Josie Appleton of spiked reports, in her article “Just 17? Then forget university,” that 17-year-old students at British universities are being treated like children. Specifically, bright students who skip their final year of high school, as I did, face “a whole morass of bureaucracy… to protect them from the potentially abusive adults on campus”.
Fact: 17-year-olds are not children.
This case is a perfect example of unintended consequences. Relatively well-intentioned rules designed to protect children have turned into something that stifles the education of intelligent and mature teenagers. Due to the extra costs, paperwork and bureaucracy – including criminal record checks for all staff, and designated “child protection officers” – universities like Oxford will no longer take child prodigies. What explains these new restrictions? According to Ms. Appleton:
When adult meant ‘mature’, the existence of 17-year-olds on campus wasn’t such a big deal…
Now, ‘adult’ and ‘child’ have come to mean potential abuser and potential abuse victim. This sets them apart as two completely separate groups, with completely different interests. Children are not in the process of being assimilated into the adult world, but instead need to be protected and defended from it.
These rules are ridiculous and retarded examples of Nanny Statism. They reinforce an arbitrary barrier between childhood and adulthood, and between high school and university. It is reasonable to expect that 17-year-olds are capable of making their own decisions, even if they haven’t reached the magic age. To treat teenagers as children – with no freedom or responsibility – only encourages childish, irresponsible behaviour.
When I entered university I was 17, and I didn’t turn 18 for another 6 months. There were several other 17-year-olds at Weir House, but all turned 18 in a few weeks. The only problem it caused me – such stupid rules have yet to arrive in NZ universities – was the drinking age. Despite no difference in maturity, I couldn’t legally go out for a drink with my friends. Another arbitrary rule which just encourages binge drinking and discourages any respect for the law.
With freedom comes responsibility, and denying freedom leads to irresponsible behaviour. Nanny State, by “protecting” us from potential harm, infantilizes us all. Dependency causes infantilization. True maturity is only possible with independence and freedom.
I haven’t read the legislation or thought it through, but the new Working With Children legislation in Victoria (Australia) *might* have the same effect, since minors/children are those under 18.
It’s all very well to criticise the law, and I agree that it has unintentioned and ridiculous consequences in this instance – but proposing reform is a far more difficult and challenging task. So what would you propose? (I’m interested in the drinking issue as well as the university entrance issue!)
Left by Bec on April 11th, 2007