Think of all the images that come to your mind when I say "stereotypes of teen-agers". I
expect at least a few of these images to be flashing through your mind as if you are flipping
through a Viewmaster right now: Skateboarding rebels without a cause. Mentally deficient
teenyboppers headed to, like, the mall. Uneducated punks with tons of body piercing.
Total morons who are always putting their lives at risk and need to be straitjacketed because they
"think they're immortal". A whole generation of beeper-carrying kids in baggy clothes who say
"whatever" all the time, have become desensitized to violence, are completely submerged in the
sea of sex and drugs and who every day walk this earth in misery.
If you're like me, you've probably noticed a new one in recent years. This "new one" runs
antithetical to all the images I've mentioned above, yet it is just as dangerous and negative as the most negative of the older stereotypes.
I pick up my local newspaper and read in an article that adults have now raised a generation "more interested in fitting into conventional society than turning it over". Another article a few months later talks about how the Baby Boomers "raised Generation X on sour milk" . . . and are now "doing it right this time with their new children". And another even talks about the Baby Boomers refusing to go to Vietnam, using that as an introduction for a discussion of
how young people today, if they were drafted, would have no problem with it. Starting 1997, I
have heard or read more times than I can count about how teen-agers today supposedly respect
and obey their parents, hold conservative sexual attitudes, and shun the clothes, music, and
choices in cars and soft drinks associated with Generation X. Even Barry McCaffrey, U.S. Drug
Czar, has launched a campaign to keep kids off drugs by launching the statistics that "4 out of 5
don't use drugs" and "fewer than 10 percent of high school seniors have tried marijuana".
Can this be real? Is what I read thirty times necessarily true? Being born in 1979 and
extremely proud of my Gen X cultural heritage, I was obviously horrified when I first heard this
new characterization of today's youth. It seemed as if all the youth culture, all the rebellion my
peers and I had had against an obviously unjust society, was about to disappear to make way for
kids who would fly into the sun if told do do so by authority. It seems, however, that the
"conservative teen" is less a reality than he is an invention of media sensationalism, selective
reporting, misinterpreted and misused statistics and wishful thinking by conservative adults.
Arguably the first to make these observations were Neil Howe and William Strauss,
authors of _Generations_ (1991). They classified kids born 1982 and after as "the Millennial Generation", predicting that they would be team-oriented, patriotic and accepting of authority. Howe and Strauss often mention how, as teens now, the oldest alleged "Millennials" are more clean-cut, less drug-prone, etc. then people their age were just five years ago. They say their predictions (made based on past apparent generational cycles) have come true. And yet I
haven't seen any difference in the students in my local high school now from then, nor have any of
my friends I've spoken to about this. "Millennial Generation" seems to be becoming the standard
name for the children of the post-X set, as Howe and Strauss' ideas have spread with the news
stories and features doting on them.
In April of 1998, the New York Times & CBS News polled 1,048 13-to-17-year-olds across the nation in an allegedly "representative" telephone poll. According to this survey, 51% of teens said they get along with their parents "very well", and another 46% said "fairly well". Newspapers who reported the results of this poll often touted the fact that just over 50% said they
trust the government -- a higher percentage, the pollsters pointed out, than among adults.
Fewer teens than adults supported the distribution of condoms in schools. A whopping
53% of girls and 41% of boys said premarital sex was "always wrong". A majority, the survey
claimed, even said that homosexuality was wrong. No way! I've talked to and observed teen-agers at school, in my community, in a few other communities, and on the Internet, and most that
I have seen agree that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality or sex before marriage. Where
are all these parent-worshipping, government-lovers with Christian Coalition ideals? Are they just a bunch of ghosts invented to fill a survey?
Casting further doubt on the accuracy of the New York Times poll, an impossibly high 94% said they believed in God.
One of the most often cited authorities on teen-age attitudes is the annual survey of
college freshmen conducted by the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA. When the
results of the 1998 survey came out, newspaper headlines were screaming: "Freshmen support for
casual sex at record low!" Reports on the study mentioned that 49.1% of the 17-and-18-year-olds
taking the survey that year believed abortion should be illegal, that a still incredibly high minority of 33% believed homosexuality should be illegal, and that 43% (53% for female students) even supported government regulation of the Internet. Is this the freedom-loving generation I have seen around me? Not at all.
Some articles on the freshmen survey announced the statistic that "less than 33%
supported the legalization of marijuana". This runs in direct contradiction with the people with
whom I went to my public high school, Campolindo High in Moraga, CA -- and I was Class of '98
myself. Not only did 75% support the right to smoke marijuana and oppose the War on Drugs,
but most were opposed to the school's official condemnatory stance on drugs and the drug
lifestyle as well. During my senior year, we even held a "Green Ribbon Week" in opposition to
Campolindo's hosting Red Ribbon Week (green being not only the color of ganja but also the
chromatic opposite of Red and the official color of a liberal political party, to boot). And the
annual National Survey Results on Drug Use from the National Institute of Drug Abuse reported
that only 39.5% of the high school Class of '98 supported keeping marijuana use illegal.
Curiously, other articles from the same year reported the percentage as "more than 35%". The
variability makes me strongly suspect whether someone is taking liberties with journalistic honesty -- I expect some right-wing reporters may be "wishing for the best" for their camp. Another
revealing thing I've noticed is that some reports on the study misrounded the percent opposed to
abortion to 50%.
The Institute's study itself tended to focus on preppier colleges and also covered only kids
who were going to college. All those slacker, stoner and hippie classmates of mine who wanted to
end education after the twelfth grade were obviously left out of the study.
A similar albeit less famous study that focused on college students was the Generation
2001 Survey, done with over 2,000 college freshmen from the class of 2001 (high school class of '97) by Northwestern Mutual; Louis Harris & Associates implemented the writing and
conductance of this survey. This study produced a heap of suspect statistics that pundits took to
appeal to the mass media myth of the teen-age straight-arrows. Only 25% said they trusted most
people in their own generation, compared to 68% having trust in their parents' generation and
79% in their grandparents' generation. A majority not trusting the ideals that the majority of
people in their generation hold obviously sounds like a self-contradictory idea. And with all the
flaming I hear everyday from kids as young as 14 about how the Baby Boomers' greed, ecocide,
War on Drugs and general uptightness is ruining the world, I find the idea that most of the
respondents had trust in older generations hard to swallow.
Despite the complete separation from the U.S. and its government that I have observed in
my peers, an incredible 95% reported that life insurance would be important to them in the future. as did 91% with IRA's. Another thing to make this study look clearly suspect is the finding that 43% said they were knowledgeable about profit sharing and another 43% about 401K type plans -- two things I know nothing about. And 74% agreed with the statement: "I would be willing to fight for my country". In late 1998, a few reporters from the Outlet, an art-and-literature newsletter published by Campolindo and adjacent high schools, ran an article on the attitudes of today's youth towards patriotism, however, and reported that almost all of the students were opposed to serving in the name of the state:
"Yet, when faced with the prospect of actually fighting for America, most students would
object: 'I would have no desire desire to go to war . . . if I was in Vietnam I probably would have tried to dodge the draft.' Other responses include, 'I value my life more than my country,' and 'I feel no responsibility to fight or die for the U.S.' Another student expresses the pacifist ideal: 'War is dumb. I don't think you can settle anything with violence. I think we can show pride in our country without fighting, and that shows more pride.'"
In a further display of implausibility, 94% said they would vote in elections; but the
college class of 2001 has all come of voting age and youth turnout rates are as low as ever.
Americans aged 18-24 have always had the lowest voting rate of all age groups (except for the
17-and-unders, with a voting rate of zero), especially among Generation X. Time has already
proven that 94% "statistic" to be phony.
Since it was conducted by telephone, a few may have been at home in front of their parents when given the survey, influencing their answers. Given the number of kids I've seen who disagree with their parents about politics, I can just imagine teen-agers having a hard time answering honestly when they've got the phone in their hand in their dining room, right in front of their mom or dad. Plus, I know a heap of phone pranksters. I'm sure some of the people who answered were friends of the college student being interviewed who were at the student's
house at the time the phone rang, pretending to be that friend for whom the survey was intended.
I sent Northwest Mutual an email complaining about their survey. One woman who wrote back admitted that it did exclude the 35% who were not college-bound. She forwarded my letters and investigations to someone from Louis Harris & Associates, who did not deal with any of the
things I grilled her on, but only wrote that since they had polled four times the necessary sample, "we stand by our findings".
In November of 1996, USA Weekend did a survey for teens across America to fill out, dealing with teen rights. Teens they defined as sixth through twelfth grade (at that time,
people born 1978-1985). Since it was a totally volunteer survey, the results were doomed to be
scientifically invalid from the beginning; even USA Weekend itself said, "Although this
survey is not scientific . . ."
What really disturbed me about the report on students' responses for the "Teens and Freedom" poll, however, was the extreme slant with which it was written. The front cover blared: "An exclusive national survey shows a surprising number of teens want some limits in their lives."
The three statistics announced on the cover were than 30% supported Internet restrictions (a
minority, but they seemed to be emphasizing the fact that it was more teens than people would
expect), 50% were in favor of curfews, and 75% said schools should ban clothes with "gang
symbols".
The survey results page, showed the 25 questions asked in the poll; on 17 of the 25
questions more teens took the pro-freedom position than the anti-freedom position (for instance, 83% opposed school uniforms, 70% opposed Internet restrictions, 64% opposed V-chips, 56% opposed schools banning body piercing). Although some outlandish statistics (69% said you should be required to stand for the anthem and an overblown 42% believed schools should ban exposed midriffs) appeared, this is to expected given the way volunteer samples seem to skew responses to the conservative side. It's like voting: only a few of my classmates registered to vote once they turned 18, yet most of those who did vote were the straight-arrow students, and of course all of those kids registered as Republican. But even with the volunteer sample, the winning side for each of the questions was usually the side in favor of teen rights. However, these were downplayed as much as possible.
In the first two pages of the article on the survey's findings, a photo on the left showed
two teens, both from Kansas, described by their anti-freedom views, a boy who believed students
should have to stand for the national anthem and a girl who supported banning tattoos on teens.
Of the six subheadlines on the first two pages, five send a "teens support rules" message: "Teen-
agers acknowledge they need and want rules -- even if their freedom is curtailed"; "Teens are
most willing to sacrifice freedoms in matters of safety and health"; "Rules at school designed to protect students also receive strong approval"; "Some censorship is all right"; and "Teens show a conservative streak". Running across the bottom of the page are the words: "53% of teens surveyed say they either have enough or too much freedom . . . and at least 50% support teen curfews, locker searches and dress codes". Across the pages on which all the results and
percentages are compiled, photos of one boy quoted as supporting Internet restrictions and one
girl quoted as supporting unwarranted school locker searches are displayed. Excuse me, but
where are all your block quotes from the 62% of teens who opposed censorship of school newspapers, or the 50% who disapproved of curfews, or even that 31% that supported the right
not to stand? And on page 26, Tipper Gore had a roundtable discussion about rights from seven
teens, a group that appeared to be chosen to represent a cross-section of ethnic diversity rather than attitudes; most of the seven spoke up strongly for curfews, school uniforms, piercing
restrictions and criminalization of teen drinking.
What happened, I wonder. Where were all those teen rights advocates I know? How come I didn't see any in the roundtable discussion? How come the hundreds of curfew protests, such as those in San Diego, never seem to be written about in papers (although
some are covered on MTV), while atrocities like Columbine flood the papers for months and
months, suggesting as remedies further attacks on teen rights (more uniforms, curfews and
censorship)?
If what I read thirty times is likely to be true, then what I read ninety times is even more
likely to be the truth if it fits with my own experience. For every journalist who goes around
spreading the news that teens have changed overnight to goody-goodies who realize their need
for "protection" (euphemism for oppression), there are still a few who adhere to the older, more realistic view of the teens of the nineties. And each side has its own statistics. For instance, despite the New York Times' finding that 50% of teens trusted the government, a 1997 poll of 938 teens (age 13-17) showed that 79% distrust the government. One side brings up a poll saying kids agree with their parents, another side brings up a poll saying kids are in a major value conflict with their parents. A news story claiming that today's teens are returning all those values the Baby Boomers destroyed will find some survey that concluded that four out of five high school students love their country (or want "traditional" sexual values, or hate body piercing, or . . .) Then the next day some other paper will write a feature detailing how cynical teens are, and they'll find an equally current survey concluding that four out of five high school students hate the U.S. (or emphasize freedom in sexual matters, or don't care if someone's wearing a navel ring).
Wendy Murray Zoba, author of _Generation Y2K_, actually studied several kids in
the Class of 2000 (born 1981-1982) and put out several descriptions that basically sound the same
as older Xers. Among her observations, which I have seen too in the cohorts occupying high
school today: "The remote control symbolizes their reality: change is constant; focus is
fragmented"; "They live for now"; "They are jaded, having a 'Been there/Done that' attitude,
nothing shocks them"; "Their 'B.S. detectors' are always on"; and "They don't trust adults". If
Generation X has an endpoint, it has yet to come.
Steve Farkas of Public Agenda told of a poll taken in December 1996 of "600 randomly
selected 12-to-17-year-olds". The "random selection" of kids born about 1979 to 1984 seemed to use more accurate a method than some of the other studies of teens in the late nineties: only 39% believed that many parents out there are "good role models" and "teach their kids right from wrong". That leaves 61% who believe that good parents are not even common.
Only 26%, Farkas' poll further concluded, said they were "very respectful of adults". If
74% of these young people felt no shame admitting their disrespect towards adults, there must be
a strong undercurrent of antipathy towards the older generations. More importantly, there is the
realization that just being an adult does not make you right and the teen wrong; this healthy
rejection of the concept of authority is reassuring.
And despite the conservative views on right and wrong appearing in some polls, a survey
by the Center for Parent/Youth Understanding in 1997 even showed that 66% of teens do not even believe that right and wrong exist. The survey also reveals that 7 out of 10 girls and 8 out of
10 of boys will have had sexual intercourse by the time they've graduated high school.
You may have seen the "4 out of 5 don't use drugs" statistic, or the "most have never tried marijuana". This is balderdash. A poll taken in Campolindo at 1997 (birthyears 1978-1982 in the classrooms) showed that 75% of students did drugs, and that 56% of seniors had tried
marijuana. A later survey taken in 1999 (birthyears 1980-1984 occupying high school) showed the same. The Center for Parent/Youth Understanding's survey reports that 38% of all eighth-graders (born 1983-1984) had experimented with drugs as of the middle of 1997. Among the seniors of the Class of '98 (born 1979-1980), 80% had tried alcohol and 52% had tried at least one illicit drug (not alcohol, tobacco or caffeine), including the 42% of the class that had tried marijuana. Barry McCaffrey has lied about teens' acceptance of drugs just as he has lied about the medicinal value of marijuana, crime rates in the Netherlands, and many other things. He uses these lies to propel forth his agenda: continuing to fight the unwinnable war against substances that hurt only the person using them. Similarly, most of the articles I have seen about "a new generation" of kids who favor rules and authority are written by writers who seem to speak of these perceived changes in youth as good news. "Boomers can relax now; the next generation will be infinitely better than Generation X," the hypesters will typically write.
Some make claims that the support given to school uniforms under Clinton is the signal of
a new, more disciplined generation. They love to cite the statistics about the numbers of public
schools in Los Angeles, New York or Chicago that have instituted uniforms. However, one cannot gauge a generation's collective personality and social mores by what it done to it; the proof of the pudding is in that generation's reaction to what the older generation hands them. The Baby Boomers, for instance, were handed the Vietnam War, but they spawned a new counterculture among themselves and protested the war; they are still considered a liberal generation (at least in their youth!)
Let's examine reactions to uniforms in public schools. First of all, school uniforms are
applied mostly to elementary schools and some intermediate schools, not to high schools. Second
of all, most high schools that have instituted uniforms have been in towns where almost
everyone is socially conservative, in any generation -- Mobile, Wichita, etc. These whole towns seem to have conservative views on everything else as well as students' rights, from homosexuality to marijuana to militarism to ethnic diversity. And third of all, the few other high schools in which uniforms were instituted, in towns in which a majority of teens espoused a
modern youth culture and rejected statist attitudes, have all seen mass rebellion and anger directed towards the idea. In 1999, the high school in Jacksonville, FL, for instance, announced a uniform proposal but instantly saw hundreds of student objections and soon cancelled the plan to implement uniforms, after more than 20% of students had already gotten forms signed by their parents to opt out from the uniform policy. Cecilia Smith, principal of Forestville High in Prince George County, MD, told about how her own high school considered uniforms and the students all objected before it even got underway. They clamored how it would "take their individuality away", Smith said.
If the elementary school and junior high students aren't reacting negatively to school
uniforms, does that signify the start of a generation more willing to accept restrictions and trusting of adult guidance? When I spoke with Joe Bricca, a 27-year-old friend of mine about an article I had read stating that the kids who were 15 and under at the time were going to be the first generation not to rebel since James Dean, he laughed and said, "How can you tell? They're too young to rebel!" Joe actually had a good point. The 15-year-olds back in 1997 became the 17-year-olds of today, and I have definitely seen most 17-year-olds come to adopt the distrust of
institutions, detachment from the government, non-cleancut appearance, tolerant sexual attitudes,
and everything else that defines Generation X. I myself was a lot preppier when I was 13. I parroted adults' statements about drug users being evil, I pretended to be offended by sexuality and swearing, I lauded the importance of "discipline", and I called teen-agers' clothes and music "bad taste". Then when I was 15, I came to actually think about morality, society and rights instead of blindly following the Establishment line just because "that's the side the 'good' kids are on".
Similarly, when I was in the third grade, Weekly Reader printed an article about politicians wanting to ban flag-burning. Almost everyone in the classroom agreed that flag-
burning should be illegal; Weekly Reader printed in a later issue a few letters from elementary school children, and noted that most readers agreed with the proposed ban on flag-
burning. By junior year in high school, however, the vast majority of my classmates opposed laws
that would turn flag-burners into criminals. It seems that at 15 or 16, a teen starts becoming more rebellious, comes to realize that humans have God-given rights, that right or wrong isn't about what the stodgy adults tell you is right, but what is right. Of course, there was a quarter of my school who continued to hold their conventional values by junior year, and continued right down to graduation day. But there are right-wingers and left-wingers in all generations and age groups; the test is where the mainstream of a group lies.
Off to the high school campuses and teen hangouts to look for young people to speak with. Although I did not see the ubiquity of the beeper/cellphone/pager that the stereotype
suggests, there was the baggy clothing and a fair amount of body piercing. The kids ranged in
style from skater to hip-hopper to grunge to nineties trendy to punk to Abercrombie to seventies retro, with a few goths and some preppy kids (who tended to be more Establishment than most of their classmates) thrown in the mix, but most of the clothing was black, blue and cream.
I spoke with them about the phenomenon claimed by these media mythmongers. Most said
they saw nothing like what these news features claimed was happening.
"No way, dude," said Jeremy, 17.
Not only were teens skeptical of the claims that "a new generation is here", but had their
suspicions of ulterior motives behind the reporting.
Reanne, 17, said the media was creating an idealized image through the wishful thinking of
reporters opposed to youth culture. "I guess that's how the ideal teen is 'supposed to be,'" said Reanne. ". . . Since they support us, they want to see us like that."
Many of the people with whom I spoke were even more acidic towards the media. "I think
it's like a kind of façade that the media's putting out to tell people, 'The country's OK, it's not too bad' . . . keep optimism . . . but the results aren't being seen," said Hassan, 18.
Amanda, 16, also culprits wishful thinking and manipulation: "I think that by publishing
stuff they can have people believe what they want to believe, instead of the truth." Amanda stood
by her claims that she saw nothing of the sort: "I think I've seen the complete opposite and
there's been a larger defiance of authority."
Nicole, 14, guesses it to be a media ploy for curbing teen risk behaviors by playing to
adolescents' sense of peer pressure and conformity: "My explanation to this, is that adults think that teen-agers are going to do whatever their friends are doing, so if they tell them that all the teen-agers around them aren't doing drugs and having sex, then they won't either. It's not that they actually think we're all like that, it's just the way they think they can get us to be like that."
Most were speechless or tongue-tied when given the stats from the New York Times &
CBS News survey.
"Crazy," said Andy, 17, when told the results. He was speechless as to how to explain for a while, before giving the one-word answer "propaganda".
Destiny, 14, said, "I'm shocked at the statistics . . . half the kids at my high school would probably egg the houses of those 'conservative teens' you mention."
As to the statistics, Gary, 17, gave this enlightening response: "People just LIE! And not
always just the journalists. Anytime a survey is given in class, at least 3 kids out of 10 is going to ride through marking bullshit answers."
Tina, 15, had a level of Gen-X cynicism of her age group tempered by appreciation for the
values they did share with her: "I think teens are more open about what they do and most
of the teens I know can't stand authority. They definitely would rather watch MTV than join Boy
Scouts." Indeed, the April 1998 issue of Leader magazine reports that membership in both Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts has been on the decline since 1978, a trend that shows no sign of reversing itself. Tina continues: "Other than that, I think teens are mostly judgmental, stuck-up, inconsiderate people who don't know right from wrong. But these are the teens I know, I wish I knew different." Most shared Tina's sentiments that their agemates refused to conform to adult-enforced Establishment standards but still had their own strong peer-group standards that influenced choices in dress, music and behavior.
The teens I spoke with were not at all trusting or accepting of the restrictions adults have been trying to place on young people. When asked about uniforms in public schools, Jennifer, 15, gave a dismissive "Silly. How would uniforms help anything?"
Rafiq, 17, gave a more intense response: "School is a crappy place as it is. Uniforms would be the last straw, I believe violence (more than normal) would ensue."
"They are (usually, and not consciously) an attempt to induce conformity and mindless
obedience in students while they are particularly prone to influence, no doubt for reasons related
to . . . corporate greed," said Lou, 14.
"In a way," said Zahra, 15, "fashion is a way of self-expression for some people."
Nicole explained: "We've had lots of discussions about this in my classes at my school.
Most of our teachers will let us take a break from class if we have a serious topic we would like to discuss/debate, and so they've let us quite a few times. Almost everyone agrees that it's wrong, and that if our school did that, then we would be leaving it. I mean, our clothes are a way of expressing ourselves. They think that it's going to keep us from having our little cliques that we hang out with, but it won't. People will still know who has money and who doesn't. And you
won't go wearing your uniform on the weekend or anything, so people will still know how you dress regularly. There are always going to be people who think that they're better than other people, with school uniforms or not."
Curfews were also almost universally opposed: "Curfews bite! NO ONE has the right to
tell me or anyone where to be and when to be there," said Rafiq.
Sharon, who at 13 was my youngest interviewee, had this to say: "Curfews are soooooo
unfair, not to mention stupid. I mean, we basically can't leave our property line after a certain time! I mean, come on, my parents paid for those streets and I want to be able to roam them whenever I please."
Nicole said: "It's not like anyone I know actually obeys that law anyway. They stay out till
whenever they feel like going home."
Indeed, everyone agreed that their age group as a whole has no civic respect or allegiances: "Of all the issues out there today, the one most likely not to be considered important
by the teens I know is the government. Even the well-informed kids are rather apathetic towards
government, me included," said Destiny.
Andrea, 17, phrased it this way: "I have no attachment to government. I do not respect
politicians. I have no duty to my country."
The criminalization of drugs also gained opposition from most: "I think they worry about
the little stuff too much. They should quit worrying about teens smoking cigarettes and weed, and worry about the people selling heroin and crack to [children]," said Delia, 16.
"Just say no to the War on Drugs," said Matt, 17.
"I have endured red ribbon weeks and D.A.R.E. programs throughout my schooling; in
the end they dissuaded nothing," said Jennifer.
"I personally am Straight-edge and would never do drugs, but that's a person's choice if
they want to do that," said Monica, 15.
As a group, teen-agers value freedom for their age group. As Veronica, 16, said: "I
understand the need to want to protect people but let us be free! I am 16 with a 2-month-old son
. . . I want to be free sometimes! I know I got myself in the situation but give me a little credit! I wish that adults would start to understand the whole freedom thing."
Censorship? "Completely wrong except in the case of prohibiting harassment, teasing,
bullying and hate speech. All people, including teens and children, have a right to say, read, and
believe almost whatever they wish," responded Farida, 16.
"Good way to keep people as dumb as they are," responded Tony, 18.
Brian, 16, had a more acerb response: "Showing a movie with a gun in it won't tell a kid to go to grade 3 and shoot his teacher in the head. I mean, what, with the new Pokémon movie . . . are they telling the kids to attack their teachers with Pikachu or something? Give me a break!"
Despite searches at my local high schools, throughout my community, in other communities across the U.S. and online, I actually had a hard time even finding teens with civic beliefs and attitudes. Nonetheless, there were a few who took the straight-arrow party line on many issues. Sam, 17, remarked: "I think that curfews are a good thing. Underage kids shouldn't be out on the streets late at night. They should think less about having fun, and more about their future."
Sam also dissented from the vast majority on the topic of the sexual revolution: "I very
strongly disagree with homosexuality, and premarital sex."
But among the millions of high school students across America today, teens like Sam
proved to be the exception rather than the rule. Despite what some journalists suggest, teens show no will to reverse the ideals of the sexual revolution. "Sexual liberty is needed in today's
society," said Josh, 16.
"The sexual revolution needs to be continuing," said Tony.
"A woman may do anything a man can do and vice versa. Premarital sex is nothing I'm
going to complain about, if they want to have sexual intercourse, let them be," said Brian.
Traditional gender roles? "As for traditional gender roles," answered Gary, "Good
riddance."
Everyone who has raved over a new, more conventional generation of teens has emphasized their separateness and difference from Generation X. Howe and Strauss say that the Millennials begin in 1982; others say as early as 1977 or as late as 1986. And yet I have observed no changes in the classes that have gone through Campolindo High School. The ratio of liberal, youth-culture, detached-from-the-system-and-all-countries kids to conservative, preppy, civically-oriented kids was no different among the seniors in the class of '96 than it is among today's class of '02. (I don't know the class of '03 very well, so I can't speak for them yet.)
A 1998 poll of teen-age (12-20) Prodigy (computer service) users discovered that 63%
believed people "should have the right to smoke pot", that only 23% supported restricting what
teens could see on the Net, and that only 45% supported teen curfews. A full 75% said that
"[their] friends, freedom and hedonism" influenced their values more than "parents, society and rules". As many as 35% described themselves as "cynics". But what was more amazing, and to the point, was the fact that the survey found no statistically significant difference among the 1977-1980 birthyears, the 1981-1983 birthyears and the 1984-1986 birthyears. (Coincidentally, the range of birthyears for those who were adolescents as of 1998 is the same as the range of birthyears declared to be the start of the Millennial Generation.)
So what are teens today actually like? A brief collective profile of high school
students I've gathered by observing and talking with kids in my community and a few others
across the nation reveals that today's 15-to-18-year-olds (born 1981-1984) are basically the same
as today's college students (born 1975-1981):
Interests include MTV, shopping, parties/raves, coffeeshops, snowboarding, skateboarding/rollerblading and "hanging". Music very important in their lives, and many involved
in their own bands. Very varied tastes in music from individual to individual, but "alternative"
most common. Enjoy upbeat activities and entertainment, but still have a strong angst that
permeates their lives. Have none of the negative economic concerns that typified early Xers.
Believe they can get to where they want to get to in their lives, but don't aspire to organization
man jobs. Don't trust the government, dislike the concept of authority. Feel no duty to obey the
laws of the U.S., but most have an excellent sense of morals. Are opposed to curfews, oppressive school policies, and other forms of age discrimination, and would readily break any age-discriminatory law when they feel like it. Liberal views on sexuality. Opposed to censorship. Do not believe in, admire or practice emotional repression. Drug use is an everyday part of their world, and many have seen the destructive effects of drugs, but they oppose the criminalization of drugs and teen drinking. Organized religion is pretty much out of their lives. Detached from the United States and its government. Many volunteer, but this isn't a group that plans to vote. They haven't had the negative experience observing activism in the seventies and eighties that some early Xers have, therefore many of them have temporarily tried activism in high school (as a few slightly older kids have tried in college), then given it up when they realized that a thousand protests and letters to your representatives from teens can't change any laws, and decided to just be content separating themselves from the government and disregarding rules, or else being cynical. Little contact and time spent with family members (except perhaps siblings); their nuclear families seldom eat dinner together. Much of their diet microwaved, pick up ethnic food, health food, junk food often. Ethnic foods (Mexican, Italian, Japanese, Chinese) are an everyday part of life for them. Hold part-time jobs 16 and on. Can sense hypocrisy. Can sense when adults are trying to cater to them by dressing something up as "fun" or "cool". Not shocked at sexuality or
violence on TV or in the news. Very clique-conscious; their high schools have strongly delineated categories. Ethnically diverse, even more so than the 1975-1980 crowd. Are the same in values and material lifestyle in Seattle, in California, in Arizona, in Georgia, in Tijuana, in France or in Germany; the shared culture and experiences of their age group means more to them than country boundaries. Historical events most of them remember include George Bush becoming president, the Exxon-Valdez oil spill, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Persian Gulf War, the breakup of the Soviet Union, the election of Bill Clinton, Bosnia, the Branch Davidian suicide at Waco, the suicide of Kurt Cobain, the Oklahoma City bomb, the search for the Unabomber and the O.J. trial. |
|
