Parents and Government; D. Simpson

I moved to a larger high school in another state for eleventh and twelfth grades. There every physical education period was orga nized, and we had a teacher who acted like a drill sergeant. Besides calisthenics we were forced to box, wrestle, and engage in several other activities whether they inter ested us or not. We were never allowed to do what we wanted. Fifty years have passed since I voluntarily shagged flies and shot baskets for enjoy ment. Those youthful activities provided far more exercise than what modern fitness authorities recommend, and no one had to force me to do it. That is the point. Dislike of coercion by parents, schools, or other government agencies is the reason that chil dren today do not get what some expert has determined to be adequate exercise. We didn't need a President's Council to tell us how much to exercise. Nature told us. D PARENTS AND GOVERNMENT by Duncan A. Simpson N ot too long ago there was an expose on one of the network "tabloid" news programs. It had a profound effect on ev eryone I knew who had seen it. The expose concerned the deplorable level of day-care treatment at a number of private day-care centers in a suburban area near our home.

Needless to say, this program prompted the local media to strike the chord. The network program had showed scenes of day-care workers hitting infants who cried too much and of the workers failing to provide any form of hygiene. It inflamed those who rely on day care so that both Mr. Simpson is an attorney-at-law practicing in Dallas, Texas. parents can work, and who inevitably carry guilt in their briefcase for leaving their infants with strangers. Saddest was the response of the parents of one of the abused children when the network showed them tapes of their own child being struck. The pain resounded. The media carried the torch, interviewing the parents and opera tors and stirring everyone's ire. The local constabulary and politicos re sponded in Pavlovian fashion, threatening the prosecution of these day-care owners, the enactment of strict licensing laws, and the enrollment of a veritable army of inspec tors to remedy the situation and to prevent additional abuses in the future. National "leaders" also responded with Congressional hearings, solemn declarations about the need for federal oversight of the rearing of children, and so on. The response por tends further intrusion into the personal"

lives and obligations we all owe to our family and children. The controversy struck particularly close to home because we have a three-year-old. We envisioned ourselves as that couple viewing the beating of their ,own child. It also prompted heated discussion about the role of government and caused me to re evaluate my own role as a public servant. At the time of the brouhaha, I was serving as a federal prosecutor, one who ostensibly was a guardian of the rights of these citizens. I began to question my role as one who upholds the public image of a "great pro vider" government. It became obvious to me the children had suffered because of the total abdication of the role of the parents in supervising the affairs of their own families and in failing to hold every service provider to the highest standards, especially when it involves the lives of children. What, I asked myself, had caused this widespread abdication? I responded to com ments from other parents, who universally said that stricter licensing rules were needed for day-care centers, by chastising them and saying that what we actually need is unre stricted day-care providers. I was deemed a lunatic and mocked by even our most lib ertarian friends. Their response clarified the problem in my mind. It was not merely the politicians' response that should be de plored, but, more importantly, the indiffer ence of parents.

When government intrudes into the per sonallives of its citizenry to establish guide lines, regulations, and licensing require ments, it removes from the individual the awareness that he must be a cautious con sumer of goods and services. This govern mental intrusion establishes an "accept able" level of service or quality that too many rely on to their detriment or the detriment of their families. It has the inter esting effect of spilling over into areas that are not regulated. For example, the essenPARENTS AND GOVERNMENT 317 tially unregulated day-care market thrived, even for those who abused children, be cause the parents did not effectively scruti nize and inspect the day-care centers. Rather than dropping the baby off at 8:00 a.m. and picking him up at 5:00 p.m., the parents need to take an active role in making unannounced visits, and to encourage the participation of other parents in the affairs of the day-care center. That is the consumer vigilance that would assure that only the most pristine and proper day-care operators would remain in business.

I then asked several of my friends how often they dropped in, uninvited, at their child's day-care center, or spoke at length with the owner or interviewed other parents about the service provided. Few said that they had ever pursued any action when they saw that their child appeared happy at the center. It was a sad commentary on the dependence of government standards, even where none exist. When we finallyput our child into a school each day, we interviewed many other par ents; my wife spent almost an entire day observing our son's interaction with the teachers at the school; we reviewed each teacher's credentials; and I checked on the sanitary conditions very carefully. Most importantly, I was encouraged by the own ers' open invitation to drop by unan nounced, and by their sponsorship of a very active parents' association. I have, on at least six occasions in the three months he has been in that school, dropped in unin vited, and have spoken with the owner each time. I am never satisfied that my son is getting the same care he would at home, but he is getting a structured learning that we could not provide. He also thrives on play ing with his gleeful little classmates.

Since the television programs aired, no state legislation or city ordinances of any import have been passed to regulate the day-care centers. The foment has subsided. All I can hope is that the parents of some children learned a lesson and have become wiser purchasers of care for their children, their most precious possession. D THEFREEMAN IDEASON LIBERTY RAISING TAXES STIFLES INITIATIVE INVISIBLY by Richard w. Stevens A business talk show host recently stated that even with higher taxes on every body, the American spirit of initiative and hard work would survive. Nobody, he said, would stop working hard just because his taxes went up. A true story shows how that host was wrong. Thirteen-year-old William Johnson was having trouble in his algebra class. William would fail algebra if he did not quickly improve his quiz grades. Mr. and Mrs. Johnson had exhausted themselves trying to help William with his studies. The Johnson family decided to get some outside help from a tutor. They answered a local newspaper advertisement offering tutors.