Combatting Adultism to Create a Flourishing Democracy

Speaker 1 Hello, and welcome to episode 85 of our podcast at Human Restoration Project. My name is Chris McNutt, and I'm a high school digital media instructor from Ohio. Before we get started, I wanna let you know that this podcast is brought to you by our supporters, three of whom are Ray O'Brien, Jenny Lucas, and Gareth Hype. Thank you for your ongoing support. You can learn more about Human Restoration Project on our website, humanrestorationproject.org, or find us on Twitter, Instagram, or Facebook. Today, we're joined by doctor Tanu Biswas and doctor John Wall. Doctor Biswas is a doctorate of pedagogy who focuses her research on children's civil disobedience for climate justice and showcasing the richness that children and childhood have to offer adults. Doctor Wall is a theoretical ethicist who focuses on the idea of a moral life centered on language, power, culture, and childhood. His upcoming book, Give Children the Vote How to Democratize Democracy, argues for voting rights regardless age. Our conversation centers on combating adultism or the power adults have over children and the discrimination of young people, which is more than present in society, but in my opinion amplified in the classroom. We talk about what adultism and childism mean and how to promote democracy and the importance of civil disobedience. First off, to be honest, like, the concepts of childism and adultism, I've seen these things referenced. I understand some of the theory, but they're relatively new to me. Like, I'm kind of familiar with critical pedagogy, the importance of student voice, but truly, I am here to learn from you. So with that being said, I think it'd be important to start the conversation by defining the terms that we're talking about today, namely childism and adultism. So whoever wants to start us off, do you wanna in kind of inform us on what those words mean?

Speaker 2 Well, I could start off, and then Tanu can, I'm sure, have add add a lot to this as well. You know, for me, childism is all about empowering children by critiquing social norms. So it's for me, it's like third wave feminism for me. It means questioning the assumptions that put children in a marginalized position in in societies and in schools and in academia and lots of different places, and trying to come up with ways to imagine, more child inclusive, communities and societies where children's own particular lived experiences as children are equally valued to to those of adults, which they never really have been over over history.

Speaker 3 Yeah. I can I can add a bit to that because, you know, the term childism itself has it's been it's been used in both senses to mean adultism? And what John just explained, that's that's the sense many childhood studies scholars or, you know, scholars who relate to childhood studies, That's the way they've been using this term, including myself. But it's been used also to mean adultism, you know, and that's where it gets a bit confusing because so adultism, it's a which would be which is comparable to, let's say, sexism or, you know, patriarchy as those are for feminism. Adultism is for for childism. And the word childism itself, the way it's used in childhood studies, this this starts kind of towards the end of the the nineties or rather, you know, start nineties and starting 2000, so pretty much early twenty first century. Although, I would also think that the the way of thinking or the way of childish thinking has been present, and I think especially in, for example, like, phenomenological traditions with the works of Merlot Ponty, you know, he was he wrote in child psychology as well and was kind of more you know, he was a contemporary of Piaget who has contributed to educational science and also his developmental model, but that developmental model actually sort of works almost against against seeing children as equal humans or equal becomings in that sense. So, yeah, I mean, the way we're using it is is in a more transformative sense

Speaker 2 of the term. And to me, the the problem with the negative use of the term is that it's it's deficit oriented, and it's also really about adults, not about children. So if if you use childism to mean something like sexism, then you're really talking about you're you're you're only including the ways in which children are oppressed and dominated and have prejudices against them, and you're not imagining them like in childhood studies as agents who can participate with their own voices and who have distinct and diverse life experiences as well. There was actually another use of the word childism in the nineties in literary theory, which kind of died out, but that there, they used it to mean reading as children. And that's a little bit closer, I think, to what we're using the term to mean, but the problem with that and the reason it died out is it kind of essentializes children. It's it's adult it's again, it's about adults, so that's different. And it's about how adults can read like a child reads. But, of course, then you have to have an image of how a child reads. And so the difference for us would be, no, your your we're we're trying to look at how the ways in which children themselves experience the world and how that would change. So how that experience have been put aside and forgotten about or or seen as less important

Speaker 1 and trying to have those be important and and be of equal value to the way adults experience the way. Right. And it's it's very interesting to hear that because, like, when I was getting, like, my education degree, it was still presented to be the opposite way. So it's it's fascinating to hear, like, how the word has become, like, morphed depending on the field, but also how that can inform the way that we speak about it. Seeking to empower by use of the term as a positive as opposed to a negative. I think that resonates. It makes a lot of sense. And how this manifests itself and how we understand the concepts of childism and adultism in schools, Todd, I wanted to reference your what you call adultist template responses. There's a list of them. I'll read a couple of them here, because it was in regards to young people and activism. Impermanent emotionality, she is emotionally charged and therefore reacts now, but it will pass when objective reason comes forth or depoliticized pedagogical defense. Children should stay in school and leave politics to adults. Adults are more experienced to have more knowledge. Therefore, they are entitled to teach children. And I read that this whole list that basically dismisses children as not being able to understand things, and they're gonna understand things later. They're gonna, quote, unquote, grow up. These different things. And I think about school. Like, this is a typical teacher workroom and or school board discussion, sadly, about how adults treat children and the adultist response. Right? So could you talk a little bit about the relationship then between teachers, students, adultism, and childism?

Speaker 3 Yes. Sure. You're you're you're right that, you know, one one, comes across these a lot, in the school context that that is the space, so to say, that, you know, children are trusted into and almost, like, removed from proactive processes of community formation. And the reasoning, you know, that, yeah, they're not yet ready. They don't understand the emotions. They'll they'll get it later. It's kind of I mean, it's it's a classic, like, infantilization process that is used in interest or used under the pretext pedagogical, you know, relationships or pedagogical responsibilities even. I think it's quite rampant in the school systems, and I I kind of think this comes from the philos philosophy of pedagogy that underlies how we understand and practice education today in in different settings, because you you will also hear this these kind of templates a lot when when parents are talking about educating children. So it's it's educators in the broadest sense, adult educators. But here's the thing, like, what is one status quo or taken for granted assumption upon which I think the entire, like, education system and teacher education as well rest is that adults teach and children learn. You know? This this like, your basic qualification to become a teacher is that you're above 18 years old. I mean, this I find that I think is very adultist. It's an adultist assumption, and it also really, you know, sort of hides and, like, conceals the potential, what children contribute actually to the development and growth of adults as well. So it's not a one way street. And you also hear, you know, many teachers who would say like, talk about why their profession is so satisfying, for example, like, why they like being teachers. A big part of it is also, you know, what they receive from their students. Or you hear teachers talking about how they've learned and grown as a result of, you know, their teaching practice, but somehow this aspect is never highlighted. It's also not talked about so much. It's usually about what you delivered and what what what you taught. So what I've been trying to show, especially with the example of the child activism right now with Fridays for Future, school strikes. These are it's it's incredible how inspiring from a sociopolitical point of view what what young activists are doing is and how adults can learn from them because, obviously, there's, like, a very passive engagement on part of adults, which is why it's come to this point. You know? Now it's like when you have discussions in also political education where you'd say, yeah. How can we how can we train children to be better citizens and so on and so forth? But the question has to be what can we learn from children? This question has to also become central to educational theory and practice,

Speaker 1 and there's very little room for that, you know, right now. Yeah. I I can't help but think as you're talking about this, it's it's very similar to, like, what Freire spoke about with pedagogy of the oppressed and disestablishing that narrative that the teacher teaching that the child learns and all of the assumptions that we make in school beyond just the transfer of learning, but also, like, who holds authority and how discipline works and who assigns a grade and the judgment, rank, and filing that occurs in the school building. But I also don't want this entire conversation to be about the negative. I also think that there's a place here to talk to teachers about how we can change this and how we can make things better and how we can make that happen. And I'm curious if either of you have thoughts about ways that we can combat adultism in schools beyond just, like, we need to think more about their perspective? Is there a way that we can bring in a specific thing, like a specific system or idea in the schools that would help us disestablish this narrative of adultism?

Speaker 2 Well, there there there have been some interesting studies in schools, for example, with preschoolers, where if you go into the classroom and look at using a childish lens, you know, what what is going on in the classroom, you actually find, this is not as specific as you want, I don't think, but you you do find even very young children actively bringing their themselves into the classroom. And and it may or may not be recognized by the teacher or by the school as important, but in fact, the the solution is already there in a certain sense that, just like adults, you know, children are extremely diverse people who have a lot of different experiences and ideas and thinking to bring in to bring to whatever situation they're in. And so a lot of it is, seeing what's already there and and responding to that. But that's just, again, a not rather general way of looking at it again.

Speaker 3 Yeah. I I've been I've been thinking of how let's say, it's it's not just about seeing things from a children's point of view. Like, that's a very important step. And another important step is also, of course, to become aware of, you know, in what ways are we adultists. And and not in, like you don't, like, beat yourself over it. It's just to become aware of, you know, what is adultist about my teaching practice, my my relationship, you know, with with children, the childist lens or also childist attitude would be the transformative step, which would be basically I mean, you know, a simple practice. For example, at the end of the day, just write down three things that you learned from your students. You know? So at least every day, like, actively thinking of what how is your life transformed as a result of that relationship with that person? What are they contributing? So it could be, you know, simple practices like discussion circles, like amongst, let's say, teachers and the, you know, school management's parents, like, just to get together and talk about how are our children and students, like, how are they enriching, you know, learning processes? How are we as adults also learning something? So it's like once the more and more you become aware of that, those they would school systems will transform. But until I understand acknowledgment is not happening at a very active level, you know, it it's not it's not sufficient to simply see things from their perspective or, you know, recognize adultism, but actively say, okay. I I wanna make my learning an active part of my teaching practice, You know? So there's a there's a kind of humility as well that is required to

Speaker 2 to let children take the lead as well. I I would add also that in a more structural sense across, for example, a school, you could look at who is running the school or on what basis are they running the school. And, of course, a lot of schools have student councils and things like that. Students can go to the board meetings or what what have you, but they tend to be rather tokenistic, and they don't tend to have to do with actually changing anything that happens in this in the school. They tend to be around school dances and things like that, which is, you know, wonderful. But are are are the young people being educated involved at all in the ways in which their education is organized? And there could be many different ways of that that could be much more meaningfully done. I I think where I am in The United States, you know, people tend to assume that children are not really capable of doing much of that kind of stuff. But you look at children around the world, you know, they're they're running children's parliaments from the age of five. You know, they're they're working jobs and supporting families at very early ages. They're engaged in the public culture and community starting from birth, you know. And so we tend to have privatized children, which is part of this infantilization of them, and thought of them as not having any real public roles, and I think that transforms translates into schools into this idea that the children don't know what is needed to get a good education. But, actually, if you are able to have a dialogue amongst children and involve them in a real way and give them real power and real say over what happens, I don't think schools or teachers have to be defensive about that and think that their their rights are gonna be taken away. I I think, you know, on the contrary, it provide a much richer, discussion about what's really working, what's not working, what could we do differently, how can we think creatively so that the actual people we're supposed to be educating, you know, actually

Speaker 1 tell us what's what's what's going on. Yeah. And and as we change those systems, I'm curious about your thoughts on this. Do you think that there's then a place to connect civil disobedience with what's going on in the classroom and how, essentially, the power dynamic between teacher and student rest. In order to teach how to be disobedient, we have to have systems in school where students are allowed to be disobedient. As in so many teaching environments are hyper controlled. And if you disobey, you are automatically disciplined and usually taken out of the environment altogether. And in my opinion, that's raising a generation of people who basically learn from a very young age respect authority, which has some some benefits for sure. But overall, that also leads to, in my opinion, a less democratic society, one that is less willing to stand up for themselves and question what it is that's going on. Do you have any ideas on how that would look? Like, what would it look like to have a classroom where students are free to express their viewpoints and disagree or be disobedient, at least in traditional school, classrooms?

Speaker 3 I I wonder why it has to be seen I mean, of course, within the framework you described, like, if it is this very disciplinarian model, of course, that's seen as disobedience. But if you have a different opinion, you know, making room for discussion, I think that would be a really philosophically rich space because you what you learn is based that there would be a there would be more room for negotiation. It would require more time, of course. One of the reasons why, you know, there's so much control is also because, you know, certain syllabus has to finish within a certain period of time. We've to write our exams. We need to move forward with that curriculum, which the ones who are practicing the curriculum actually have nothing to do with. Yes. So things like this, but it's it's giving more room to negotiate. So if it's if it's seen from this point of view, this is not about disciplining, but rather, let's say, like, a critical thinking and critical ways of being to flourish. And that includes, you know, disagreement and engaging with disagreement. And in the in the model you described, which is actually the prevalent one, you know, it's the teachers who are unable to cope with the disagreement, especially when it's coming from the younger side. You know? So one has to be you would have to be comfortable with being challenged, for example. So that would be work on part of the the adults. But I do not see that as going in a direction of what one would say is, like, disobedience or also, you know, people have described this as, like, anarchist situations, which is, on the contrary, it's kind of like a community formation, which which allows diversity to of opinions and ways of, you know, engaging and knowing to to flourish. So a a huge aspect there would be, you know, that time, like, that it's a it's a system that allows people to engage at half time to engage in those ways, currently are missing.

Speaker 2 Well, I think the the language of civil disobedience is interesting, and and I do think it has a is important, because we're talking about power structures. And so I think civil disobedience is usually about when one group is systematically disempowered. They have they're in a certain sense, the only option you have there is to try and deconstruct the power structures that are oppressing you. But I I very much agree with Tanya that that to me, that would be only a part of of the the situation or only a first step, because you what civil disobedience, generally speaking, is working towards is a more inclusive society where power is shared. So I think it would have you you would also have to do the kind of things that civil disobedience groups have always done, which is generate positive, alternatives and be be the change you want to see, you know, that sort of thing. And and and so and part of the problem, I think, is that, you know, adults need to change as well. So it's not just a matter of children getting what they want, it's a matter of changing the whole dynamic. And I think what childism suggests is that adults need to be more in touch with their childish side, you know, just like feminism asked men to be more in touch with the feminine side of themselves, or or or feminist vote women voting asked societies to be more in touch with the female side of the society. So the same thing would have to happen in schools where adults become learners as well or become like children in different ways, and that should not be a bad thing. We we tend to use the word childish in a bad sense, just like decades ago, people used womanish in a bad sense. You know?

Speaker 1 But, actually, it's it's not that at all. It's it's more it makes you more roundly human. I I I think too that there's a place for teachers to use their relative privilege as an adult to basically combat against these structures and fight and demand better for students. Speaking of time, I've always been shocked by how much time we spend covering every single topic, not actually leading to doing any better or worse on standardized assessment, which is the reason why people feel so pressured to get through those units. Because at the end of the day, covering those topics and ensuring that you hit those check marks is not going to ensure that students are interested or care about or engage in those topics because you're not listening to them if you're going very quickly. And I I think there's a place there for community norms too. Establishing these ideas with students up front and having them engage and build those norms with you so that they feel like you're thinking about these things. It's one thing for me to approach this with a child as perspective, recognize that students need to share things with me, but I also need to be very open with them about what it is that I'm doing. Because I found that a lot of students, even though you might feel this way, still don't feel inclined to speak up because they're in that system. And they still think that, well, you know, for the past seven years, last eight years, this is how it's been. So you might be saying that, but I don't necessarily believe you. Establishing those norms up front of, like, this is what we're doing. This is how we're gonna get there. This is how I value you, and this is what you're contributing for me, I think, has a lot of power, in that dynamic.

Speaker 2 I think standardized testing is the the sort of ultimate power in in imposition from adults. It's coming from very top down perspective. Here's what you have to learn, and we're gonna demand that you do it on a highly regular basis, and it doesn't leave a lot of room for input from even teachers don't get much input into that, let alone the students being taught. And I know that I I grew up in England, where there wasn't so much of that, and it was quite surprising coming here just how regimented that whole system is. And I do think it tends to to force children to the situation where they they learn that learning is about meeting adult goals. And and they also learn, as you were suggesting earlier, that democracy is about, doing what you're told, and then replicating as an adult what you've been told democracy is. And and I think it it tends to generate a passive, you know, gen group of people who who don't participate in democracy very much, and we have very low participation rates in this country. And I do think part of that is we're taught it's true everywhere, but especially here, we're taught, you don't know anything about this. We're gonna you're gonna jump through these hoops, and only then will you have any idea what's going on.

Speaker 3 This is highly counterproductive in my view. I just wanna add that, I mean, the the the scales of testing have grown as well in the last, you know, twenty, thirty years because it's become you have Lapisa test, for example, which is brings it becomes an international competition, you know, between nations. The and there are very clear economic goals behind that kind of system of testing, because you're you're essentially testing human capital of a potential future human capital of every nation and then competing, you know, with with different national students, setting them up against each other. So those scales have have grown in the past years, and what is lost is basically this the idea that education is it's essentially an intergenerational relationship. So, I mean, we can structure it differently, but as long as we stay close to this, that that is it's a relationship, you know, that's and and is that relationship how democratic is your relationship? And and both sides have to are coeducating almost. So if it's some kind of a cogenerational dynamic develops, the the quality of those like, an educational process would be would be positively transforming, I think. And currently, I don't think education is in the largest sense of the term, it's not understood as a relationship, but it's more functional. And, you know, because we have to meet certain it's it's it's to solve I mean, either for development, you know, economic growth, and so on and so forth. And one has to remember that it is economic growth, which is sort of feeding off the future generations'

Speaker 2 resources, you know, and we are we are raising children to be part of the system that's depleting itself. And I would just add that the the other problem with this neoliberal model of education is it constructs adults as solely economic people, part of a world system, and it also constructs adults as no longer learners. So they're not they've reached a fixed plateau, and they're never going to get any better, whereas we, adults, know that you spend your whole life learning and changing, and you're not necessarily going to be in the same job for the rest of your life, and you're not gonna have the same interest for the rest of your life. So it's very constraining on adults too to be thought of as fixed beings for the rest of time. Yeah. There's there's a great irony in our

Speaker 1 obsession with standardization to basically make the best job seekers possible when we realized that when we standardize models, we're taking away things like play based learning, which actually helps students develop. It would make some more critical thinkers that could understand, even more through their schooling. And and and we're just basically taking away these different ideas that would help students develop even further despite what school might do to them, which feels bad as a teacher to say that because I recognize that I'm part of the system that's creating those models. But at same time, as I said earlier, I think that there are ways for teachers to come into this process and make that change, what however small it might be based on their, ability, depending on their district. Before I, go too far on that, I do wanna talk about, specifically, John, your upcoming book, which I I think that for many might be viewed with skepticism depending on, you know, their background, which is give children the vote, how to democratize democracy, which basically suggests expanding the right to vote to children. Could you talk a little bit about that idea and how you kinda came to that and what that would mean for society?

Speaker 2 Absolutely. Yes. Well, it always meets with skepticism. Although I have to say I'm part of another group, a group that is called the Children's Voting Colloquium, and this is academics and activists around the world, including children and youth themselves, who are working who discovered each other working on this issue. I've been writing about this for about a decade now. I mean, my essential argument is that, excluding children from the vote is actually well, the problem with children in voting is not with children, but with democracy. So democracy is meant to be a system in which all the people's experience holds power or where the people rule, you know, rule rule by the people. So just as in over time, democracies have actually changed quite radically. When when The US was founded, it was only about 6% of the population who had the vote, and this was wealthy landowning white men. And as other groups like poor men got the vote, it changed what voting was and how democracy was thought about. And as women got the vote, it changed it again. Well, now, for the for about a hundred years, the idea has been only adults can vote, and and that's because supposedly only adults have the competence to do so. So I I make basically two arguments. One is that the competence to vote is actually not the same as the competence to do things like marry or drive a car or things of that nature. It's it's much more like the competence to have freedom of speech, which children have in general. You you have to be able to understand your own experiences as a political being, which and children are political beings, that they are impacted by decisions in politics as much, if not more than adults. And then you have to be able to apply that to, you know, concrete political choices that you're presented with, you know, should you vote for Trump or Biden, you know, a choice like that. And and so on the competency side, children have proven themselves competent, in many different ways. Not just Fridays for future, but as I mentioned before, the world, children run children's parliaments. They work. They're actively engaged in politics. They always have been actively engaged in politics. They were involved in the civil rights movement, the women's voting rights movement. So there's no age at which you could say suddenly you become competent. And if if you exclude people from voting because of their supposed lack of competence, then that's discrimination. It's it's a double standard. And and then, of course, you can start to if you were to apply that standard consistently, then you might find that a lot of adults were not competent, to vote, and so it would be better for democracy. But the other side of the argument is that everybody would be better off if children could vote. So children themselves is maybe a little more obvious. They could have their interests actually represented in in government, They they would actually have some power to well, governments would actually feel that they they had pressure to respond to children's concerns. For example, when they're developing standardized testing procedures, you know, people in power might have to think twice about just simply imposing them regardless of what anybody really thinks who's gonna be affected by them. And then also adults would cave because, for example, teachers would have a much better sense of what children wanted in in schools. The policies directing the way they do their jobs, again, like like like testing or funding, for example, for schools, would be much more child centered. So, again, as with every other group that's come into a democracy, there's always been this argument, no. It's gonna dilute democracy and make it worse. But always, it's made it better. You know, when women got the vote, that was better for men as well as for women. And the reason is that democracy actually works. You know, it actually is a system that by collecting the more diverse voices you collect in making political decisions, the better the decisions on the whole are going to be. So that's that's my argument. I of course, I run into all kinds of objections. I I I've, you know, I've written a lot about it. I I've engaged in a lot of conversations about it, and and I I honestly just have never found an objection that actually stands up. It's it's always comes down for me to kind of the same kind of prejudices that, men had about women and rich men had about poor men and, you know, non and aristocrats had about non aristocrats.

Speaker 1 Speaking as someone who formerly was a civics teacher, the implications of being able to actually have students in the classroom go out and vote after taking your class or during your class alone, to me, makes it worth it. I think that there's an easy argument to be made that because of the way we teach civics in school, by the time someone's 20 years old, they might not really understand the process anymore. They might not go out and vote. I think in 2020, I think it was, like, 55% of young people 18 24 voted Yeah. Which is insane. Like, that's that's such a low number.

Speaker 2 Well, young people are taught right away that their voice doesn't count. You know, that that they can have a civics class in which they learn about what adults do and what they will themselves do when they're adults. But the but the the clear implication is you, yourself, don't have any any we don't trust you to be involved in this process. And that's, I think, why we have such low in most societies, the the young young adults have lower rates of voting than older adults. You have to kind of get used to the idea that, oh, you know, I actually do count around here. But I think you would have a a stronger democracy if people actually grew up thinking they were part of it and and deserved to be heard. I also made the argument in my book that the the ways in which democracies are currently sliding into autocratic and and authoritarian types of regimes, and this is a worldwide phenomenon. Most of the largest democracies in the world are are are actually run by fairly authoritarian leaders. And we still have Trump here, so we still have that in even in even in our own country. It is because people have been taught from a young age that what is democracy? Well, it's what people more powerful than you do, and we need to trust our betters to to to leaders because we don't actually know anything about it. And learning that in your formative years is is probably the the the worst thing that could happen for a democracy. And we have and, you know, it's like we're we're discussing this at a moment where,

Speaker 3 you know, those who children who don't have voting rights, they are taking up civil disobedience to make their point and be heard. And we I mean, the world has never seen a generation that went into sort of civil disobedience before they started voting, you know, but they're finding their ways around it to be heard and and also in very powerful ways, and they're making very grounded arguments. It's it's great to see that, and they're impacting, you know, the political policies political priorities in in very effective ways,

Speaker 2 so they they could be voting. You know? Well, the climate crisis is a really good example of how having children's voices, actually improves the conversation, because until Greta Thunberg and the Fridays for Future movement came along, most adults didn't really think about the fact that young people are gonna face these consequences of climate change much more dramatically and in a very much very real way. Whereas, you know, someone who's in their sixties is probably not gonna really be that affected by it. So so they're not going to be that, yeah, that that involved. But I but I actually have a I also, in my book, have a more concrete proposal, which I call proxy claim voting. So I use this childist idea to say that extending the vote to children, again, just like historically, doesn't just mean giving children the same vote that adults now have. It actually means reconceptualizing democracy and practicing it in a different way, and that's always happened. Every time someone else got the vote, things changed ideally and in reality what what people did to vote. And so the proxy claim vote is an attempt to think about democracy in an interdependent rather than independent way. So it's not just individuals saying what they think. It's acting interdependently in relation to each other. And my argument is that every human should have a proxy vote from birth to death that's exercised by their closest guardian or or what have you. And this could be a newborn child. It could be a young child. It could be an adult who is has dementia. It could ten percent of adults have severe cognitive disabilities. In fact, adults in The US with dementia do have this already because an adult caretaker can fill in their their their ballot for them. Adults with severe mental illness, someone who's just in hospital for a while or overseas deployed can have a proxy vote. But any point then the other the claim side is at any point in your life, regardless of age, gender, sexuality, race, or anything, you can claim your own vote to exercise on your own behalf. And so it would be ageless voting that would be eliminating that final barrier of of age. You know, so if you want to vote when you're nine and you're really passionate about gun control or something, then

Speaker 1 that that itself proves that you're ready to vote. Yeah. I I mean, I think it's a fantastic proposal. I I I really like the idea, especially since, at least in my experience, young people, because they haven't experienced neoliberal society for as long, tend to be less cynical. And we see a lot of powerful movements and really the change that we wanna see in the world come from people, you know, that are adolescents or children or young adults as opposed to people that, you know, are are teachers ages. Mhmm. We might help them along the way, but, honestly, that change is typically led that social change is typically led by our youth. Yeah. Absolutely. And and they have lots of experiences that, you know, adults need to hear about and learn about and perspectives.

Speaker 2 And, of course, children are diverse, so there's many different ones. But, yes, it would greatly enrich the conversation in a democracy.

Speaker 1 Thank you again for listening to Human Restoration Project's podcast. I hope that this conversation leaves you inspired and ready to push the progressive envelope of education. You can learn more about progressive education, support our cause, and stay tuned to this podcast and other updates on our website at humanrestorationproject.org.