In 1965 three students were suspended from the Des Moines, Iowa public schools (two were in high school, one in junior high) for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. When their parents challenged the legality of the suspension they posed a question the courts had not heretofore confronted: does the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech apply to students in school? (1) This is but one facet of a larger issue, the legal status of young people, particularly adolescents, an issue which has been the source of continuing dispute both in and out of court since the mid-1960s. (2) As one commentator notes, referring to recent Supreme Court decisions, ‘the Court has continued to hear children’s rights cases with mixed and at times incongruous results.’ (3)

The question to be discussed here is when does a child become adult or more precisely, how shall we determine when a child should be accorded adult status? Such a question presupposes that the distinction between adult and child is legitimate, that children should not be accorded the same rights and responsibilities as adults. It is precisely this presupposition that has recently been challenged by various self-styled child advocates, and before proceeding to the main discussion it is crucial to confront their point of view. The popular author, John Holt, for example, in his book ‘Escape From Childhood’ takes the following position:

John Holt is correct in claiming that children do not enjoy equality before the law with adults. They are not permitted to work or marry. They may neither make a binding contract nor purchase liquor or cigarettes. They may not participate in public affairs by voting, holding public office or sitting on a jury. Finally, children are required to live with their parents, receive medical treatment when sick, and attend school for at least ten years of their lives. Is Holt also correct in contending that such unequal status does them more harm than good? I shall briefly argue that the unequal status accorded children is desirable and indeed protects their best interests. In order to make this point as clearly as possible the following argument is meant to apply only to the very young, let us say, for convenience, children below age four.