On April 15, 2004 I traveled to São Paulo, Brazil to address the International Seminar on the Public Policies of Youth, sponsored by Projeto Juventude, a Brazilian youth participation program, the Citizenship Institute, a Brazilian national nonprofit organization, and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). I was one of several international speakers present, with others coming from South Africa, Portugal, Cuba, and Spain, among other places. I was the only North American present. The following is my address to the gathering.

I want to begin my address by thanking my hosts today, including the Youth Project and the Citizenship Institute. I also want to say that I am honored to be sitting on a panel with such esteemed presenters, whom I have learned a great deal from at this conference. Finally, a big thanks to my friend Jonah Wittkamper, who facilitated me coming here today. Thank you all very much.

Unlike many of the speakers at this conference, I am not an administrator or a policy-maker. I am not an academic researcher or a scholar. Instead, I am a young man who grew up poor and with limited resources; for the past fifteen years of my life I have had the honor of sharing what skills I possess with other young people as a community educator. I simply come to you today to share my perspective, including some observations and examples regarding the legality and legitimacy of youth participation. I seek solidarity with many of you who are my Brazilian counterparts.

I want to reiterate previous speakers’ points about interdependence. Interdependence is the act of being mutually dependent, having to rely on others to survive. Isolation is the act of setting apart or cutting off from others. Isolation destroys community, while community building requires us to have help from other people. It means depending on others. I believe that the concept of interdependence should resonate in the work of legislating youth participation in any nation, particularly one as global in its perspectives and actions as Brazil. We must educate communities and young people themselves that young people are, and should be, reliant upon their communities, and vice versa. This is the heart of interdependence. Sadly, that same perspective is lacking in the United States, where I currently live and work. In my speech I will detail some of the advances the United States has made in providing legality and legitimacy to youth participation. I will also provide a candid, and perhaps blunt, analysis of the failures of American policy. To do this, I will answer the three questions provided in our agendas, which are: Do youth policies need to be anchored in legislation; What specific rights of youth must be translated into law, and; What is the role of the legislature in this theme?

Regarding the question of whether youth policies need to be anchored in legislation, with respect to previous speakers’ opinions, I would say that while legislation is important to youth participation, it is vital for community youth workers and educators not to rely on lawmakers in order to take action. In my experience and research, I have come to believe that public policy is contingent upon the whims of politicians, and is subject to change as rapidly as the weather.

I will share two examples to illustrate my point. The first is seeded in the United States during the 1930s and 40s. While the country was grappling with the social, political, and economic effects of the Great Depression that made more than fifty percent of American workers jobless, the Congress got busy in creating the National Youth Administration, or NYA. The goal of the NYA was to provide jobs and training to young workers who were homeless and out-of-school. The NYA was immediately popular with politicians because of its rapid response to the immediate needs of the public. However, after just ten short years the program was unfunded by the federal government, and soon after completely dismantled. The reasoning was simple: when industry geared up for American participation in World War II, there was no need for youth to continue earning wages in menial labor jobs. Those who were able were promptly shipped off to public schools and the military; those who were not “able” were let onto the streets, where there is still today a large population of young people without the necessary education or resources needed to fully participate in society.

The second example that illustrates my point about politicians and their wavering commitment to youth policies comes from modern times, the last fifteen years. Under Bill Clinton, the most recent democratically-elected president of the United States, the Congress created a national community service program called AmeriCorps. The goal of this program was to engage young people in service to their communities in the areas of education, the environment, unmet human needs, and public safety. Many people thought of the program as a sort of Peace Corps for the United States; I certainly did when I joined. It gave me a feeling of pride and purpose to serve in AmeriCorps, and I learned a great deal while earning money for college. It seemed like a win-win situation. However, today I am almost embarrassed to mention that I was an AmeriCorps Member. You see, in 2001 George Bush effectively hijacked the good nature of AmeriCorps when he renamed the program “Freedom Corps,” and changed the purpose of the agency from promoting goodwill and community-building to being a tool for political propagandizing through community service. This wholesale disenfranchisement of young people’s honest desire to participate in meaningful service to their communities is a damning indictment of politicians’ inability to be truly responsive to the best interest of their constituencies, particularly young people themselves.

While these examples dramatically illustrate that politicians can destroy as well as they build, I hope it also proves that communities should not rely on politicians to drive change. Projects and activities that seek to develop the skills and abilities of young people do not have to be anchored in policy in order to actually be successful. For this reason I believe that it is important to say that communities and young people themselves should not wait for politicians to take action; we should take action now and hope the politicians catch up.

To reiterate this conclusion, I want to provide you with a short course in the effects of youth participation on American legislation throughout history. In 1773, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison were young men, both under the age of 25. After fighting gallantly and speaking loudly against the continued British occupation of the American colonies, each of these men went on to become central leaders in the new nation that was formed, as citizen leaders and Presidents. Each of these men were under 25. Much later on, in 1903, more than 10,000 child workers marched on Washington, DC in a show of solidarity against child labor. Soon after that the Congress and the President responded with sweeping legislation against the economic exploitation of children in workplaces. Martin Luther King, Junior, was only 26 when he became a central leader in the African American Civil Rights Movement. Through his courageous advocacy, federal legislation was created that granted Blacks equal votes, equal access throughout society, and the equal rights of citizenship in the United States. Again, Dr. King was only 26. In 1971, a group of young people from across the United States worked together to lobby for the lowering of the federal voting age limit, from 21 to 18. These young people did not wait for legislators to take action, and hope that legislation would cause policy or social changes. Instead, they took action, and eventually, the politicians caught up to their intentions.

That said, I think that it is important to give public policy-making its due: legislation has an important role in giving youth policies legitimacy and ensuring long-term sustainability. In the United States this has taken form in limited federal legislation affecting juvenile justice programs, runaway and homeless youth, foster youth, youth employment, and education. Each of these areas has specific federal policies which have been promoted through legislation, and which are vital to the health, education, and long-term contributions of young people throughout American society.

A hope that I would like to express for the Brazilian people is that, as dedicated youth advocates and allies, young people themselves and adults in local communities keep pressure on the federal government to ensure accountability and longevity in the area of youth participation. In the United States many people have either forgotten or casually relegated their democratic responsibility to hold politicians to a high level of expectations and outcomes. Hopefully your nation can do a better job of this vital task.

The second question that I hope to answer is, “What specific rights of youth must be translated into law?” I believe that any duties that are the responsibilities of all citizens must be extended to youth. In the United States, this includes all manners of civic engagement, including paying taxes, volunteering in one’s community, and fulfilling other social duties. Unfortunately, these responsibilities do not include the most important duty of any citizen in any country, which is the responsibility of participating in the popular discourse of democratic society: voting. The right of voting must be extended to all young people, of any age, throughout society, from the local level to the national and international levels. We are witnessing the acknowledgement of this essential democratic right around the world, in countries such as Britain and Germany, where there is serious consideration giving youth the right to vote. Several areas in the United States are also taking action, including the states of California and Texas, and local municipalities around the States.

In considering what rights of youth must be translated into law, we must consider the difference between societal dedication, cultural expectations, and legal obligation. In the United States, the civil rights of African Americans were supposedly guaranteed through societal dedication, via President Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation. However, it took more than 100 years for the country to ensure equal and integrated opportunities for all African Americans to vote, attend public schools, and to simply live in peace. Those steps were taken by ensuring the legal obligation of society to integrate African Americans. I think we can draw a simple correlation between the experiences of African Americans in the United States and that of young people today, if just to illustrate the necessity of translating all rights of youth into law.

An important footnote: many Americans of European descent still do not acknowledge the civil rights of African Americans to this day. Because of this, many African Americans still live without full access to the political, educational, economic, and justice systems that Americans of European descent created. Without their rights fully ensured, the history of African Americans in the United States also shows the fallacy of relying on legislative measures and the political motivations behind them.

The last question that I want to address is “What is the role of the legislature in this theme?” In a successful democracy, politicians must constantly seek to be authentically responsive to the needs and desires of their constituencies, and that includes young people today. As young people continue to increase their engagement in our countries and communities, politicians are increasingly pressured to recognize youth as more than just pleasant distractions or menial players; instead, young people must be identified as instrumental contributors in the political process. And I am not just talking about placating young people through simplistic youth forums or youth councils. I am talking about the complete integration of young people into the legislative, legal, and political processes which affect them and the communities they belong to. I want to illustrate these points with two thoughts.

As I just stated, my first point is that legislation should be used to validate the opinions, ideas, experiences, and knowledge of young people. In New York City, one youth-led community organization has partnered with the local public school district to create a school that has been planned by the students themselves. This school will focus on social justice and youth empowerment, and will provide an opportunity for youth who have not been successful in traditional schools to excel. Another example, which I mentioned earlier, also rightly fits here, too. I mentioned that the most progressive communities in the United States considering the possibility of enfranchising young people with the right to vote. It is efforts such as these, which represent the authentic voices of young people, that must be uplifted, informed, sustained and celebrated by our politicians and our communities. Only in this way can legislators be accountable by fulfilling their obligations to society, including youth themselves.

My second point is that politicians must not use legislation as a tool to placate young people or their communities’ sincere desires to foster their engagement. The story I want to share here is from the 1990s, when I served in the AmeriCorps National Service program. In 1996, Bill Clinton hosted the President's Summit for America's Future. It brought together thousands of leaders of voluntary service organizations from all sectors and backgrounds, including young people from all parts of the United States. While it was billed as a chance for young people to “meaningfully contribute” to their communities, this event did little to actually mobilize local communities’ interest in engaging young people. However, due to this event, when people ask what the United States has done to mobilize youth participation, it can be said that a significant attempt was made. The United States Congress could have taken steps to ensure the lasting impacts of this event, and subsequent Presidents might be obligated to uphold the values and goals of youth participation. Instead, the opportunity was wasted. [*]

To close I want to return to the topic of interdependence. I want to quote a hero and mentor of mine, the American civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King, Junior. Dr. King once wrote, “We are everlasting debtors to known and unknown men and women. When we arise in the morning, we go into a bathroom where we reach for a sponge that is provided to us by a Pacific Islander. We reach for soap that is created for us by a European. Then, at the table we drink coffee which is provided for us by a South American, or tea by Chinese, or cocoa by a West African. Before we leave for our jobs, we are already beholden to more than half the world.”

The purpose of youth participation in society must be more than simply to create better politicians, better legislation, or even better learners and workers. The purpose of youth participation must be to create a better society: one that challenges governments to become more democratic; one that challenges democracy to become more authentic; and one that challenges all people to become significantly engaged. Only in this way will youth participation be legitimate, and only in this way will legislation matter.

Thank you for your time today.

On April 15, 2004 I traveled to São Paulo, Brazil to speak at the International Seminar on Youth Participation, sponsored by Projeto Juventude, a Brazilian youth participation program, the Citizenship Institute, a national nonprofit organization, and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). I was one of several international speakers present, with others coming from South Africa, Portugal, Cuba, and Spain, among other places. I was the only North American present. Jonah Wittkamper, the South American coordinator of the Global Youth Action Network, was responsible for identifying me and facilitated my attendance at the conference. The following is my personal account of the trip, as shared with the Freechild Yahoo Group.

Day One: "I am here to speak at a United Nations-sponsored conference exploring youth participation through public policy... Each of the speakers has a different a focus, and mine is local and national policies that promote youth participation in governance. As of today, I plan to detail different programs on the local and national levels, in communities and schools. I want to highlight the successes of these programs, but also bring out the pitfalls of many of them, and offer critical reflections on their inability to reach many young people. Then I want to propose the most forward-thinking (read: progressive) action going on, focusing on the youth rights movement, youth-led community activism, and truly authentic youth/adult partnerships. Today I will be touring the offices [of the Global Youth Action Network here] and visiting different youth projects around Sao Paulo, where I am at, where the conference is. Sao Paulo is an incredible city, probably the largest in the Americas, with over 25 million people in the area..."

Day Two: "Bridget, a friend of mine who is a young Zulu woman, stopped me in conversation yesterday and said, `You´re a socialist, aren´t you?´ ´No, No!´I denied. I am a ´community builder´! The title ´socialist´is a dirty word in the US!' It is day 2 of the ´Seminário Internacional do Projeto Juventude´ here in São Paulo, Brazil. In the first day here, I have seen and heard a lot. The Brazilians seem fairly committed to establishing an effective, sustainable, and unified youth policy. So far, the conference speakers have all been government officials, UN officials, or large national and international NGOs from different countries in Europe, central America, Africa, India, and South America. A lot of very esteemed professional types giving mini-dissertations on the policies affecting young people in their respective countries. Few have talked about youth participation [as I know it] directly, but there have been hints. One speaker compared the situation of youth involvement to the role of women in society. While I do not agree with his analysis totally, it was an interesting and sophisticated perspective.

Day Two (continued): "Its ironic that I am here to speak, given that I have actually treated discussions like these as the bane of my conference experiences in the past. These presentations are always so dry and such an ineffective way to ´transmit knowledge´ - if that really is their goal. The audience in the room is packed with government officials and young people. All are relatively attentive, but its interesting to hear their impressions afterwards - from what I have heard in English. I feel a real need to speak passionately, and past the rhetoric. That will come tomorrow. A lot swirling around in my own head, about how the ´youth scene´ in the US is dominated by a small handful of large nonprofits, about how programs are either determined by funders or by activists - and if you are an activist, do not expect to get funding - unless you get along with... the funders! By comparison, in Portugal young people who gather together with a social mission are virtually guaranteed financial support from the government. Those are some of my reflections thus far. I met one-on-one with some local youth players yesterday. Their work focuses on peace/nonviolence and youth organizing. Its interesting to hear how they accomplish their work with no local funding - there are no philanthropic foundations here. Fundraising involves a lot of groveling and international contacts. I´ve got to get back - a woman from Cuba is speaking next, and being the good ´community builder´ I am, I would not miss that for the world."

Day Three: "The last day of the conference is here. In the past three days, I have listened to esteemed speakers from around the world explaining youth policies in their respective countries, and impassioned Brazilians, young and old, eagerly discussing the future of national policy affecting their country. I am humbled by the opportunity to
contribute to this dialogue, and excited to see the outcomes. Throughout my time here I have reflected greatly on the situation of young people in the United States. For several years my own interests have been so refined, so radicalized, that I have forgotten about the large-picture activities that are happening and that still need to happen. I hinted at what I feel is happening in yesterday's email, when I noted the large national nonprofits that dominate the ´youth circuit´ in the states. There are other issues, including:

* The absence of a coordinated national, multi-issue youth advocacy [organization/lobby]
* Continual under-information of young people about federal legislative issues that affect them directly
* Systemic inability of social change movements and government organizations to engage young people
* Ongoing misrepresentation of young people in popular media, despite deliberate attempts at rectifying that imbalanced perspective

I think what is not happening includes:
* Current advocacy organizations meeting their missions of speaking ´for´ or with youth
* Inability of national organizations to develop sustainable networks for the advancement of young people
* Lack of a national, centralized effort to promote meaningful youth participation

I am not sure what needs to happen to make these things take flight, but after listening to the organized efforts of governments and organizations around the world, I am not sure that things things actually CAN happen in the US."

Day Three (part two): "So at this conference the discussion has revolved exclusively around developing a single, comprehensive national youth policy in Brazil. Of course, there is nothing like this in the US; it turns out that globally, these types of political policies on youth are popular. [In the United States,] for the last 3 years there has been a group of policy advocates pushing for a national youth policy known as the Younger Americans Act. In my interpretation, this act would put a lot of money in the hands of traditional youth-serving organizations (reinforcing the already imbalanced amount of power and influence they have) and would establish a series of token leadership opportunities for young people throughout the bureaucracy that would need to be established. Basically, this Act is a youth version of the Older Americans Act. By way of comparison, look what that Act did for seniors - dramatically improved there conditions? I do not think so. Or did the Older Americans Act just placate the organizations that lobby for seniors by stuffing their pockets and meeting their constituents most pressing needs - only to revoke those baby steps forward in the future by dismantling Medicare and more? So, basically, I do not agree with the Younger Americans Act. I would gladly explain myself more to anyone on this list who wants to know. In a nutshell I would call it a simplistic, exclusionary, and isolationist policy development designed to make the ´youth lobby´ stand down.

I came here with the understanding that they wanted to hear my American-type perspective, so I gave it to them. Basically I said that young people in the US ca not rely on policy-makers and legislation to create change in society, [and] that society does not need to create change through legislation. I talked about Dr. King and Mother Jones' child labor marches (10,000 kids marching on the Capitol in 1903) and the need for young people to lead change themselves and to work with their communities and not wait for politicians and legislation to catch up with them! I tied it all together with some quotes about interdependence. Alas, at the end not very many new fans came rushing up to me for an autograph, but I guess that is not why I am here. No massaging of the white male ego today. Or maybe that is just the righteousness of a critical thinker. Anyway, I just hope I got the point across."