Where I Stand 1968 — Hank Greenspun: Daughter’s quest to vote a sign of changing youth

Friday, Nov. 10, 2000 | 10:03 a.m.

Note to readers: This column by Sun founder Hank Greenspun appeared on Sept. 13, 1968. It ran after his daughter Janie began to lead a movement calling for the legal voting age to be lowered from 21 to 18 and took the matter to court.

Adults want the respect of children when they grow up. They would prefer that the young people respect age as wisdom and experience without questioning the wisdom.

It might have worked in grandfather's day when children were something to be seen and not heard. But in the electronic and space age, children see what's taking place in the world and have pretty good ideas on how wise and experienced the older generation is.

From the telephone calls yesterday, I can't say too much about the adult mentality. They ask for respect but somehow don't accord the same generosity to others.

I guess there are people in this world who just don't like young people.

In commenting on my daughter's decision to seek redress in the courts of our land for a grievance ... namely; the right of an 18-year-old to vote ... some callers said her actions are "deplorable." Others felt she was setting a bad example for other teenagers. Some even thought 18 is too immature an age to be permitted expression at the polls.

I don't know how much legal justification these adults have for their thinking nor do I know their ages, wisdom or experience, but if they would like to debate the issue with my 18-year-old I would be happy to arrange the confrontation.

Janie's decision to take the matter to court was hers and hers alone. She believed it was somewhat of an injustice to compel young people to blindly obey dictates from higher authority even to giving one's life without some voice in the righteousness of the action.

There are those who protest by violent means and some young people who show dissent by dropping out of society. Both factions receive their fair share of scorn from the older generation.

Janie decided to resort to strictly legal means to achieve what she believes is the legitimate and constitutional rights of an 18-year-old girl who is legally emancipated and is a full-fledged adult under the law.

Young people are criticized and many get their heads broken for voicing dissent on campuses of the nation's colleges. They are called radicals and commies and agitators in general.

Whether criticism is justified or wrong is not the present question. Although there has been rioting on campuses ever since colleges came into being in this land, and particularly during times of war.

Students rebelled back in World War I against the draft because many believed the United States should not engage in a war, and there are times in our history that West Point graduates resigned their commission because they believed the U.S. was engaged in an unjustifiable war.

The Constitution gives every citizen a right to dissent and the law protects that right but somehow, adults refuse to grant this same right to those who pay the greatest price for upholding these rights. The young people fight the wars and die for their country, and not the old fogeys who continually criticize everything young people do without distinguishing between good and bad.

The official who thought Janie's action "deplorable" couldn't carry her school books intellectually, but still he reserves the right to criticize.

What justification can there be for criticizing or deploring any action that is peaceful, justified and legal in concept and execution?

Janie is not rioting or protesting in the streets, but she is taking a matter to court, because there just happens to be some legal justification for such action.

Shall we also deny young people the right to exercise their citizenship legally and peacefully?

Are there still adults in this supposedly modern generation so closed-minded and stupid to actually feel teenagers have no rights whatsoever? Are they merely cattle to be shipped off to the slaughterhouse of Southeast Asia without a voice or thought?

What manner of evil people are there in this nation who condemn from ignorance and see little good in what happens to be the best in this nation -- its youth.

There is no language in the Constitution requiring age limitations for voting for the president and vice president of the United States.

Every citizen actually has two rights to vote. One right accorded by the state of which he is a resident, and the other derived from his status as a federal citizen and thus granted by the federal government.

And where the state can limit age qualifications for electing congressmen and senators, there is no language which gives them this right in presidential elections.

There are some states which permit 18-year-olds to vote, while others deny this right to the same age group. There is a possibility under the Supreme Court doctrine of one-man, one-vote that this same thinking can apply to 18-year-olds all over the land.

We will never know until it is tested in the courts and no one has ever been curious enough to test it.

Janie decided she would make the challenge in the interests of all teenagers who are presently frustrated just as Columbus decided to prove the Earth is round to a group of adults who knew it was flat and who scoffed and criticized any contrary thinking.

What is gratifying and rewarding is that so many young people called to applaud her willingness to test by legal means, that which has much justification, and, which in great measure can relieve the frustrations of all the young people who are presently giving their lives and offering their heads to be clubbed for a segment of society that sits back smug and secure because of young people's sacrifices.