[theory: liberationism]

Liberationist youth rights theory is a subset of social philosophy that advocates for minors to have equal legal rights and social status as adults.

[history]

Liberationist perspectives on youth rights have been furthered by the work of a number of people, including but not limited to:

• Philippe Ariès, whose 1960 work Centuries of Childhood examines the social construction of childhood as a period of life separate from and subordinate to adulthood, in contrast to historical concepts of life without such a division.
• Richard Farson, whose 1974 book Birthrights provides an overview of how children came to be subordinated in society and outlines many basic rights he advocates that young people should have.
• John Holt, whose book Escape from Childhood accomplishes a similar goal to Birthrights (and was published the same year) but goes about from an educator’s perspective, more slowly building up to a radical liberationist philosophy. John Holt is known for his many writings on pedagogy.
• Howard Cohen, whose 1980 book Equal Rights for Children puts forward a worldview of children having agency as opposed to what he calls the “caretaker ideology.” He builds his argument from a social justice perspective, integrating law and philosophy with social concerns.

Youth rights first gained momentum through youth activism in other movements, such as political protest during the Great Depression and the Vietnam War. In 1967, In re Gault afforded young people due process rights in juvenile court. In 1969, Tinker v. Des Moines upheld that “it can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate,^[1] and students have the right to protest in school as long as they do not “disrupt learning.” Young people were very active in anti-war and progressive movements from the 1960s onward, which gave them a higher profile in mainstream politics. In 1971, the 26^th Amendment to the US Constitution made it illegal for states to set their voting age above 18.

One of the first actual youth liberationist advocacy organizations was Youth Liberation of Ann Arbor, a Michigan organization active from 1970 to 1979 that integrated current student activism in other movements (such as those for gay rights and against the Vietnam War) with advocacy for youth-led representation in government and independence from adult control in education and culture.

In the 1990s, youth began organizing for self-determination rights using the internet, which led to the formation of Americans for a Society Free from Age Restrictions (ASFAR). Controversy on how best to pursue these rights in the current political climate led some members to branch out and form the National Youth Rights Association, which may be considered the most official and active youth rights organization in the US today.

[philosophy]

Youth liberationist philosophy is founded on the tenet that all people, regardless of age, have the right to self-determination. This involves freedom from outside control of one’s actions and choices. Youth liberationists argue that age is merely a convenient correlative measure of maturity, that age-based policies that are actually meant to restrict rights based on maturity unjustly restrict the rights of mature young people, and that ultimately, “maturity” is too subjective a term to use as a basis for rights. They argue that the perception of “maturity” has historically been controlled by social majority groups (in terms of population and political power) and that the same way white people excluded black people and men excluded women from political and social discourses, adults exclude young people from political and social discourse and claim that they are incapable of mature decision-making.

Some youth liberationists frame youth rights issues in sociological or social justice terms, contending that adult power over children is a cultural hegemony and falls under kyriarchy. They frame adult/child dynamics in terms of institutionalized oppression and privilege.^[2]

In the context of young people, who are currently commonly subject to legal and societal distinctions as minors that enforce governmental and parental control regardless of personal choice, self-determination faces many issues.

[issues]

     [voting]

Commonly considered one of the most basic rights of self-determination, voting is currently considered the purview only of those past the age of majority. Youth liberationists advocate that voting rights be open to anyone who wants a voice in their government, regardless of age.

     [free speech]

Youth liberationists believe that the speech of minors should not be censored based on “age-appropriateness.” Similarly, they take issue with the concept of young people not being allowed exposure to “adult content.” Their argument centers on the repudiation of a causative link between “maturity” and age, and proposes that since age-based policies exclude mature young people, maturity should be a case-by-case determination. They often add that minors viewing “adult content” usually causes no harm, and that minors are better protected from danger with more exposure and judgmental ability than with less. Thus, they oppose age-based censorship of print, media, and internet sources.

     [bodily freedom]

There are many subsets to young people’s bodily freedom, but ultimately they all converge on the issue of young people being allowed do as they wish with their bodies, and adults not being allowed to control young people’s bodies without permission. This includes: 

• corporal punishment: youth liberationists argue that the deliberate harm of anyone’s body, regardless of age, is assault, and that physical punishment is coercion.
• medical consent: youth liberationists believe that anyone, regardless of age, should be given the right to informed consent for any medical procedure. This is one issue that is difficult to tackle for very young children, who may not yet comprehend many medical terms and ramifications. Youth liberationists generally argue that if someone is actually incapable of informed consent, medical procedures should not be administered unless necessary for preservation of life and health.
• drinking age: youth liberationists argue that the right to drink or consume other age-restricted substances should not be restricted based on age. They argue that if adults have the right to make potentially harmful choices, young people should too, and that many young people have the maturity to use good judgment in avoiding that potential harm. 
• sexual consent: one of the most contentious issues facing youth liberationists is their argument that age does not make someone incapable of sexual consent. In current society, the ingrained attitude toward children’s sexuality is that it should be forbidden, that young people should be protected from “adult” sexuality, and that any consent a minor claims to have given in a sexual encounter in invalid. Thus, it is considered impossible for a minor to have consensual sex, only to be a victim of “statutory rape.” Youth liberationists contend that young people’s vulnerability to sexual coercion is a product of the power society gives adults over children, and that while that power makes it easier for a minor to be coerced into sex, it does not make it impossible for a minor to exert sexual agency. They argue that in cases of informed consent, a young person’s sexual agency should be respected.

     [education]

Youth liberationists believe in young people’s right to self-taught learning, contending that truancy laws and policies forcing young people to go to school actually destroy children’s natural thirst for knowledge. They believe that young people should have the right to follow their own interests when it comes to education.

     [employment]

Youth liberationists often oppose child labor laws because in an effort to prevent exploitation, they forbid young people from working for pay if they choose to. They argue that most US child labor laws were enacted in response to the abusive work environments that harmed workers of all ages prior to most union activism, and propose that employment discrimination laws and labor rights be extended to young people as protection instead. Some youth liberationists advocate that these rights (like sexual consent and many others) be a product of gradual social change, because they concede that young people are more vulnerable to exploitation in today’s society. They believe it is necessary for young people to be informed and empowered to defend their rights so that they can protect themselves, rather than rely on laws that simultaneously protect and restrict them.

     [economic independence]

Related to the right to employment is the right to economic independence. Youth liberationists point out that the subordination of young people’s rights is facilitated by their economic dependence on adults, and argue that if young people were allowed to be more financially independent, they would be less vulnerable to coercion on all levels. This is supported by studies that show, for instance, that young women who are dependent on boyfriends for money are less likely to use sexual protection.^[3]

     [family life]

Youth liberationists oppose laws and social attitudes that promote the idea that young people should be expected to obey their parents and be subject to parental control and punishment. They argue in favor of egalitarian families where parents and children listen to each other’s arguments and logic is more important than age. They believe that parents should not enforce rules so much as be advisors to their children, and that egalitarian parenting will result in less intergenerational conflict. They believe young people, like adults, should be allowed to make mistakes and learn from them. They do not believe young people should be forced to live with their families if they do not find their families welcoming environments, and that they should be allowed to find other sources of financial and social support.

     [social representation]

Youth liberationists believe that equal legal rights for youth go hand in hand with equal social status, and that young people’s status as “other” and as objects of protection rather than as individuals with agency is perpetuated by their limited representation in the media and in politics. They believe that young people must be given the same diversity of representation currently afforded to adults in the media, and be allowed to speak for themselves rather than be spoken for and about by adults. Similar to the conflict between Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Du Bois regarding how black Americans should achieve equality with whites, there is conflict among youth liberationists about whether legal equality for youth can only come after social recognition has been achieved, or social recognition will be easier to achieve with a legal voice. Most agree that this is a circular process where each both furthers and results from the other.

[external links]

• Findlaw - Tinker v. Des Moines
• Americans for a Society Free from Age Restrictions
• National Youth Rights Association
• Shut Up, Sit Down - The Adult Privilege Checklist
• Journal of Adolescent Health - Cash, Cars, and Condoms: Economic Factors in Disadvantaged Adolescent Women's Condom Use