December arrived, cold and wet. On the first Monday, sleet had begun falling in the early afternoon, as Kevin and Denise returned home to prepare for their evening meeting with the governors and National Program Committee officials. When the teens arrived home later, Jeremy told Kevin that he had arranged for the embassy driver to bring them to the school later.
Kevin was packing his laptop as the teens came in.
“Hi, Kevin, Denise,” the two echoed, then chuckled. Jeremy looked at Amelia. “We do that a lot. Say the same thing at the same time.”
She smiled. “Yeah.”
“Hey Kevin, any changes?” Jeremy asked.
“Yeah, Hanford emailed this morning. He asked me to make my part shorter. Less video, he asked.”
“You’re gonna skip the video then?” Amelia asked.
“No, sweetie,” he answered. “I made excerpts from the Avery University DVD set—the parts which show the Avery-Denison program in use in an Atlanta high school. I took out the Program parts, you know, the video clips that show kids in humiliating classroom demos. I figured there’d be no point since that crap happened in the U.S. and not here, although I’m sure the committee people are well aware of the abuses in their schools. No point in fueling excess hostilities, I think.”
“Any changes for Denise?” Jeremy asked.
Denise came out of the bedroom. “No, Jeremy. I’m still covering the social issues—mostly taken from the Georgia Polytech report that covered the social burden of Program activity in the U.S. But I decided to present it like you guys. That was a good idea you had, to show them slides of copies of the laws that have been violated in Program schools with key phrases highlighted.”
“Yeah, I think we have it covered,” Kevin said as he finished packing. “We’re gonna challenge all of the elements of the Program that caused problems in your schools, Jeremy,” he ticked them off on his fingers, “educational, moral, social-cultural, psychological, legal, ethical, and health and safety. Now let’s eat. We took in Chinese.”
~~~~
The meeting was held in the school’s media room since it had several large tables which had been pushed together to make one large conference table, and a digital projector system.
The four arrived early to set up their computer to use the projection system and were testing it when Hanford came in.
“Hello, Mr Coris, Miss Roberts—oh, is Amelia here too?—and Jeremy,” he greeted them.
“Hello, Head Teacher,” Jeremy said. “Amelia actually developed a significant part of the presentation so we drafted her to speak too.”
“Is that so, Amelia?” he asked her. “Doing a presentation won’t get you nervous? At first I wasn’t sure about how Jeremy would do, but Mr Coris assured me that he’ll be fine.”
“I’ll be okay, sir,” Amelia replied. “Remember about my acting experience? Although I’ll admit to a bit of stage fright,” she finished, smiling at him.
“Okay then. I heard from the committee. The under-secretary of state for the Children and Families division of the Department for Education couldn’t come. He’s the committee head of the National Program Committee. Since he’s an MP, he’s elected and was appointed to head the committee. The deputy chair, he’s the executive director of the Curriculum Office of the Department for Education, will chair their group.”
Within a few minutes, the governors began arriving and greeted the group and several began asking Kevin a number of questions. Hanford came over to rescue him, explaining to the governors that his presentation should provide their answers; if it didn’t, they could ask afterwards.
Finally, Dr Byron Abberle, the governor’s chair, entered leading a group of somber-looking officials in grey or brown tweed suits and carrying briefcases. They were given seats at one side of the table and the governors sat around the opposite side, leaving Kevin, Denise, and the teens at the head—the side facing the screen.
Abberle opened the meeting, introduced Kevin’s group, then the governors, and then Henrietta Markson, the school’s solicitor, and then asked the Education officials to introduce themselves.
A distinguished-looking grey-haired gentleman raised his hand. “I’ll start, as I’m taking the Under Secretary’s place as the committee head this evening. I’m Dr Winston Granville, deputy chairman of the National Program Committee and the executive director of curriculum at Education.”
He nodded to the woman at his left.
“I’m Dr Marjory Seetis, a psychologist in the employ of the Department for Education. And a committee member.”
“Mr Wilson Eldridge. The committee’s legal advocate.”
“Dr David Dunton. Professor of education at Surry University and committee member.”
“Mrs Charlene Stokeston, head teacher at Whimforshire School; committee member also.”
“Mr Simon Luft. Deputy Director, Academies and Maintained Schools of the Education Funding Agency. I’m a committee ex officio member.”
Granville nodded when they had finished their introductions. “Besides the Under Secretary, two other committee members couldn’t attend. And we have four MPs with us who have asked to attend; gentlemen, could you please introduce yourselves?”
They did and briefly mentioned that the press uproar over the Program had been noted by Parliament, their own constituents were contacting their offices, and they wanted to get details about the problems with the Program which appeared to be plaguing schools lately.
Abberle welcomed the group again and turned the meeting over to Hanford.
“Ladies and gentlemen, members of Parliament and committee, I appreciate that we finally have the opportunity to meet face to face,” Hanford began. “As you well know, through numerous letters and phone calls, our school attempted to begin the Program...”
He was interrupted by Granville. “Excuse, sir, but please, we need to get to the heart of the problem, so an introduction isn’t needed. The problem is that your school was to begin participating in the Program yet you haven’t. Please explain the reason. Also, the people I see at the head of the table who were introduced as the presenters for the meeting appear very young. Two even appear to be of secondary school age.”
“Yes, Dr Granville. You might however be surprised to learn that they are all very well-versed in the topics they will cover so I ask your patience. To your question now. Simply put, the Program can’t operate here because no pupil will consent to participate. The sending of a squad of thugs to our school for the Program’s inception assembly was met with a virtual riot in which some pupils were injured and the responsible men had to be arrested.”
Granville steepled his fingers. “We’re aware of the incident.” He looked at Eldridge. “Mr Eldridge. What’s the status of those cases?”
“Their defense barristers asked the Department for Education to petition the court to have the charges dropped and that was done. The court wouldn’t accept the petition, however. It appears that the cases will be going to trial eventually,” Eldridge replied. “I can’t give any further details. Our committee has been asked not to comment on the matter and to stay neutral.”
Hanford acknowledged Granville and Eldridge and then continued, “The Program representative who came to the meeting had demanded that we use force to compel the selected pupils to participate if they refused to do so. But our solicitor had determined that according to current law, it’s a felony offense to use force to compel a child to undress; that’s a sexual battery apparently. Our solicitor also advised us that it might even be a sexual assault to use coercion—threats of punishment—to try to make the children comply. The pupils and their parents are quite familiar with the sanction of the pupil not graduating, yet that threat has continued to be an ineffective motivator.
“Every day at the beginning of classes, the teachers announce the names of pupils in their classes who were chosen to participate. The pupils did follow, at first, the order to come to my office in an orderly, well-behaved way. They did come to my office the following Monday and listened to my request for them to participate. But when I commanded them to disrobe, they politely ignored it. I repeated doing this call to my office on the next several mornings with the same result. Doing that little charade each day quickly became disruptive to our school’s order, so then just the pupil’s names were read off and they were asked if they would participate. They refused and the class then continued. We finally had to stop doing that, too. Mrs Markson, please tell the committee members what you’ve advised the governors.”
“Yes, Head Teacher,” she replied. “Our school records show proof that we are complying with the exact terms of the Human Sexuality Act as a school. We have been randomly selecting students to take part and then overseeing any of the activities that the participants engage in. Therefore, we maintain that Norwich Academy is meeting the requirements of the Act.”
“That’s preposterous!” exclaimed Granville.. “There’s no one participating.”
“We concur with your objection that no one’s participating,” Hanford said agreeably. “I know that the claim that the school is complying is ingenuous, but the Act speaks of what the school officials are to do to conduct the Program and it lists how pupils are expected to be treated and how the Program is to be run. But nowhere in the Act does it instruct school officials how they are to get pupils naked to participate. It obviously assumes that when told to obey, the pupils would obey. But that’s not happening. And our civil and criminal laws don’t permit using physical force or even coercion. We can legally only make the request to disrobe and pupil compliance is voluntary. We could get pupils to participate if Parliament revised the assault and battery laws and other associated laws to allow force to be used and...”
One of the MPs interrupted. “Head Teacher, that won’t ever happen. Imagine the public reaction if the assault laws were changed to allow adults to assault children—even in this limited school case.”
The other MPs chorused in agreement.
Hanford nodded. “Thank you, gentlemen. Dr Granville, we’ve asked your committee to suggest how we are to compel participation but we haven’t received any viable suggestions. So, Dr Granville, we have an impasse. We’re complying to our best ability but it doesn’t meet your compliance standard. Do you have any ideas about where we go next?”
Granville looked at his committee members. “Mr Eldridge, is there a way around the ‘no force’ impediment?”
“The legal staff doesn’t see one, sir,” he replied.
“Anyone else? Your thoughts?” Granville prompted.
No one spoke.
Hanford nodded. “I see. Well then, I believe at this point it might be appropriate to let some people who actually have experience in the Program to speak. Mr Coris, who’s first in your group?”
Kevin answered, “Jeremy, sir. Will you give our backgrounds or shall I?”
Hanford smiled. “Perhaps I’d better. Your modesty will do you a disservice. Ladies and gents, these four young people have remarkable backgrounds. I perhaps know Jeremy Porter best, we’ve butted heads for the entire three months I’ve been at Norwich Academy and find him to be insightful and analytical and an absolute bulldog in his zeal for promoting human rights. He seems to have a legal encyclopedia in his head and can cite chapter and verse of the laws and regulations which guarantee individual rights. And he experienced the Program in his former school, first as an observer and then as an objecting participant. He was highly disturbed with what he saw there.
“His classmate is Amelia Hadad. Now I was surprised to learn that Miss Hadad would be addressing us—Mr Coris, it’s not about that incident?” Kevin shook his head. “Can I mention it, and her role, however?”
Amelia spoke, “Yes, it’s okay.”
Hanford smiled at her. “Miss Hadad doesn’t know that I’m aware of this, but she and a number of her classmates began an extremely impressive research project, totally on their own initiative, that is trying to disseminate information to the public about that awful women’s health issue known as female genital mutilation. She began the project and seems to be its leader too. And Miss Hadad was one of the pupils who was assaulted and injured by Program officials last month. She was grabbed at random, stripped, and assaulted even though she had had a medical exemption for pelvic surgery the previous week.”
There were gasps from the committee members.
“So I’m sure with her unusual research abilities, Miss Hadad will have found information you will appreciate learning. Next is Miss Denise Roberts and Mr Kevin Coris. They’re really a team...”
Granville interrupted. “Wait. Denise Roberts. Yes, I know that name. Don’t tell me, you’re the Miss Roberts from the London School of Liberal Arts and Education?” Denise nodded. “Bloo... Indeed. Panel, do you recall that incident? The demise of the university Program teacher familiarization?”
There were nods of agreement from the committee members but the MPs looked blank. Granville turned to them.
“She—well, Mr Coris was peripherally involved—she scotched the Program familiarization training in the teacher’s colleges. Caused a real ruckus in Education, I should say, too. Okay, Mr Hanford, what are we in for with your secret weapons there and how did you recruit them?”
Hanford tried not to smile. “Sir, they’re Miss Hadad’s guardians, actually, and came forward when they learned that Norwich Academy was to begin the Program. They both were in the Naked in School Program in the U.S. when they were in high school. And both became involved in it in two different schools in two different states. You should know that both of them were decorated by the U.S. president for outstanding civilian service, work related to the U.S. Program, with Mr Coris being awarded their Medal of Freedom, their highest civilian honor. And they were instrumental in getting the Program ended there.”
Granville scowled. “Very impressive, I’m sure. So they came to the U.K. next to try to stop the Program here,” he stated flatly.
“Not at all, sir,” Kevin said. “We came to London to take classes, Denise in education and me in international relations, and the school here is the best in the world for that subject. The Program got suddenly pushed into our faces; we had no idea you were doing it. When we were forced into it—first Denise and then Amelia—we reacted just as we did back home—in self-protection. None of our involvement was planned in advance, I assure you. Okay, thanks for the intro, Mr Hanford. Jeremy, you’re up.”
Jeremy stood and pulled his laptop closer. “Hello, everyone. As you requested for the head teacher, I’ll skip the polite frills and just get to the issues. As the head mentioned, I saw the Program in action in my last school and what I saw disgusted me. Putting the issue of nudity aside, and also the basic premise of the Program, which I’m not qualified to comment on, I am qualified to comment on the rights of children not to be harmed. Adults are supposed to protect us. I’m gonna show some slides which list the problems I saw and read about in the newspapers about how you people are violating the basic human rights of children with the Program. Here’s the first slide.
“First item: training of school officials. There is none. This results in the same mistakes being made repeatedly within a single school and amongst all of the schools running the Program.
“Second: poor rule interpretation. Lack of training results in, amongst other problems, allowing the rules to be interpreted or enforced improperly. Teachers make the rules say whatever they want them to say or what they think they should say, even when that interpretation conflicts with the actual wording.
“Third item: poor supervision. Many problems have occurred because there’s poor or no supervision of pupils and teachers which allows pupils and teachers to abuse participants.
“Fourth: illegal actions by schools. We’ve already mentioned the violation of laws like allowing the use of force and ignoring illegal abuse of the participants.
“Number five: ignoring cultural and religious customs. The press is full of stories of the Program clashing with the customs of minority groups. I’m sure I don’t have to tell you the stories—examples of how each one of the problems I’ve mentioned have injured or in a few cases, killed a child. I’m sorry to say this, but you people have blood on your hands.”
“I say...” Granville began.
“No, sir, please let me continue,” Jeremy went on. “In every case that resulted in an injury or death, it could have been predicted. We’ll show you how we came to that conclusion soon, but before we do, I need to cover the issues of fairness and the universality of the effect of applying the Program’s objectives to all pupils in Britain. First, it’s supposed to be part of the standard curriculum in the country. But not all pupils get to participate; a lot will leave school after their GCSEs at 16 years old and won’t ever be in the Program.
“Also, pupils who attend independent schools don’t have to participate; that’s maybe 10 percent of the whole country’s pupils. Next, have you ever thought of the pupils at all of England’s single-sex schools? There are more than 400 of them. How could the objectives of the Program apply to them? Are you actually going to try to encourage or even force those children into homosexual contact?... No, please, don’t interrupt.”
Granville was red-faced but held his indignation while a few of the group, including all of the MPs, smiled weakly.
“Then, in a lot of cases, many schools will never get to have every pupil participate. A lot of pupils could be missed. But pupils who never get called to participate will still get their diplomas; this is a fundamental unfairness. If someone is selected and refuses, he gets no diploma while if someone never gets called, they get their diploma anyway. How does that meet the objectives of the Program? Okay, I’m going to ask Amelia to discuss some issues which you apparently never considered in designing the Program, and then I’ll be back to go over human rights laws as applied to the Program. Amelia?”
Granville spoke now. “Mr Porter. Please. Before we leave your topics, I have to take issue with your implication that we’re responsible for children’s deaths or promoting homosexuality. That isn’t...”
Kevin rose. “Dr Granville, the record speaks for itself. You may not think you’re responsible, but anyone with a shred of common sense, in reading the news reports, can connect the dots. You didn’t intend that events would unfold as they did, but they did, and the public places the blame as they will.”
“But how can you say that the public is holding the Program responsible for those terrible incidents? It was never proven...” Granville began, but an MP, face flushed, interrupted.
“It’s bloody happening, Mr Granville, and blokes in my constituency are ringing my office about it every day! They want Parliament to stop the kids’ deaths!”
Granville dropped his head. “We do hear about that, sir,” he said. “Mr Porter. Returning to your other assertion. The Program definitely does not promote homosexuality. In fact it’s not operating in any single-sex school as of now. We did attempt to require boys’ and girls’ schools to pair up and merge some of their classes, possibly a day or two a week, to allow the Program to function but legal problems prevent doing that.” He looked at Eldridge. “Explain the legal problem, please.”
Eldridge nodded. “In virtually every single-sex school, combining classes of boys and girls even temporarily violates the schools’ charters. None of the schools’ governors have been inclined to change their charters, even if it were a simple thing to do. So far we haven’t been able to design a version of the Program so it can be implemented properly in a boys’ or girls’ school. Mr Porter is correct. Program participation will miss a sizeable pupil population.”
Jeremy stood again. “Thank you for that info. It proves some of the points I was trying to make. When this law was written, little thought was given to how it would work in real life, and the rules given to the schools are even worse than the law itself in how they are applied.”
“But...” Granville began.
Kevin rose again and motioned Jeremy to sit. “Dr Granville, please, we need to move on with our presentation; we can’t let this meeting become a debate or we’ll get nothing done tonight. Please, may Miss Hadad proceed?”
Granville clenched his fists and nodded jerkily.
Amelia stood up and looked at the group, then clasped her hands. “I won’t try to be as nice to you people as Jeremy was, since you allowed some absolutely terrible things to be done to girls in the name of social engineering, ‘cuz that’s what you’ve been trying to do—to treat children like robots and turn them into little building blocks who’ll conform to a uniform idea of sexual morality, to try to make a perfectly uniform and immoral society,” she smiled at them sweetly.
“But people and cultures are different and shouldn’t—no, can’t—all be forced to conform to a single moral standard!” she spat. “You ran the Program for two years on a pilot basis in some small schools to test it out. Probably you were trying to see how much resistance you would get from the kids and parents. Well, the pilot schools were all rural and suburban. The population in those schools was as homogeneous as it’s possible to get in the U.K.
“Why is that a significant oversight? Well, how many minorities were in those schools? You’re aware that Muslims, the observant ones, wear head coverings and that’s not a fashion statement. Their faiths require modesty; it’s a fundamental tenet of their religion and culture, and the Program tries to strip their faith and community away along with their clothes. A Muslim girl who is humiliated like that can lose the right to marry respectably; she can become an outcast; she can even lose her life, and you certainly must know that some have—as a result of being stripped naked in school.
“The incident that the head mentioned here at Norwich last month illustrates a different major problem. The other girl who was assaulted, and she was injured more than I was, was a victim of FGM, you know what that is? Good. Were there girls with FGM in your pilot schools? Of course not, statistically there couldn’t be. Here at Norwich, the group of girls who were working on the anti-FGM publicity with me found seventeen girls who admitted to having the cutting. That number actually matches the London average for this borough as published by the Home Office, about 4 percent of the girls. In the districts where the pilot schools are, the prevalence of FGM is half of a percent, which works out to fewer than one girl per school. So the pilot Program never encountered a girl with the mutilation.
“Tell me, you’re supposed to be the experts, if you know what’s been done to girls with FGM, how is the Program supposed to, quote, ‘help you become more comfortable with your body and your sexuality,’ unquote, and how they can be treated as, quote, ‘sexual beings,’ unquote? Do you realize the pain these girls will suffer if their privates are groped, prodded, and probed, as the Program requires? And are you aware of the infections they routinely get ‘cuz of their mutilated genitals? Even normal girls can get a bad infection from boys groping them with their dirty hands.
“The mutilation of a young girl by cutting out her external genitalia is nothing less than torture, but so is subjecting any girl to the unwilling sexual abuse of having her private body parts used for a boy’s pleasure. Physical damage can and does occur, but so does psychological damage and both can be lifelong. Denise’ll talk about that later. But my message is this: just like FGM is intended to destroy sexual response in girls, the Program is intended to attempt to augment their sexual response. And both are invasive, destructive, and misguided attempts at social engineering to mold the girl into something she is not, and both have lifetime consequences. Remember: the Program is another form of child torture, just like FGM.
“Now Jeremy will discuss the Program from a human rights and legal point of view.”
The adults just sat there looking grim, like they had been hit with the worst possible news, as Jeremy rose to speak again.
“Yeah, as Amelia said, it is truly torture. We all agree that torture is a human rights violation, but how can we say that the Program is like torture? To get there, we need to look at a few policies, regulations, and laws which existed long before the Program came along.
“First up are the pupil handbooks which every school has. They all say virtually the same things in them about behavior and I’ll show you some typical rules on this slide.”
He projected the slide, which read:
Statements Found in a Sample of Twenty Pupil HandbooksWe expect pupils to show courtesy to others. Courtesy is demonstrating polite behavior; that you have excellent manners and social conduct. We expect you to be courteous to all other members of the school community and visitors to our school. Behave with integrity and demonstrate courtesy at all times. Every pupil has an equal right to feel safe and valued. We do not expect any pupil to feel upset, scared or unhappy about coming to school or being in school. You do not have the right to touch anybody else or their personal belongings. This means you keep your hands and feet to yourself. Respect the personal space of others and keep any contact to a minimum, unless you are helping or supporting another pupil or friend.
“How do these principles of behavior or a safe school environment translate in a school with the Program? Obviously they’re inoperative. The Program demands discourteous behavior because pupils are told that they must force other pupils to submit to their Reasonable Requests; the Program expects participants to allow that discourteous behavior, even if they object to it. This is a fundamental disregard of courtesy, teaching us that courtesy is an empty word. And I’ll guarantee that you won’t find many kids who aren’t scared to go to school if the threat of the Program is hanging over them.
“Okay now, moving to national policy. Here’s a slide showing an excerpt from the U.K. ‘Education Policy Guide.’
Various religions and beliefs require their adherents to conform to a particular dress code, or to otherwise outwardly manifest their belief. Some religions require adherents to wear or carry specific religious artefacts, others may hold a belief that they should not cut their hair, and a number of religions require their followers to dress modestly, for example, by wearing loose fitting clothing, or covering their head.
“From this you see that minority rights are recognized by the Department for Education, including the acknowledgment of the need for some cultures to dress modestly. Obviously, with the Program this education policy is brushed aside and rendered meaningless, because some pupils’ right to modesty mandated by this policy is completely ignored.
“Now we’ll move to laws. On the Department for Education website, we noticed this statement: ‘A school must have regard to its obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998.’ So we looked up that law and here’s an excerpt of a significant part:
Schedule 1, Part I, Article 8:
1. Everyone has the right of respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society ... for the ... protection of health or morals...
Part II, Article 2:
No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.
“You can see again, that the observing of private beliefs are enshrined in the law as are religious and moral convictions...”
“Excuse me, young man,” Mr Eldridge, the Program committee solicitor, interrupted, “that item states ‘private and family life’ but the Program is run in schools, not in private.”
“That’s a very narrow and limited interpretation of the term ‘private,’ sir,” Jeremy rejoined. “I want you to notice that it says ‘private and family life.’ Not ‘private family life.’ That shows that the two are considered distinct and unrelated. That also means that ‘private’ must be understood as being something different from ‘not public’ and one carries his private life wherever he goes, even to school. Also, ‘private’ has a whole range of connotations; I’m sure you’re familiar with the term ‘privates’ or ‘private parts.’ That’s the genitals. The body parts that aren’t supposed to be seen by the public.”
Chuckles from the group.
He went on, “We’re fully justified to read that item in the law to mean that one’s privates deserve respect, that is, not subject to public exposure, let alone groping. I’m sure a judge or jury would agree; it’s basic common sense, after all. By the way, the exact same wording is found in the Council of Europe’s ‘Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms’ in Article 8. The U.K. is a party to that convention. Since we’ve moved into human rights and international law, let’s continue there. My next few slides are excerpts from a United Nations treaty. It’s a treaty which the U.K. has signed, the ‘Treaty on the Rights of the Child.’
Article 3 Section 2: Parent/guardian: ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being...
Article 5: States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention.
Article 14, Section 1. States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
Article 16, Section 1. No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation.
Section 2. The child has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 19, Section 1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.
Article 34: States Parties undertake to protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse.
Article 36: States Parties shall protect the child against all other forms of exploitation prejudicial to any aspects of the child's welfare.
“Notice that the parent or guardian is charged with determining what is proper for the child, not the state or school. Also refer to the treaty’s prohibition of sexual exploitation and abuse. The Program objectives specifically state that part of the goals are sexual in nature and not only does official abuse occur, so does exploitation. The Program is intended to mold—you can read that as ‘exploit’—children to achieve the state’s special societal goal. That’s exploitation.
“That’s enough on human rights now. The next area is criminal law. Using force on children is a violation of the Children Act 2004.”
Jeremy displayed that slide.
“That same prohibition can be found in the education code of laws too, in the Education and Inspections Act 2006. Here’s a slide of that part of the law:
Section 93
Reasonable force can be used to prevent pupils from hurting themselves or others, from damaging property, or from causing disorder. Reasonable means using no more force than is needed.
Examples of situations where reasonable force can and cannot be used. Schools can use reasonable force to control disruptive children in cases where a risk to the child’s or another’s safety or health would occur or stop behaviour that disrupts the behaviour of others. Schools cannot use force as a punishment.
“Related to use of force are laws that cover the use of restraints; the Program booklet talks about using handcuffs on children but your legal people never thought to check your law codes, like the Education Act 1996, Section 550A which is titled ‘The Use of Force to Control or Restrain Pupils,’ which doesn’t allow restraints.”
He displayed that slide.
“The Program book says the school officials may cut a pupil’s hair if it is used for concealment of their nudity. One could argue, probably successfully too, that this is a violation of the Human Rights Act 1998 which establishes important protections from abuse by state organizations or employees. Article 3 prohibits ‘torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.’ For a young teen girl, cutting their hair would definitely fit as a ‘degrading treatment’ violation.
“And finally, there’s the general criminal code, the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which covers assault and battery as crimes. Now, how did the government, with all of its legal resources and plenty of solicitors, fail to see all of the places where the Program violates so many existing laws?”
There was a smattering of applause and one of the MPs exclaimed, “Young man, that was a masterful survey of the legal codes. Mr, um, Eldridge, is it? Yes. If a secondary school pupil could tear apart your Program rules like that, what does it say about the care your group takes with its other duties?”
“We’ll have to look into all of Mr Porter’s legal citations, sir,” Granville broke in. “And Miss Hadad’s information too. Apparently our staff didn’t consider those issues—they’ve never been raised before.”
Amelia raised her hand. “Sir, that’s what Jeremy meant when he said that we’d show you how those problems could have been prevented. Almost every one of them happened because no one looked at the existing laws when they designed the Program.”
Kevin stood up. “Amelia’s spot on, you know. And we Yanks weren’t immune from the idiocy either. Every bad thing that happened here, happened there, except for the tragedies involving the Muslim girls, and I suspect we were just fortunate that such things never came up. Now Denise will tell you about some studies which examined the societal effects of the Program in the U.S.”
Denise stood. “Hi there. I’ll follow the precedent set at our meeting’s start and jump right into my topics. It seems to me to be patently clear that when the authorities in the U.K. decided to run the Program here, they simply copied everything from the U.S. version and tweaked it in places to use the Queen’s English and British terminology. But you folks never noticed, when you copied the U.S. version of the Program booklet, that some of the rules in it didn’t quite match up with your Parliamentary act. No matter; once you had adapted those Program documents, it seems you never looked back at the States to see how our own experiment was faring.
“I’ll describe two retrospective studies which were published, one in a peer-reviewed article in a well-known education journal, and another as a sociological survey in a university journal. The data for both studies came from self-reporting of Program participants and teachers in schools which were running the Program. The data sets were sufficiently large to allow the results to have a very high degree of confidence. These slides show the effect of the Program on average student academic performance, by classes, not individuals.”
Number of classes where academic performance was analyzed: 487 in 373 schools
Program severity: There was a wide difference in the Program climate across these schools, ranging from poor staff control resulting in abusive treatment of students to tight, orderly Program operation where few students suffered traumatizing consequences. A scale of 1 to 5, a “Program Severity Index,” was developed, based on the stringency of student compulsion and other negative factors the reporting teachers had identified, where 5 represented the greatest degree of student distress at that school and 1 the least.
Analysis of the results showed little correlation between “severity index” and change in student grades; most grades changed the same amount regardless of the “severity index.”
The study’s result showed that the national average decline in grades for students in schools running the Program was 9.8 percentage points.
This decline is equivalent in most schools to almost a full letter grade: for the overall grades nationwide, where a B average existed before the Program, it became a C average under the Program.
The study’s conclusion was that the Program produced significant damage to the students’ academic performance, even if they never participated by being forced to be naked. The performance of the entire class declined as a group.
“So you can see the dramatic effects of the Program on academic performance overall. Not only were the dubious Program objectives called into question, the negative effect on student academic performance was quite clear. Yes, you have a question?”
“Yes. How were the data collected?”
“As I said, self reporting and surveys. Basically a survey was sent to teachers in a large number of schools. They reported their class grades for the same subjects in the year before the Program began and in the year or two following when it was running. The study protocol was analyzed and vetted by Avery’s School of Education faculty, so it was properly designed. Okay? Good.
“The next item is a study on social costs to the country. We can argue about how much children are affected by the Program, but is there a societal cost? This study investigated that question. There were 37,482 narrative reports of Program incidents which were analyzed and grouped into seven social categories. These slides show a summary of the results.”
Categories: suicides or attempts, rapes and assaults, hospitalizations for psychological reasons, professional medical treatment for injuries, usage of medications for psychological or emotional support, teacher and staff maltreatment of Program students, and arrests or other legal action for other Program problems.
Results and discussion:
Three suicides and eleven attempts. Inconclusive for many reasons because of the reporting method. However, national data showed that the suicide rate among teens went from about 11 per 100,000 in the years before the Program began, to about 15 per 100,000 starting in the year after the Program was running. This might imply a 35 percent increase in teen suicides.
Rapes and assaults. 632 actual prosecutions for rape; 13,588 assaults. For rapes, this represented ten to fifteen times greater than the general population and over fifty times greater among high-school students. Might be under-reported since some rapes could have been plea-dealt to sexual assault. Lesser sexual assaults occurred at a rate about eighty times greater than the matched demographic in the general population (high-school age).
Psychological hospitalizations. 6,247 cases. This represented a rate of about fifty-five times greater than the matched demographic.
Medical treatment not included in above. 9,873 cases. Included items like internal injuries or infections caused by sexual molestation of genitals or rectum, reactions to the mandatory Shot, sports injury from being forced to play sports while nude without protective gear, cold exposure, etc. Difficult to match with national data but at least double the injury rate in the demographic, a 100 percent increase.
Usage of psychotropic medications. 1,267 reports. Students taking anti-anxiety medications to get them through their Program week; not included in psychological category above. Can’t be reliably nationally matched, but if one assumes zero need in the absence of the Program, this is an almost 1300-fold increase.
Teacher/staff abuse. 15,387 reports. Not tracked for national comparisons because such behavior rarely becomes public; cases are settled and closed with no publicity.
Other legal actions. 8,862 reports. Not tracked since there is no comparability to other non-Program social issues.
“You can clearly see the huge, huge cost to society created when the Program is running,” Denise continued. “Even if half of these reports are discounted, the costs would still be staggering, and statisticians have examined these results and declared that they are valid. Think of the increased medical expenses that the country and the victim have to bear. Think of the legal costs that must be covered—for prosecution as well as plaintiff or defense. Think of the long-term psychological damage the victim has to bear which will also have an effect on society as a whole. The study’s authors didn’t try to quantify these costs, but later attempts by others put a monetary price tag on these social problems in the range of two to three billion dollars over a five-year period. And the Program only ran in the U.S. for about five years, with the first year being at only a few schools.
“I think that as soon as the British public learns about these costs, you Parliament members will have to disconnect your phones and email; you might even be lynched for passing that act,” she joked.
The Program Committee members sat, stony-faced, looking at the screen. Then Granville looked around. The MPs were glaring at him.
“Mr Eldridge, I don’t recall that any economic analysis was done...” he began.
“Bugger that!” called one of the MPs. “Erm... sorry for the outburst. This... this... god, what a disaster. Miss... uh... Roberts. You hit right where it hurts us politicians, right in the public’s pocketbook. Is there any chance those numbers could be wrong?”
“Well,” Denise mused, “maybe it wouldn’t be so severe here. We’ve got a far more litigious society over there, you know. Lots of people tend to be libertarian in philosophy, too, much more than here. Most Brits are very stoic. Perhaps you won’t get lots of lawsuits. But medical and psychological—just look at the newspapers for the past year and see the number of abuse cases that the tabloids are reporting. I’d say you’d still have a high price tag if the Program goes on as it’s been going. Could your medical and legal resources adjust to accommodate an eighty-fold increase in sexual assaults and a fifty-five-fold increase in psychological admissions and long-term care?”
A lot of somber faces stared at the screen as Denise pointed to those items.
“Bloody...” muttered a MP. “I’m putting in for an investigation of the DfE over this rot.”
The other MPs nodded. One asked, “Where does this leave us now?”
All eyes in the room turned to look at Kevin as he stood.
Copyright © 2016 Seems Ndenyal. All Rights Reserved.