached that potential.
You may have the potential to be a great driver, but without the education to be so, you are the same as anyone else who doesn't know how to drive.
Kevin, thank you for pointing out the very poorly written part of my comment. That'll teach me from publishing comments before checking to make sure they made sense.
Here is what I meant:
There is no way that the government can test whether individuals are mature or responsible enough to do certain things. And therefore they can not always regulate those things. If they tried to, the bureaucracy would be massive and costly. Not to mention it would infringe on the freedom of choice.
For example, it is no secret that there are some parents out there that should not be parents. They lack the skills to raise and nurture a child into adulthood. But if the government was to try to regulate who could become parents and who couldn't than it would defy the principles the country was founded on.
-Jessica Barney
I agree with you Mark. The current discrimination by age seems to go against what the Constitution says, which is liberty and equality for all. You are absolutely right, the system is flawed but it works. There are obvious reasons behind the laws, such as the driving law. On average, people at the age of sixteen are responsible to drive safely and that is why the driving age is 16. Could a 14 year old or 15 year old have the same maturity? Sure, but they have to set the age somewhere. I think a better policy for the driving law at least would be to have driving tests available to younger people, but the tests should be redesigned to ensure that the person is a safe driver. Age is just a number, but I believe 16 is the best estimate of the number of years a person is mature enough to drive safely.
As for the voting, I believe that it is reasonable to set an age at 18, even if this may seem discriminating. Just look at our education system, we learn about US history in detail around the age of 16 or 17 and finish a detailed study of US government around the age of 18, so I think it is reasonable for the government to assume that by 18, the majority of people know at least something about US government. It may be true that a 14 year old may know more than a 25 year old about politics, but is that the norm? Does the government know about that specific individual? The government can't please everyone, but it can try to please most people, and most people are sufficiently educated about politics around the age of 18. Just be happy that it was cut down to 18 from 21.
- Henry Zhang
Post a Comment