Why does anyone pay attention to Jonathan Haidt?

By Mike Males | January 2023

The tiresome trashing of younger generations has gone on at least since Greek poet Hesiod
berated 700 BC’s “reckless” and “frivolous… youth of today” for endangering “the future of our
people.” No one has said anything new in the 2,700 years since.
Example: Jonathan Haidt, who should be a national laughingstock. Instead, the New York
University business professor is splashed across major media for quips trashing Generation-Z
youth as social-media “weakened” employees, intolerant, shallow students, and an “entire
generation that’s doing terribly” that endangers the future of America’s economy.
Haidt ushered in the New Year by charging Gen-Z students and workers with lacking creativity
and future orientation. Those criticisms better describe Haidt’s The Coddling of the American
Mind, a repackaging of philosopher Allan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind 30 years
ago.

Any young people who actually believe Haidt and his fellow youth-bashers should look back at
what their elders said about them. Inevitably, it is identical to what anti-youth demagogues say
today. Dime novels, jazz music, horror comics, TV, rock lyrics, video games, rap, social media,
cellphones… decades of hand-wringings differ only in what superficial contemporality they
blame for destroying “today’s youth.”

Elders of the 1930s bitterly trashed their youth (which we now call “the Greatest Generation”)
as mentally disturbed, aimless, and jeopardizing America’s future. Then, 1930s youth, aged into
1980s elders, trashed Gen-X youth as mentally disturbed, pop-culture-warped, and jeopardizing

America’s future. Now, 1980s youth, aged into 2020s elders, berate Gen-Z youth as mentally
disturbed, social-media-warped, and jeopardizing Americas future.
By objective standards, today’s Gen-Z youth are a vast improvement over Haidt’s own
Generation-X youth and young adults of the late 1970s and early 1980s, about whom youth-
bashers hurled exactly the same epithets Haidt now vents against Gen-Z.

The Department of Education’s alarm-clanging “A Nation at Risk” report in 1983 denounced
Gen-X’s “mediocre educational performance” a dire threat to America’s global survival akin to
“an act of war.” Bloom famously condemned Haidt’s 1980s college generation as lazy,
intolerant, unemployable, and suffering “impoverished souls.” Psychological reports brimmed
with panics over the “305% increase … in teen suicide” Haidt’s generation brought. Senate
wives led by Tipper Gore blamed rock music and cultural depravities for driving young-age
mental health crises and violence. Haidt’s Gen-X youth had criminal arrest rates a shocking
350% higher, including vastly more violent and property crimes, than today’s Gen-Z.
Haidt’s generation got even worse with aging. Today, Haidt’s fifty-agers suffer far higher levels
of drug abuse, binge drinking, suicide, and self-destructive deaths than Gen-Z teens and young
adults. In California, harbinger of national trends, criminal arrests of adults ages 50-59 now
greatly exceed those of teenagers – a stunning reversal of past patterns.
Younger Millennials and Gen-Z youth (no thanks to their elders) have spent decades bringing
down high rates of dropout, crime, violence, homicide, early pregnancy, and related anti-social
behaviors that Haidt’s generation inflicted then and is still inflicting now.

Yet, the youth-bashings continue.

Why are Haidt and his media adorers taken seriously? Are the same-old ego-driven shallowness
and slanderings of the young really seen as profound insights by the likes of Atlantic Magazine,
The New Yorker, TED-talk recruiters, and scores of media hosts?
Putting aside the baseless quips, anecdotes, and mass stereotypes Haidt and other youth-
bashers deploy, the main indictment of Gen-Z centers on surveys showing more depression and anxiety among teenagers. However, wise observers would consider serious contexts before
rushing to declare Gen-Z in “mental health crisis.”

Today’s teens are being raised by the most troubled grownup generation – as measured by
criminal arrests, suicide, drug and alcohol overdose, gun killings, depression, and political
craziness – in documentable history. Sharply increased numbers of youth reported on the same
survey experiencing psychological and physical abuses by parents, including being sworn at,
kicked, hit, and physically hurt. Yet, commentaries ignored whether teens’ depression and
anxiety are natural, normal responses to skyrocketing abuses and harsher conditions inflicted
by grownups.

Unfortunately, the misuse of surveys enables Haidt and other youth-bashers to dodge serious
issues and to manufacture images that teen problems are caused merely by gadgets, social
media, and their own weaknesses. It’s time – about 3,000 years past time – to stop lionizing
self-stroking by quip-happy youth-bashers. At least, until one says something that’s actually
new and true.

For a longer version of this column with more players, see, Mike Males, “Enough Youth
Bashing,” LA Progressive, https://www.laprogressive.com/law-and-the-justice-system/enough-youth-bashing

To Censor or Not to Censor?: How Libraries Can Support LGBT+ Youth.                           

Access to accurate information has become more important than ever as US states
navigate new laws criminalizing life-saving reproductive and gender-affirming care.
Conservatives continue to assert that children and youth are too young to learn about LGBT+
topics;, however, censorship only makes it more difficult for young people to navigate these
topics safely.

While the American Library Association (ALA) believes that providing youth with the
tools to analyze and understand information is  the best way to protect them, many in the US
government and many others feel the best way to protect youth is to limit the information they
can access. Teen internet use and sexuality are seen as social problems in need of fixing. Adults
often respond to these fears by limiting teens’ agency and discouraging them from learning about or exploring their identities. Additionally, many news organizations spread harmful
misinformation about gender-affirming care and continue to assert that youth are not old enough to know who they are.

Furthermore, libraries in the US often must comply with The Child Internet Protection
Act (CIPA) to receive federal funding. This makes it harder for them to uphold values such as
access and privacy. Many LGBT+ teens express a need for confidentiality and reassurance that
they will not be “outed” to their parents, other patrons, or authority figures. In the digital age,
concerns around privacy are becoming increasingly important. As anti-LGBT+ campaigns
increase, queer youth will need people and institutions to advocate for them and fight against
misinformation. For decades, public libraries have prided themselves on being “neutral,”;
however their communities need them to be advocates and allies of liberation movements

Working with LGBT+ youth often requires unlearning or rethinking many preconceived
beliefs around gender and sexuality. Queer youth challenge many traditional ways of thinking
and being in the world, which is often why they face so much backlash. Supporting LGBT+
youth depends on challenging norms around gender, childhood, family, and sexuality that
exclude them.

Libraries can also play a role in making LGBT+ youth and families feel valued in their
communities. They often connect youth and families to helpful resources and community
organizations. Not only does this improve event attendance and impact, but it also creates safer
communities and environments for marginalized people.

There are also many ways libraries can improve their services to LGBT+ youth,
such as creating gender-neutral restrooms, lessening restrictions on library cards or use of library services, and including LGBT+ books and resources in their collections.

LGBT+ teens across the country are fighting against harmful policies and politicians.
And while many of them are winning their cases against school boards and state legislatures,
they shouldn’t have to spend their teen years advocating for us to see their humanity and protect them from harm.

Seeking and creating information are important forms of self-expression and identity formation for youth. They need adults to honor their agency and join the fight against censorship campaigns.

Ignoring The Will Of The Voters

Wendy Schaetzel Lesko | Dec 2022 |

(The opinions expressed in blog posts are those of the author and not necessarily those of YouthFacts.org)

~~~~~~~~~~~

Elections are full of surprises, including squeakers.

Take the recent defeat on a ballot measure in the west Los Angeles hub of film studios with a population of 40,000. A small cadre of high school students led a campaign with so little money that yard signs got delivered in the final days before November 8. Their goal:

To extend the right to vote in municipal elections to 16 and 17 year olds in Culver City
with the same protections as everyone else, because we know that this age group can
vote credibly and is affected by legislation.

If only seventeen more adults marked “yes” for Question QY, the Culver City city council and
school board candidates would have had a new cohort of teen voters in 2024.

But wait, probably not.

A predictable pattern of public officials failing to respect the will of the voters and an equal
travesty, fail to respect minors.

Travel north to Alameda County with a population of 1.6 million. In 2020, a whopping 67
percent voted to expand voting rights to 16 and 17 year olds for board of education
candidates. With that overwhelming support, including the endorsement by the current school
board directors, one might think the powers-that-be might roll into action.

But not a single eligible new voter voted this November. Even though it is complicated to
develop a special ballot and automate the process for these new voters, the county registrar
gets a failing grade. There’s been “zero progress” and students “are pissed,” says Lukas
Brekke-Miesne, an Oakland Unified Student District graduate and executive director of
Oakland Kids First.

At the November 2022 Candidates Forum organized by students, Jennifer Brouhard, who
won a seat on the school board, said ”I think that it’s a shame and it’s criminal that you were
not allowed to vote in this election. That should have happened. There should have been a
plan.”

Can you stand more evidence of this disenfranchisement?

In 2016, Berkeley, California voters had also approved lowering the voting age for school
board races but punted the financial responsibility for implementation on the school district.
Stalemate. Once again, not a single student has cast a vote since this ballot measure passed
six years ago.

With all these liberal folks warning about the future of our democracy, it is difficult to believe
they really give a damn about engaging the “leaders of tomorrow.” Quite the opposite: instead
of encouraging the habit of voting that research demonstrates is most effective when people
begin at age 16, these public servants lack the will and ingenuity.

Rather than promoting increased voter turnout, these adults may be responsible for lifelong voter turnoff.

“Unfortunately, across California, suicide rates among Black youth doubled between 2014 and 2020.”

Anthony Bernier | Dec 2022 |

What fake news is this!?

This claim, highlighted in a recent youth writing program’s newsletter, was obviously designed to shock and awe readers into understanding the urgent necessity for the program’s contribution to the youth community.

But it’s crap. It’s fake news.

First and foremost, troubled or not, Black youth deserve access to quality experiences and opportunities as valued and important members of the community. Their stories, positive and negative, deserve to be cultivated, documented, shared, and respected.

Second, trumpeting a program’s self-serving claims unethically misrepresents reality. Readily available public information reveals two dimensions of this all-too common strategy among many youth programs.

Black youth suicides, tragic as they are, represent numbers far too small to extrapolate larger patterns. Also, the actual numbers reveal the following about being young and Black in California: 11 suicides in 2014; 23 in 2021; but then a return to 11 in 2022. It represents behavior by one in 30,000 Black youth annually, not tragedy sweeping the youth population. Of course, each instance is a horror for the individuals and families involved. But the program could have just as easily (and equally unethically) claimed that Black youth suicide between 2021 and 2022 had been cut in half!

Nevertheless, neither claim is useful and both would come freighted with highly negative implications.

Beyond ignoring how Black youth just deserve quality opportunities, and beyond manipulating statistics, another relevant objection should apply to this and any other youth program advancing similar fake news claims. What possible evidence does the program offer demonstrating a causal behavioral link between its program and any specific behavioral outcome (suicide, drug abuse, grades, reading levels, or anything else)? What possible evidence could the program offer?

Answer: none.

The role of a youth writing program is to cultivate, facilitate, and promote the voices and writing of young people. That’s a difficult enough job. It’s a worthy enough job. And when done well it can enrich the lives of young people, their families, and their community.

Why are these positive goals founded in treating young people as valued citizens, rather than tragedies waiting to happen, so frequently viewed as insufficient?

Why do programs constantly lay claim to outcomes that are none of their business, claims they can’t prove, claims that only reinforce misrepresentations of youth itself as broken, at-risk, and even dangerous? Not even full-time and experienced teachers make assertions like this – so why do we accept the claims of these otherwise well-intended non-profit programs?

Don’t bother with that old saw about what funders want to hear. Funders benefit from hearing about what youth derive from crafting, drafting, writing, editing, documenting, and being respected for their work.

The next time you hear a program trumpeting fake, alarmist claims and trying to get away with making connections between what they do and other things for which they have nothing to do, call them out and ask them why they don’t believe that kids simply deserve what they offer.

Are Young People and African Americans Better Off under Marijuana Reform?

21 March 2016

This brief, preliminary report uses the multi-year experiences of two states that legalized marijuana for adults (Colorado and Washington) and three that decriminalized marijuana for all ages (California, Connecticut, Massachusetts) to test predictions by proponents that legalizing marijuana would benefit young people through regulation and benefit minorities by reducing racial disparities in arrest. Given the high costs and consequences in fines, jailings, loss of student loans, criminal records, etc., of arrest even for simple marijuana possession, reducing arrests is an important policy goal.

The answer to date is that reforms in these states have brought great benefits to persons under age 21 and to minority races, though not necessarily those predicted. The benefit is large reductions in arrests during the reform period, 2008 through 2014.* In the states that reformed laws, rates of marijuana arrest have fallen by 71% among those under age 21, 79% among those over 21, 80% among African Americans, and 76% among all other (nonblack) races. In the 45 states that did not reform marijuana laws, rates of marijuana arrest fell by 23% among those under age 21, 9% among those over 21, 15% among African Americans, and 16% among other races.

Table 1. Change in marijuana arrest rates, 5 reform vs. 45 non-reform states, 2014 vs. 2008

Source: CJIS (2016). “Disparity” is ratio of black to nonblack arrest rates.

Thus, states that reformed marijuana laws reduced arrests among young ages 3 to 4 times faster, and among African Americans 6 to 7 times faster, than occurred in states that did not reform their laws. In 2 of the 5 reform states, arrest rates fell faster for those under 21 than for those 21 and older (and in one, by the same amount), the most interesting of several “spillover” benefits from marijuana reform on ages and offenses not targeted by the reform. That marijuana arrest rates have fallen substantially for ages under 21 in most states – led by those that decriminalized marijuana for all ages, followed by those that legalized marijuana for ages 21 and older, and including lesser but substantial reductions in states that did not reform marijuana laws – is an intriguing development meriting further study.

However, reforms have not reduced racial disparities in arrest rates. In three of the five reform states (Colorado, Washington, and Connecticut), disparities in arrests rates of blacks versus non-blacks remained roughly the same; in one (Massachusetts), disparities increased substantially; and in one (California), they fell. In states that did not reform marijuana laws, African Americans remained 3 times more likely than other races to be arrested for marijuana throughout the period.

Figures 1-4 sum up these findings. The Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice will be following up with more detailed reports on marijuana reform and age, race, and offense structure of arrests.

Figures 1-2. Change in marijuana arrests, reform states vs. non-reform states, rates per 100,000 population by black and nonblack race, 2014 vs 2008 (see note on method*)

Source: Criminal Justice Information Service (CJIS)(2016). Crimestatinfo, ASR drug by state. Annual data file provided by request from CJIS.

Figures 3-4. Change in age structure of marijuana arrests, reform states vs. non-reform states, rates per 100,000 population by age group, 2014 vs 2008

Source: CJIS (2016).

*Note on method: the Criminal Justice Information Service (2016) provides state-by-state Uniform Crime Report statistics on arrests for drugs by race, age, and type of offense for 2008 through 2014. These numbers for felony and misdemeanor marijuana arrests are adjusted for the percentage of each state’s population covered by jurisdictions reporting to UCR and divided by each state’s population to produce population adjusted rates. UCR does not separate Latino ethnicity, and so arrest rates for Black populations are simply compared to those of all other races.

Contact: Mike Males, YouthFacts, mmales@earthlink.net