Gatekeepers They Are, Sleepers Are We, Part 2 

“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” is a Latin phrase variously translated as "Who will guard the guards?", "Who watches the watchmen?", "Who shall watch the watchers themselves?", 
or similar.
 Decimus Iunius Iuvenalis,
known in English as "Juvenal," was a Roman poet active in the late first and early second century CE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juvenal  

In part 1 we learned that a “gatekeeper” could be an adult adviser to a youth club and that the gatekeeper’s personal limitations, caused by her / himself or by others, could harm youth.  Such harm would come mostly through missed opportunities for education, skills demonstration or recognition.  

It is a fair defense for a gatekeeper to say that he or she is doing the best which she can for youth.  None of us is perfect and a gatekeeper should be lauded for taking the time, oftentimes without compensation, to work with youth.  Also, it is a fair defense for a gatekeeper to say that she or he must operate within the rules set by others.  These rules too often unintentionally handicap the youth because the rules do not permit the youth to practice real leadership or learn about pioneering trends.  The rules are meant to make managing the youth less difficult, instead of unleashing the positive potential of youth.  

However, it is indefensible for a gatekeeper to “lock the gate” and keep others from providing the opportunities for education, skills demonstration, and recognition.  Also, it is indefensible for the rule makers, whoever they be, to resist making changes in the rules for the benefit of youth. 

This talk is fine and good in the abstract, but what does it mean in the real world?  Here are examples: 

·        Youth are taught about charity, as when they volunteer for a Thanksgiving or Christmas event, but they are not taught about empowerment.  Has our community given thought, after many years of “Christmas at the Cannon”, about thanking attendees by giving them a dinner and show for the good the attendees have done for the community in the preceding year?  Or are we saying that the unfortunate must be the objects of our pity and can never become subjects of our praise?

·        There are companies and national youth organizations, as in this issue’s “Announcements”, which give youth the opportunity to reach for their potential, yet what encouragement is there from our gatekeepers or rule makers that the youth do so?

·        We have local scholarships for essays and education, but do we have scholarships for youth for extraordinary community service, that is, service of such quality that there would be a permanent, sustainable change for the better in the community?  Should a community organization not encourage youth into extraordinary community service, instead of encouraging youth to go away to college, which does little or nothing for the community?

August 30, 2007