Denying Youth Rights is Wrong

BY DANIEL VEREL
Contributing Writer

ZACK LUCHETTI / SPECIAL TO THE GUARDSMAN

Age in American society is — and always has been — a defining attribute and a testament to one’s maturity and development into the ranks of adulthood. From the early ages of adolescence to the golden years, one’s age has the ability to shape one’s status in all facets of life. 

At the impressionable age of 16, teenagers are granted the privilege of driving. At 18, privileges and responsibilities increase and many of society’s guilty vices become readily available. For others, the burdens of adulthood rear their ugly heads. At this defining age, people can essentially determine the course of their lives.

Age discrimination is nothing new, and the argument over what makes one a responsible adult has long been heatedly debated. When one reaches 18, they are allowed to legally poison themselves with tobacco, practice democracy, die with honor while in the military, and engage in consensual sexual activity. Needless to say, a lot of doors open during the crossroads of adolescence.

But as many know, kids begin some of these activities long before they are legally entitled to, and consciously choose to not engage in others.

Youth advocates assert that teens are affected by the decisions of adults, and therefore have a right to start voting at a younger age. Since a teen can begin paying taxes as early as the age of 14, this may not be unreasonable.

In order for one to reach the true mark of young adulthood, they must wait until they reach the tender age of 21, which was raised from 18 in 1984. Raising the drinking age has not curbed drinking among teens, nor has it saved thousands of lives, despite claims. 

A recent study by researchers Peter Asch and David Levy from Rutgers University concluded that drinking- related deaths dropped in the 18-20 range, but increased in the 21-24 age group. It is clear that assigning an arbitrary number to the legality of drinking has not, and will not, save lives.

By educating the youth of today to make informed, responsible decisions, much of society itself will benefit. Most societies do not place such stringent limits on adulthood, and the United States is overdue to re-evaluate its mentality regarding teens and their self-reliance. It is absurd that an 18-year-old can die with honor in war and not reward him or herself with an occasional drink, a right that more than enough “adults” can’t handle.

Anti-Terrorism on Campus

BY FLYNN HAGERTY
Editor

In this new age where security is the buzzword, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is looking at colleges, among other places, in an attempt to prevent domestic terrorism.
It’s not a bad place to look.

Colleges are busy, chaotic places. Large numbers of people are going to and from places. Security is minimal. As FBI director Robert Mueller told a U.S. Senate Committee, “Mul-tiple small-scale attacks a-gainst soft targets such as … schools and universities … would be easier to execute and would minimize the need to communicate with central leadership, lowering the risks of detection.”

A recent incident where a student directed the FBI to meet him at City College has alerted the campus community to the FBI’s growing presence at colleges around the United States.

The task of stopping terrorism is difficult, but it is universally agreed as necessary. But how can the FBI and colleges achieve the goal while respecting the principles of civil liberties and open government?

The current method of operation respects neither principle. Analysts have likened it to COINTELPRO, the FBI’s do-mestic counterintelligence program of the 1950s and 1960s, when the FBI infiltrated any campus group with a political message in an attempt to monitor the political activities of students.

In 2003, at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, an Iraqi-born professor was interrogated following anonymous tips that he held “anti-American” views. That same year, the FBI admitted conducting several surveillance flights over Indiana University.

This is not genuine surveillance. This is paranoia.

Some colleges, including City College, have adopted a “check-in” policy, where the FBI or other off-campus agencies must notify the college before coming onto campus grounds. A City College administrative official must be present at all times while an agent is on campus.

This policy is to the benefit of students and the entire City College community. The administration will be there to prevent any abuse of student rights by the FBI or other agencies and safeguard the interests of the college.

It will take colleges standing up to the FBI to guarantee the constitutional rights of the campus community.