Posted on July 17, 2009 - by MG
Author visits and the (self) importance of being offended
My pal Richard Howse, one half of the LiToon satirical cartoon partnership has honoured me by including me in a topical funny about the whole vetting of authors hoo-hah.
Meanwhile, without me having so much as sign up to any kind of trade union of authors, for the second time I find that a cadre of established, successful children’s authors have again taken it upon themselves to speak for me.
Last time the message was that we didn’t want consumers to be given any help choosing which books might be suitable to buy for children of which age. To a new author like me who is glad to have any extra people encouraged to buy my books, the subliminal message coming from this celebrity-studded group sounded rather like – I think you’ll find that I’m famous! That’s all the information you need to buy my book for your child!
This time the message is that we authors won’t be doing school visits anymore, not if we have to register with the Independent Safeguarding Authority, how very dare you!
Hmm, well not all authors are thrilled to watch the self-appointed group of spokesmen in action again. @RobertMuchamore, author of the mega-popular urban teen spy series CHERUB tweeted, “Irritated at another round of whinging by the usual grey haired mafia of ‘renowned’ kids authors”
Luckily Anthony Browne the new children’s laureate and Gillian Cross are showing more level heads.
This one, I’m in two minds over. As a school governor I’ll have to register anyway and the fee is waived. School governors aren’t complaining but then school governors tend to be community -minded volunteers who give hundreds of hours of their time to help run schools. School governors are motivated by the desire to make our schools as safe and effective as possible. This legislation probably will make it easier to protect children in schools. So we don’t complain at the imagined affront to our integrity. Mainly, we don’t even imagine one.
Authors should no more be offended at being asked to register than teachers, governors or parent volunteers.
It’s true that authors aren’t left alone with children, not often. Especially not famous authors who address hundreds of children at a time. But occasionally I’ve been left alone with small groups of children, both as an author and as a governor. It does happen. Life is so much easier for teachers if they can walk away for a few minutes now and again. Don’t we want to help teachers?
I suspect that these handful of celebrity authors are no more seeking to represent fellow children’s authors, nor are they claiming that authors are automatically morally superior to, let’s say, school governors.
They are reacting naturally and with dismay to something that has quietly been happening in state schools for years, which is a fairly radical change in the culture.
You can no longer be automatically trusted to be alone with children just because you are a respected adult, a famous author, a Head Teacher. The hard lesson that’s been learnt from the few horrible cases of unsuitable adults gaining access to children in schools is that you can’t easily tell who might pose a threat.
No-one is above suspicion, so everybody is checked. To leave certain people out implies a value judgement. A teacher is not above suspicion but a parent is? A governor may be dodgy but all authors are fine? Such judgements will inevitably cause a ruckus, which is why the ISA has opted to register everyone.
Child protection is a serious issue, the most serious one for governors. Governors have always agreed to the CRB checks and will sign up to the ISA.
The authors who’ve complained are right to point out that this says something sad about society. Simply put it says that we acknowledge that we live in a world where kids are abused and we have to do everything in our power to prevent such abuse.
But refusing to acknowledge that truth is also pretty naïve and can have dire consequences. It’s like pretending there’s no such thing as death.
We all live in the midst of pathology. The police, doctors, prison wardens and countless other grown-up professions deal with the daily consequences of this truth. You don’t hear them gripe.
Authors spend huge amounts of time in fictional fantasy worlds where kids endure some fairly horrible dangers. How ironic it is that some authors should be the last to accept such a grisly truth.
Related posts:
10 Comments
We'd love to hear yours!
Leave a Comment
Here's your chance to speak.
The MG Harris Blog
Website of MG Harris, author of the children's book series "The Joshua Files".Information for school visits and events.
-
ZERO MOMENT blog tour
Twitter (RealMGHarris)- RealMGHarris: @mharrison13 yes, but our cat won't use the door. Keep hoping she'll get over her fear. Anyway, keeping the monster away is big plus.
- RealMGHarris: Can't wait to see final version! RT @mssusieday: Writing chapter titles for Twice-Lived Summer of Bluebell Jones. *sniffs*
- RealMGHarris: RT @MHarrison13: Oh, hurry up Friday. I can't wait to see The Woman in Black. =d'accord!
Visit My Website
July 17, 2009
Permalink
I agree – and was amazed to see a follow-up story from the Sundays blown up all over the Independent’s front page.
Would just also point out that sexual abuse of children by a children’s author is not unprecendented – remember William Mayne. I don’t think he was doing school visits, but you could imagine a school visit leading to ‘grooming’.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2004/may/27/childprotection.uk
Visit My Website
July 17, 2009
Permalink
Nice post.
I’m beginning to think that almost all authors apart from the ‘grey haired mafia’ agree on this one.
Visit My Website
July 17, 2009
Permalink
If you go into schools as a volunteer or visiting speaker to help children with reading, talk about your charity, run a gardening club or engage in any imaginable worthy activity you have to be registered, so why are visiting authors any different? Any schools who didn’t apply this rule for everybody would be pilloried. Of course it’s sad that this provision has to be there but we all know why.
Visit My Website
July 17, 2009
Permalink
Great blog btw!
Visit My Website
July 17, 2009
Permalink
Thanks Keren, Joe and Geraldine, great to have your comments.
Visit My Website
July 17, 2009
Permalink
The only thing I disagree with (as a teacher I am CRB checked – and quite right too) is the charge. To teach in schools in this country its the same – you have to PAY to join the GTC just to be allowed to practice your profession. People should be checked – celebrity (as an author or otherwise) doesn’t mean you are respectable and safe around children – there are a few examples I would mention but I don’t want to be sued.
Visit My Website
July 18, 2009
Permalink
It sucks that you have to pay, it sucks that there are people who have to do this tedious database job for a living, it sucks that we live in a society where you can’t trust adults.
In the ‘good old days’ of my youth, inappropriate relationships between teachers and pupils were not unusual AT ALL. A teacher I knew got 12 months for statutory rape of a 15-year old classmate fo my sisters. A certain youth orchestra (which I shan’t name) was notorious for its summer camps and tours where ‘getting off with each other’ included adults and students.
If you watch ‘The History Boys’ (set in 1983, when i was a 6th former), you’ll see a fairly accurate portrayal of the more relaxed expression of sexuality that existed then between teachers and students.
We may have laughed and joked but it was a climate of acceptance that allowed some serious abuse to go on in the midst of all the casual exploration of sexuality.
Things have changed, thank goodness, but only because of fairly draconian legislation. People who think we don’t need this must have forgotten the 1980s, or lived somewhere else.
Visit My Website
July 18, 2009
Permalink
I’m living on an extremely tight budget and can’t easily afford to get registered.
Visit My Website
July 20, 2009
Permalink
I agree that authors shuld not be treated any differently than other adults going in to schools. I can also empathise with the irriatation at a small number of well-known authors being presented in the press (or even presenting themselves) as speaking for all authors.
However, I’m not sure I agree with all of the rest of your post. (I also disagree with what you say about age-banding but that’s a different post)
In particular, you say:
“Simply put it says that we acknowledge that we live in a world where kids are abused and we have to do everything in our power to prevent such abuse.”
I think it really says something closer to ‘We are aware that there is concern about potential for abuse and we want to be seen to be doing something’.
I don’t think that seeking to protect childnre from potential abusers is a bad thing: I think it is a good thing which 99.9% of the population would agree with. I also think that this partcular proposal will do little if anything to protect children.
* I think it has the risk of giving schools/parents over confidence as it will be percived as someone having been checked and guaranteed to be a safe personto be with children, when in fact all it proves is that the person as not previously been convicted of any relevant offence.
* I think it runs the risk of a child not being believed, if he or she makes a disclosure about the benviour of an adult who has been chacked and has a clear check
* I think it ignores the fact that the greatest risk of abuse posed to children is within their own family.
I think that childnre would be much better protected if work were done, routinely, with *all* children at intevals throughout their childhood to better educate them about what is and is not acceptable behaviour and about strategies they can use to protect themselves. This type of ‘keepsafe’ work is done with childnre known to be in potentially risky situations and involves making sure that the child knows that some secrets are bad and should not be kept, that some kinds of touching are bad and that it is OK to say no to adults. This would genuinley be doing all we can to protect children, but I very much doubt it will feature on any government plans becasue it would involve an investment of time and moneym, and would no doubt run into opposition from the same parents who do not want their childner to receive sex education.
Instead we will be left with schemes such as the ISA which appears to provide little more than window dressing and a false sense that something is being done to protect children.
I also think that we need to keep a sense of balance. Abuse of children (or anyone else) is appalling. But so is the assumption that *every* adult is a potential abuser. I am also concerned that shcemes of this kind represent yet another nibbling away at our basis Human Rights (Right to Private and Family Life, Right not to be convicted without a fair trial etc)
Visit My Website
July 22, 2009
Permalink
Hey,
I don’t know a whole lot about CRB checks and what not, but i think, for any child sexual abuse, in any form is a horrible experience, so i think it is only fair that visitors should be checked aswell. But they also have every right to be offeneded, if they are trusted to come visit now why do they have to be checked all of a sudden, it’s seems like it’s all just being overly precautious, and is a bit unreasonable, perhaps just checking past records would be enough to prove that the visitor is okay? Also, shouldn’t a teacher always be present in a room with the children..If they leave them alone then they must trust them with whoever they are with if you get me.
Anyway s’all i have to say!