# Dems don\`t want parents to know what their kids are reading. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 6, 2003, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-don-t-want-parents-to-know-what-their-kids-are-reading/211708 "2003-11-06T15:47:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![LibrarySpy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f9ae1b/32.png) [@LibrarySpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LibrarySpy)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2003, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-don-t-want-parents-to-know-what-their-kids-are-reading/211708/101 "2003-11-07T19:49:45Z")
I found the Wisconsin state law, which already has a provision allowing parents to request records. [Link](http://www.library.cmu.edu/People/neuhaus/state_laws3.html#WI). IANAL, but it looks like the confidentiality statute was enacted first, and then amended with an exception in the case of parents. ---
**Author:** ![MrVisible](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@MrVisible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrVisible)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2003, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-don-t-want-parents-to-know-what-their-kids-are-reading/211708/102 "2003-11-07T20:25:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by John Mace \* > I don’t see it that way. I thought I addressed your concern with an example (registered mail) of how the library can ensure that parents, and only parents, have access to the info. No system is perfect, but that would appear to be nearly so. How do schools stop non-parental adults from accessing school records on kids? It’s the same thing, and the same solution. Which puts the libraries in the position of safeguarding the security of their patrons’ records, and makes them responsible for verifying that their patrons’ records don’t fall into the wrong hands. If you think the lawsuits that could result from librarians staunchly refusing access to historical data to anyone at all are daunting, I’d think you’d blanch at the lawsuits that could result from a library mistakenly releasing a child’s reading history to a pedophile. > [@](#): > > As for the subpoena process, I consider it to be overly extreme to require parents to have to subpoena info about their own kids. Ah, so it is about convenience. Maybe the thread should be re-titled “Dems want to make your children’s personal information more secure.” > [@](#): > > I don’t think kids under the age of 16 (or whatever age you want to pick) have a right to privacy. A parent is legally able to search his kids room, backpack or whatever. That’s far more intrusive than seeing the kids library check-out list. Which is great, in that it doesn’t involve putting government employees in the untenable position of informing on a child’s attempts to educate themselves. Once you get federal institutions involved, things become more complicated, and stuff like cost to taxpayer and possible benefits and harm of legislation has to be taken into account. I guess what bothers me most about this, even more than putting librarians in the role of informants or making libraries start keeping patron histories on hand, is that it puts kids in a position where they have to get around federal regulations if they want to learn something. They’ll know that the library is no longer safe, that everything they do there will be monitored, and could be reported on. They’ll need to take measures to make sure that nothing they read which their parents may not approve of is recorded. We’ll be teaching our kids that librarians can’t be trusted. And we’ll be teaching them subterfuge. All because some parents think that learning can be wrong. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2003, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-don-t-want-parents-to-know-what-their-kids-are-reading/211708/103 "2003-11-07T21:10:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MrVisible \* > Which puts the libraries in the position of safeguarding the security of their patrons’ records, and makes them responsible for verifying that their patrons’ records don’t fall into the wrong hands. Except that the “patrons” in this case are juveniles. You are treating them as if they were adults. Should a clinic be allowed to withold medical records from the parents of their juvenile “patrons”? > [@](#): > > If you think the lawsuits that could result from librarians staunchly refusing access to historical data to anyone at all are daunting, I’d think you’d blanch at the lawsuits that could result from a library mistakenly releasing a child’s reading history to a pedophile. Back to my school analogy. How many lawsuits are you aware of initiated by parents against pedophiles who mistakenly were given the kid’s school records? I think the danger is much greater there (all kids go to schools, many fewer go to a library), and I’m not aware of a single instance of this happennig. > [@](#): > > Ah, so it is about convenience. Maybe the thread should be re-titled “Dems want to make your children’s personal information more secure.” Nope. It’s not convenience, but when and under what circumstances the state can step between parent and child. I’m more concerned with making sure that parents can protect their children from the state than vice versa. > [@](#): > > Which is great, in that it doesn’t involve putting government employees in the untenable position of informing on a child’s attempts to educate themselves. No more than a parent has the right to know what classes their kid takes at school. What if the proverbial “fundie parents” don’t want their kid to take a comparitive religion class. Should the state step between them and force the parents to allow their child to take the class? > [@](#): > > Once you get federal institutions involved, things become more complicated, and stuff like cost to taxpayer and possible benefits and harm of legislation has to be taken into account. > > I guess what bothers me most about this, even more than putting librarians in the role of informants or making libraries start keeping patron histories on hand, is that it puts kids in a position where they have to get around federal regulations if they want to learn something. They’ll know that the library is no longer safe, that everything they do there will be monitored, and could be reported on. They’ll need to take measures to make sure that nothing they read which their parents may not approve of is recorded. > > We’ll be teaching our kids that librarians can’t be trusted. And we’ll be teaching them subterfuge. All because some parents think that learning can be wrong. There is nothing that requires the library to keep the check-out history on hand. In fact, I’d prefer they didn’t. As soon as a book is returned, erase any record that it was ever checked out by a particular person. I don’t think anyone is arguing that libraries should keep check-out histories for any purpose at all. What it teaches is that parents have authority over children until a certain age. Unfortunately or not, that means parents get to make decisions for kids that we’d never allow one adult to make for another adult. ---
**Author:** ![dangermom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@dangermom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dangermom)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2003, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-don-t-want-parents-to-know-what-their-kids-are-reading/211708/104 "2003-11-07T21:31:13Z")
A sample of how librarians feel about wider issues of patron privacy: [http://www.librarian.net/technicality.html](http://www.librarian.net/technicality.html) features signs to put up in your library. ---
**Author:** ![CRich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4af34b/32.png) [@CRich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CRich)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2003, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-don-t-want-parents-to-know-what-their-kids-are-reading/211708/105 "2003-11-07T21:33:01Z")
But this wasn’t originally about whether or not libraries were safe, or whether teenagers had access to books on subjects their parents might find objectionable. The original problem that sparked this issue was a parent trying to deal with their child’s overdue book and the library refusing to tell them which book they should be looking for. Maybe I’m just missing the point, but I would expect that the hypothetical teenager with such restrictive, unfeeling and controlling parents would not be checking out and bringing these controversial books home from the library. The more common scenario (and one I deal with regularly) would be the not-so-organized child who can’t remember where they put their library books or how many they checked out, or which ones they checked out. If all my library could tell me was that I owed a fine and couldn’t tell me what book we should be looking for, I’d be unhappy. That is information that I need, as a parent, to help my child be more responsible. Our library system has always made current checkout information available to parents and I’ve never seen evidence of teenagers having problems feeling safe at the library. There’s always tons of them around anyway. Nor do parents need to involve librarians–you can access your accounts from your home, using only account numbers and birth dates. So, at least here, no librarian has to be actually involved in making moral decisions about releasing potentially harmful information. Now, as I said before, if my library started keeping track of checkout history I’d be extremely unhappy–for my sake as well as that of my children. I can’t see any reason for ANYONE to be checking up on your history–not parents, not library administrators, not the FBI. And I would have a real problem with a parent who wanted that kind of information available to them–but that’s not my understanding of what was proposed. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2003, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-don-t-want-parents-to-know-what-their-kids-are-reading/211708/106 "2003-11-07T23:21:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MrVisible \* > \*\* > Ah, so it is about convenience. Maybe the thread should be re-titled “Dems want to make your children’s personal information more secure.” \*\* If the library has easy access to such information I think it would be silly to require a parent to get a subpoena to view it. Aren’t most libraries computerized these days? Since about 1987 every library I’ve been to has scanned my card and then scanned the book. I bet they know exactly what books I’ve checked out in the past few months if not years. I wouldn’t doubt if the librarian could just enter my card number and view the books I’ve checked out in the past few months. > [@](#): > > \*\* > We’ll be teaching our kids that librarians can’t be trusted. And we’ll be teaching them subterfuge. All because some parents think that learning can be wrong. \*\* I think you’re looking at only the negative aspects. Maybe a parent could be interested in what books a child is checking out for other less nefarious reasons. Marc ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2003, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-don-t-want-parents-to-know-what-their-kids-are-reading/211708/107 "2003-11-08T03:25:53Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by John Mace_ > **I disagree. Whether or not you think this is a good law, I’d be willing to bet it would pass in any referendum in any state where it was on the ballot. Do you think it would be defeated?** If a group of wolves and sheep were voting on what to have for dinner, and the sheep weren’t allowed to vote, what do you think the result would be? > [@](#): > > **Except that the “patrons” in this case are juveniles. You are treating them as if they were adults. Should a clinic be allowed to withold medical records from the parents of their juvenile “patrons”?** Absolutely, and in fact that’s how it [already works](http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/gr060106.html) a lot of the time. Many teenagers won’t seek medical help if they know their parents will be informed, and we’ve decided that in many cases, medical treatment is more important than a parent’s right to snoop. I believe intellectual freedom is also more important than a parent’s right to snoop. As others have said, if parents are that concerned about what their kids are reading, why are they letting their kids go to the library unsupervised? But if you think the right to snoop is more important than intellectual freedom, why stop at libraries? If your kid goes over to a neighbor’s house and reads _Playboy_ or _Mein Kampf_, you might never know (gasp!). Why not pass a law forcing your neighbor to tell you what your kid reads at his house? > [@](#): > > **What if the proverbial “fundie parents” don’t want their kid to take a comparitive religion class. Should the state step between them and force the parents to allow their child to take the class?** Absolutely. The parents wouldn’t have to be “forced” into anything - the class takes place at school, right? The school just needs to say, “Sorry, our class schedules are made by a computer based on the students’ preferences. Parental objections are not a factor. Maybe you should look into home schooling.” ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2003, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-don-t-want-parents-to-know-what-their-kids-are-reading/211708/108 "2003-11-08T03:47:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > If a group of wolves and sheep were voting on what to have for dinner, and the sheep weren’t allowed to vote, what do you think the result would be? Ummmm… Sheep? Parents = wolves? Kids = Sheep? Nope, not buying that analogy. > [@](#): > > Absolutely, and in fact that’s how it [already works](http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/gr060106.html) a lot of the time. Many teenagers won’t seek medical help if they know their parents will be informed, and we’ve decided that in many cases, medical treatment is more important than a parent’s right to snoop. Note the extreme circumstances when this is allowed (from your cite): > [@](#): > > Exceptions to this rule exist, however, such as when medical emergencies leave no time to obtain parental consent and in cases where a minor is “emancipated” by marriage or other circumstances and thus can legally make decisions on his or her own behalf. Some states also have adopted the so-called mature minor rule, under which a minor who is sufficiently intelligent and mature to understand the nature and consequence of a proposed treatment may consent to medical treatment without consulting his or her parents or obtaining their permission. Note also that the law in question also recognizes the “maturity” principle in that it affects children under the age of 16 only. > [@](#): > > The school just needs to say, “Sorry, our class schedules are made by a computer based on the students’ preferences. Parental objections are not a factor. Maybe you should look into home schooling.” Sounds like you are recommending that schools deliberately lie to parents about their kids’ academics. Is this correct? ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2003, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-don-t-want-parents-to-know-what-their-kids-are-reading/211708/109 "2003-11-08T04:40:20Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by John Mace_ > **Parents = wolves? Kids = Sheep? Nope, not buying that analogy.** Parents want certain privileges that come at the expense of kids’ rights. Parents have the upper hand, and kids would be left out of any referendum on this issue. Of course it would pass, for the same reason as curfew laws and other age discrimination - it’s easy to vote away other people’s rights. > [@](#): > > **Note the extreme circumstances when this is allowed (from your cite):** I’d like to draw your attention to this part: > [@](#): > > Research from as far back as the late 1970s has highlighted the importance of confidentiality to teens’ willingness to seek care. > … > As a result, public policy for over three decades has reflected the understanding that many minors will not seek certain important health services if they need to inform their parents. Today, a significant body of federal and state law explicitly guarantees confidential access to services or does so by implication. Title X, the only federal program dedicated to providing family planning services to low-income women and teenagers, has since its inception in 1970 provided confidential services to people regardless of age (although minors are encouraged to include their parents in their decision to seek services). Additionally, courts have interpreted the federal Medicaid statute to require family planning services to be provided to sexually active minors who desire them on a confidential basis. While that confidentiality might not apply to _all_ medical decisions, it does apply to “family planning” services, which is a big step in the right direction. > [@](#): > > **Sounds like you are recommending that schools deliberately lie to parents about their kids’ academics. Is this correct?** Nope. If they do what they say they do, there’s no lie. I’m recommending that a parent who goes to the school and objects to his child’s schedule choices should be politely shown the door. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2003, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-don-t-want-parents-to-know-what-their-kids-are-reading/211708/110 "2003-11-08T05:48:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > Parents want certain privileges that come at the expense of kids’ rights. Parents have the upper hand, and kids would be left out of any referendum on this issue. Of course it would pass, for the same reason as curfew laws and other age discrimination - it’s easy to vote away other people’s rights. Parent’s are also responsible for the actions of their kids. That’s why they get to trump the kids “rights” in most instances. > [@](#): > > While that confidentiality might not apply to _all_ medical decisions, it does apply to “family planning” services, which is a big step in the right direction. This is a tough area and I haven’t made up my mind on where I stand on that issue. While I can understand the point of allowing a pregnant teenage girl to get an abortion even if her parents object, I have a hard time accepting that the parents should not be informed. However, the thought of a doctor giving family planning advice to minors w/o the parent’s consent is, IMO, wrong. > [@](#): > > Nope. If they do what they say they do, there’s no lie. I’m recommending that a parent who goes to the school and objects to his child’s schedule choices should be politely shown the door. It’s been quite awhile since I was in HS, but if memory serves me correct, the parents have to approve the course selections that kids make. Is that not the case? If so, then your recommendation would amount to lying. A course like Comparative Religion would be an elective. It would be an extremely rare instance where no other courses were available and that the parent couldn’t pick that as a non-selection for their kid if they so chose. BTW, I’d think it was horrible parenting for a parent to do this. But I’d rather have that be the case than have the state intercede and tell the parents they have no say in their kids curriculum. After all, we certainly allow parents to send their kids to a private school in which the above course would not be allowed on the curriculum. ---
**Author:** ![MrVisible](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@MrVisible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrVisible)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2003, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-don-t-want-parents-to-know-what-their-kids-are-reading/211708/111 "2003-11-08T06:24:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by John Mace \* > Parent’s are also responsible for the actions of their kids. That’s why they get to trump the kids “rights” in most instances. Yup. If the kid goes and shoots up the school, the parents will go to jail. Right? If a girl goes out and gets pregnant, her mom has a baby. If a kid gets thrown out of the house, the parents have to go live on the street. Let me give you a big, fat “Wha?” Sure, the actions of the kids affect the parents. But they affect the kids much more, and the bigger the action, the bigger the consequences for the kid. We have grown accustomed to fourteen, fifteen year old kids being tried as adults. We assume that they’re mature enough to understand the consequences of their actions at that age, even for something as enormous as murder. And yet, we’re unwilling to let them browse library shelves unsupervised. Absurd. Completely, totally, unbelievably absurd. ---
**Author:** ![Lilairen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8491ac/32.png) [@Lilairen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lilairen)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2003, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-don-t-want-parents-to-know-what-their-kids-are-reading/211708/112 "2003-11-08T06:25:09Z")
Parental approval was never the case in my high school. Scheduling was made on the basis of three things: 1) student sign-up 2) class availability and 3) the requirements established by the state for credits for graduation. Other schools may differ, and probably do. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2003, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-don-t-want-parents-to-know-what-their-kids-are-reading/211708/113 "2003-11-08T06:41:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MrVisible \* > Yup. If the kid goes and shoots up the school, the parents will go to jail. Right? If a girl goes out and gets pregnant, her mom has a baby. If a kid gets thrown out of the house, the parents have to go live on the street. > > Let me give you a big, fat “Wha?” If a kid breaks the neighbor’s window, the parents are liable to pay to fix it. Wow. That was hard… > [@](#): > > And yet, we’re unwilling to let them browse library shelves unsupervised. > > Absurd. Completely, totally, unbelievably absurd. Did I not make it clear that I thought the whole thing was generally a bad idea? But I accept that parents, as voters, can elect to pass a law allowing them to do this. If they do, I would not want the state to step in and say: “No you can’t”. That’s all. ---
**Author:** ![MrVisible](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@MrVisible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrVisible)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2003, 7:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-don-t-want-parents-to-know-what-their-kids-are-reading/211708/114 "2003-11-08T07:09:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by John Mace \* > Did I not make it clear that I thought the whole thing was generally a bad idea? But I accept that parents, as voters, can elect to pass a law allowing them to do this. If they do, I would not want the state to step in and say: “No you can’t”. That’s all. Bweh? Wow. So… what are we arguing about again? Because you’ve been defending the heck out of this, on its own merits, for some time now. If I’d known this was a discussion of the fact that legislators pass some stupid laws to pander to paranoid special interest groups, I’d have expected there to be a chorus of millions joining in, all chanting “Nooooo kidding.” Keeping in mind, of course, that it’s not the parents who are passing this legislation. From the OP: > [@](#): > > The Assembly gave preliminary approval to the measure Tuesday, and the matter is set for final approval next week. The Senate gave final approval, on a 20-12 vote, to an identical companion bill Tuesday evening. That settles it, though. I’m never moving to Wisconsin. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2003, 8:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-don-t-want-parents-to-know-what-their-kids-are-reading/211708/115 "2003-11-08T08:00:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MrVisible \* > Wow. So… what are we arguing about again? Because you’ve been defending the heck out of this, on its own merits, for some time now. If I’d known this was a discussion of the fact that legislators pass some stupid laws to pander to paranoid special interest groups, I’d have expected there to be a chorus of millions joining in, all chanting “Nooooo kidding.” FYI, From one of the very first exchanges we had: > [@](#): > > John Mace wrote: > Again, I’m not defending this as a good or necessary law. I’m just saying that I recognize the rights of voters to pass such a law and that I don’t see that it’s against the constitution. In a democracy, there are lots of laws you won’t agree with. Anyway, I think we’ve run this into the ground. It’s been fun. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2003, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-don-t-want-parents-to-know-what-their-kids-are-reading/211708/116 "2003-11-08T08:05:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > \*\*Parents want certain privileges that come at the expense of kids’ rights. Parents have the upper hand, and kids would be left out of any referendum on this issue. Of course it would pass, for the same reason as curfew laws and other age discrimination - it’s easy to vote away other people’s rights. \*\* I’m not sure what rights are being violated. Minors aren’t little adults and shouldn’t be treated as such. In general they have no right to freedom of association, free expression, protection from search and seizure, etc. At least so far as their parents are conerned. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Nope. If they do what they say they do, there’s no lie. I’m recommending that a parent who goes to the school and objects to his child’s schedule choices should be politely shown the door. \*\* That seems rather silly. Let’s say little Billy can’t seem to keep his grades up while he’s on the football team. Little Billy’s parents decide that learning is more important then playing so forbid him from signing up for football the next year. He signs up anyway and when the parents go to the school to get his schedule changed they are informed that this is Billy’s choice and the administration politely shows them the door. Marc ---
**Author:** ![CrazyCatLady](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dfb087/32.png) [@CrazyCatLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CrazyCatLady)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2003, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-don-t-want-parents-to-know-what-their-kids-are-reading/211708/117 "2003-11-08T08:11:31Z")
Stupidest. Law. Ever. No, really. The library won’t tell you which books your kid has overdue? Either have the kid request the info, or start looking for the book with the barcode on the cover, the filing info on the spine, the pouch in the back inside cover, and “Property of X Library” stamped in it. Library books are pretty damned hard to get confused with your own property, unless you regularly shop the library sales. If your child is so hopelessly careless and disorganized that he or she doesn’t have any clue where the books might be, and you have no idea how many books are checked out or which ones, then you need to be more involved in what your kid is doing. Being more involved in what your kid is doing does NOT mean going to the library and demanding a list of what they’ve checked out, currently or in the past. It means paying attention to your kid, talking to him, asking her questions she might not like to answer, knowing who he hangs out with and where they go together, what her interests are. If you’re so uninvolved in your child’s life that you don’t know these things and can’t find out on your own, it is most emphatically not the job of the library, or the mall, or the movie rental place to tell you. Those places exist to provide a service, not to keep tabs on your kid for you. This law, as I understand it, isn’t about making it possible for parents to know what their kid is up to, because there are plenty of other ways for an active, involved parent to know what a kid’s doing and reading. This isn’t even about parents having the right to know what they’re fiscally responsible for, because there are other ways to get that information that are far faster, simpler, and less expensive than passing new legislation. There’s really no good to come of this law, not for good parents. The only benefit is to people who want keep their kids from learning, or those who want an easy out for keeping tabs on their kids. Frankly, those people shouldn’t be encouraged. ---
**Author:** ![CrazyCatLady](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dfb087/32.png) [@CrazyCatLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CrazyCatLady)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2003, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-don-t-want-parents-to-know-what-their-kids-are-reading/211708/118 "2003-11-08T08:17:27Z")
Marc, you do realize, of course, that football is an _extracurricular_ activity and as such it is not a part of a student’s class schedule. Taking a kid out of an extracurricular activity, assuming said kid isn’t in violation of any “no pass, no play” rules, is purely between the kid, the parent, and the coach. The administration isn’t involved in any way, shape, or form. Your analogy might be reasonable if you were talking about the kid taking woodshop instead of calculus, as those are both actual classes that the school has a hand in scheduling. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2003, 8:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-don-t-want-parents-to-know-what-their-kids-are-reading/211708/119 "2003-11-08T08:43:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by CrazyCatLady \* > \*\*Marc, you do realize, of course, that football is an _extracurricular_ activity and as such it is not a part of a student’s class schedule. Taking a kid out of an extracurricular activity, assuming said kid isn’t in violation of any “no pass, no play” rules, is purely between the kid, the parent, and the coach. The administration isn’t involved in any way, shape, or form. > > Your analogy might be reasonable if you were talking about the kid taking woodshop instead of calculus, as those are both actual classes that the school has a hand in scheduling. \*\* My analogy is reasonable. In many schools students involved in extracurricular activities such as band, drama, orchestra, basketball, football, etc. are required to enroll in an actual class. I don’t know if that’s the case in Wisconsin but it is the case in Texas. When a person fails they’re simply barred from partipation in extracurricular activites. They still show up to class and spend that period doing whatever everyone else is. In the case of band, orchestra, or drama they might still have homework. Marc ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2003, 8:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-don-t-want-parents-to-know-what-their-kids-are-reading/211708/120 "2003-11-08T08:49:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by CrazyCatLady \* > \*\* > No, really. The library won’t tell you which books your kid has overdue? \*\* As far as I’m concerned if they can’t be bothered to tell me what book they want I don’t see why I should be bothered to look for it. They must not want it back that bad. If I don’t have access to the information then I guess I’m not responsible for replacing it. Marc [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-don-t-want-parents-to-know-what-their-kids-are-reading/211708.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-don-t-want-parents-to-know-what-their-kids-are-reading/211708.md?page=7)