The memories are vivid . . .
4 a.m. and pitch black outside.
Still half asleep, standing in the screen door watching as she walked to the bus stop. The neighborhood never slept, so I stood in the door – anxious – and watched until she faded into black.
You see, we had no car, so this was customary. She’d urgently wake me up – the oldest – with a list of instructions. What I know now is the instructions were the echo of a set of rules she enforced with an iron fist – or belt, or shoe, or anything that may have been handy at the time.
It was the 1980s, so the crack/cocaine epidemic was heavy. No car, two jobs, just as many kids and no help. Establishing a set of rules was how she productively raised boys with limited education and limited resources in her environment. Among them was a mandate of extra-curricular participation. In all fairness, she never selected the activity. However, it was clear that NOT participating in something was NOT an option.
The rationale for her was simple: she wanted to be more of an influence on her boys than the streets were. They got out of school at 2:30 p.m. and she worked two jobs; which meant there were at least five hours to kill before she made it home to them. In addition to the lessons (time-management, team work, commitment, etc.) they were also given the resources and opportunities to excel academically. This meant a lot to a single mother sincerely concerned about not being able to personally help her sons with homework.
As I reflect on that rule, I’m reminded of recent conversations concerning our young people and disturbances at our local malls. One community leader tells me, “law enforcement and the mall owners need to develop some kind of a policy that is fair and protects our kids from incidents like this happening.” Another tells me, “Our kids need more things to do. Where are the activities, especially on Saturdays, for kids to take part in?”
So, I sat and thought: Since when did it become the job of law enforcement or the owners of any establishment, to provide “policy” on young people? Not that anyone is explicitly asking for this, but the insinuation seems a bit problematic and contrary to the energies put in keeping our young folks out of the juvenile system.
Secondly, is the excuse that there are not enough options and activities in the city for our young people to get involved in. Between the YMCAs, the Boys and Girls Clubs, IndyParks, and the schools themselves, I find it hard to believe that – if made to choose – there are not enough extra-curricular options for our youth to get involved in. Not to mention the many non-profit programming that exists. From a myriad of athletic options – including archery (yes, IPS offers archery as an afterschool activity) – to debate teams and science camps, there are more options than I’ve ever seen.
The question is, “who is the enforcer?” I don’t know. Maybe that’s the debate. Maybe it is better to discuss that role. Or, maybe it’s understood and we do a poor job of holding the real policy maker accountable.
I just thank God for the miraculous woman I call “Mom.”
