# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Look at passionate young people from any era and you'll find impressive catalysts for change.

The leaders of this weekend's March for Our Lives are no different. Students from Parkland, Florida-who faced a tragic shooting at their high school in February 2018-organized the event to demand gun-control legislation and an end to school shootings.

Though the teenagers have drawn criticism from some, they've been commended by others for their spirit, focus, and savvy. They've maintained a clear message, mobilized a nation, and rallied support from celebrities and politicians-even former president Barack Obama and former first lady Michelle Obama.

But they aren't an anomaly. These students are the newest link in a decades-long chain of youth activists at the forefront of social change across the globe.

Here are five other movements similarly driven forward by young protesters.

Lunch counters. The March on Washington. Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama.

Youth were instrumental in the civil rights movement's most memorable moments-and they were just as engaged behind the scenes. Together, these young adults desegregated schools in the Jim Crow South, challenged racism during Freedom Rides, and pushed forward voter rights and civil rights legislation.

Among the most influential cadre of student organizers was the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), a group that embraced nonviolent protest and helped train many of the movement's foot soldiers. Fiercely independent, the group maintained organized efforts on countless fronts of change, enduring physical violence and state repression along the way. Fueled by young people's rejection of white supremacy, SNCC was once the nation's largest and most well-organized civil rights group.

Youth who participated in the civil rights movement embraced what one-time SNCC chairman Representative John Lewis called "good trouble"-fearless agitation designed to provoke, challenge, and move progress forward.

Over two million young men were drafted into the U.S. military during the Vietnam War. No wonder, then, that young people were at the vanguard of protests against the conflict. The student movement that helped turn the American public against the war began the early 1960s with young activists inspired by both the civil rights movement and left-wing resistance to the Cold War.

Across the United States, students marched, conducted sit-ins, and agitated against the war. The protests electrified and divided the American public, who debated whether students should be allowed to protest or stopped. At demonstrations like the one at Kent State University on May 4, 1970, unarmed students were killed; others were tear gassed and hassled by police. Members of groups like Students for a Democratic Society, one of the main drivers of the anti-war movement, were targeted by the FBI.

You're not going to get a debate by being polite.

"We were right about the war," said Michael S. Ansara, who led Harvard University's chapter of SDS. "We understood that we would provoke a reaction and that it would give us a chance for discussion and debate," Ansara told The Crimson 's Laszlo B. Herwitz. "You're not going to get a debate by being polite."

"I envy the freedom that my students enjoy here," says Rowena He, assistant professor of history at St. Michael's College in Vermont and author of Tiananmen Exiles: Voices of the Struggle for Democracy in China. A teenager in China in 1989, He explains, "When I was around their age, millions of us took to the streets in cities throughout my home country demanding these basic rights that American students receive as their birthright and often take for granted."

The movement made globally famous by the violence in Tiananmen Square didn't just take place in the plaza. It swept through China as youth demanded democratic reforms and economic liberalization in the face of cronyism and economic decline. Hundreds of thousands of activists, many of them university students, took to the streets with banners, speeches and songs.

On June 3 and 4, 1989, the emotionally charged protests took a terrifying turn when thousands of soldiers descended on Tiananmen Square, opened fire on unarmed students, and crushed the movement with tanks and rifles. The extent of the casualties is still unknown.

China has never officially recognized the massacre and continues to censor information and conversation about the movement. Three decades after the crackdown, says He, "we still cannot bring justice to the hundreds of young lives destroyed by guns and tanks." He and other colleagues researching the Tiananmen movement still fear reprisals from the Chinese Communist Party.

For some, Twitter and Facebook embody the stereotype of a disconnected, smartphone-toting young person. But during 2010's Arab Spring, social media helped youth organize an unprecedented revolution that started in Tunisia and spread to Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Bahrain, and other Middle Eastern countries.

Frustrated by police corruption, economic woes, human rights violations, and oppressive regimes, youth took part in a wave of pro-democracy protests that turned public plazas like Cairo's Tahrir Square into sites of struggle. The demonstrations were sparked by the death of a young Tunisian street vendor who set himself on fire after a police officer confiscated his cart.

Young activists weren't the only people who participated in the demonstrations, which roiled the Arab world for over a year, fed into ongoing conflicts like the Syrian civil war, and resulted in the ouster of Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, among others.

However, analysts like M. Chloe Mulderig of Boston University believe the Arab Spring "could not have occurred without the ideological and numerical push of a huge mass of angry youth."

Indigenous Water Rights

"Youth are tired of thinking that they don't have a future," says Micaela Iron Shell-Dominguez. "It's one thing that you take away our land-now you're going to come on our land, build a pipeline, and destroy our water."

She's talking about a series of controversial pipelines designed to deliver oil through the United States, often running through or near Native American land and waterways. These pipelines have been opposed strenuously by youth organizers like Shell-Dominguez.

Youth are tired of thinking that they don't have a future.

One of them, the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), galvanized indigenous youth. The pipeline passes near the Standing Rock Indian Reservation, and in 2016, its approval sparked outrage that drew thousands of demonstrators to an encampment that soon became the site of protests and arrests. The International Indigenous Youth Council, which works to inspire, organize, and empower young leaders on behalf of the environment, grew out of the Standing Rock protests. Today, Iron Shell-Dominguez is a mentor and project coordinator for the group.

"Each individual in our community should have access to clean water and clean air," she says. Construction on DAPL went forward despite the protests, but the IIYC and other youth organizations continue to fight other projects, like the Keystone Pipeline, that endanger indigenous water rights.

"We believe that we don't own this earth-we're actually belonging to this earth," she says. "We should be giving back to Mother Earth."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Youth in Revolt: Five Powerful Movements Fueled by Young Activists

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Look at passionate young people from any era and you'll find impressive catalysts for change. The leaders of this weekend's March for Our Lives are no different. Students from Parkland, Florida-who faced a tragic shooting at their high school in February 2018-organized the event to demand gun-control legislation and an end to school shootings.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A 2012 paper on youth and social movements, a collaboration between Lady Gaga's Born this Way Foundation and Harvard University's Berkman Center, found young people to be powerful agents for social change, crediting undocumented-youth sit-ins for convincing President Obama to grant DREAMers a reprieve from deportation in 2012. The paper's author writes of youth activists primed to "call out or identify systems of oppression, speak up, and mobilize their peers."

When a message referencing the Ku Klux Klan and a public lynching was left on a school computer at Berkeley High in Northern California, about 1,500 students walked out of classes in solidarity with the school's Black Student Union. The computer posting, to which a Berkeley High student later confessed, was the third in a string of racist incidents on the campus since 2014, according to school officials. Natalie Bettendorf, an editor with Berkeley High School's student newspaper, spoke to KPFA's Youth Radio on the unifying power of student-led action: "Their whole idea of getting the whole school together would have seemed so ambitious to one person, but once I walked in on that quad and saw the entire school gathered together, listening, chanting ... to see all the students lined up and getting their voices heard and crying, it was so powerful."

While youth activism is now on the rise it is not without its critics, namely adults unable to view young people as equal partners in decision-making. Hints of this are seen in the reaction to student activists at Yale and University of Missouri, chastised to just "grow up." The Harvard paper's top recommendation to support youth organizers is respect and recognition, emphasizing "young people's autonomy, opinions, desires, and actual capacity to take part in and lead" movements for equity and justice. Upholding this critical value of student voice, a coalition of Asian and Pacific Islander students in Portland, Oregon, earned accolades from school-board members for their preparation and powerful anecdotes in a campaign to add ethnic-studies classes to the city's public schools. The group is working with district leaders to bring Asian, black, Latino, Pacific Islander, Arab, Native, and Queer-Trans-People-of-Color studies to all of Portland's high schools within the next four years.

At the root of student organizing is the demand for fair and equal treatment, says Jose Sanchez, the safe schools coordinator for Voices of Youth in Chicago Education, an alliance of mostly high-school students of color. And nowhere is that more apparent than in the area of school discipline. For years Chicago has had gaping racial disparities in suspension rates for black and white children, and a new study from University of Chicago finds the most frequently suspended students are concentrated in schools serving the most vulnerable student populations. Examining this data, VOYCE set out to address the impact of out-of-school suspensions and expulsions on their peers and schools. Illinois Senate Bill 100 was created in 2012 by VOYCE activists who traveled regularly to the state capitol in Springfield to lobby and educate lawmakers.

"When we were advocating for [SB 100] we sometimes weren't taken seriously and faced adultism," says Sanchez, adding that VOYCE students overcame the challenges by sharing their personal stories, combined with data and research aimed at eliminating the school-to-prison pipeline and "structural racism in our education system." In August the VOYCE-drafted bill was signed by Republican Governor Bruce Rauner, ending a bipartisan, hard-fought effort. Starting in the 2016 school year, districts throughout Illinois will be required to eliminate zero-tolerance punishment, minimize out-of-school suspensions and expulsions, and adopt other discipline-related policies.

Brennen, the Student Voice leader, reiterates the critical role that youth serve in bridging education policy and practice-and the historical legacy that lingers over this work. "The Little Rock Nine, Freedom Riders, Children's Crusade of 1963 ... young people put their lives on the line for quality schools," he stresses. "Organizations working to improve education that aren't including student voice are doing it wrong ... [We're] not presuming to be policy experts, but we are experts on how many policies play out at the classroom level. We're a reality check."

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.

Melinda D. Anderson is a contributing writer for The Atlantic and is based in Washington, D.C.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How the Surge of Student Activism Is Spreading to High-School Campuses-Again

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A 2012 paper on youth and social movements, a collaboration between Lady Gaga's Born this Way Foundation and Harvard University's Berkman Center, found young people to be powerful agents for social change, crediting undocumented-youth sit-ins for convincing President Obama to grant DREAMers a reprieve from deportation in 2012.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Invention of the Teenager [ushistory.org]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Black survivors of the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, say that the gun control debate that has been raging since the tragedy has largely overlooked them - and argue that recent moves to increase school safety by increasing security would actually put them more at risk.

At a press conference Wednesday, black students said that they were being ignored in coverage of Parkland, noting that media coverage hasn't reflected the fact that their school is 11 percent black.

"I am here today with my classmates because we have been thoroughly underrepresented and, in some cases, misrepresented," student Tyah-Amoy Roberts said.

The students also said that the post-Parkland gun control debate has failed to fully acknowledge how gun violence affects black youth. According to a 2017 analysis of fatal and nonfatal childhood firearm injuries compiled by researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, black children face the highest rates of firearm mortality - a difference largely driven by black youth being more likely to be shooting victims than children from other racial groups.

The students say they are raising these concerns not to detract from the work of their peers, but to ensure that their concerns are acknowledged by the media and policymakers. "We surely do not feel that the lives or voices of minorities are valued as much as those of our white counterparts," Roberts said.

Parkland's black students say they wouldn't be made safe by more police officers on campus

In recent weeks, racial justice activists and civil rights groups have noted that gun violence in black communities, rather than inspiring reform legislation or prompting national outcry, is often framed as the result of black people being unable to control themselves. Black activists say they have been portrayed as criminals when they hold protests.

"Black people, unfortunately, continue to be criminalized for our moments of courage, for our moments of mourning and grieving," Black Lives Matter Network co-founder Patrisse Cullors said during a Huffington Post event in February.

Experts on race and school discipline have noted that recent efforts to improve school safety and calls to arm teachers have largely ignored how increased discipline would affect students of color.

A 2014 fact sheet from the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights noted that, during the 2011-2012 school year, black students were suspended and expelled from school at a rate more than three times greater than white students. When broken down by race and gender, the OCR notes that black girls are suspended at six times the rate of white girls and at twice the rate of white boys.

Collectively, this disparity fuels what has been called the " school-to-prison-pipeline," a systemic bias that civil rights advocates say pushes children and young adults of color out of the classroom and into the criminal justice system.

For black Parkland students like 17-year-old Kai Koerber, calls to increase police presence on campus and other security measures proposed after the February mass shooting have only made them more anxious.

"It's bad enough we have to return with clear backpacks," he said on Wednesday. "Should we also return with our hands up?"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Parkland's black students say they're being forgotten in the gun control debate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Black survivors of the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, say that the gun control debate that has been raging since the tragedy has largely overlooked them - and argue that recent moves to increase school safety by increasing security would actually put them more at risk.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Secret History of Words for Young People

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Today’s teens are better than you, and we can prove it

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
With the EU referendum likely to be the hot topic of conversation among politicians over the next two years, there is no doubt that one of the most fiercely debated aspects of it will be the electorate, and, in particular, whether 16- and 17-year-olds should be allowed to vote, which the bill, published today, rules out.

Earlier this week, Conservative MP John Redwood claimed that politically active teenagers are "another myth put about by pro-Europeans". The main problem here is not the lack of interest among teenagers, but rather that when teenagers do show an interest in politics, people like Redwood dispel such interest as a "myth", instead of encouraging and praising their interest. To claim that politically active teens are a "myth" is completely beyond reason, patronising and also extremely damaging.

For me, there are two types of people who say that teens aren't politically active. Type one are the actual teenagers saying "I am not interested in politics!" and type two are the people who hear teenagers say this and in turn say "Look! Teenagers are not interested in politics," as if it applies to all of us.

When we say that we are interested in politics, people like John Redwood often ignore this or respond by saying "No you're not." With this sentiment they are suggesting that it is commonplace and normal for young people not to be interested in politics, that the teenagers who do care are the odd ones out - and a lot of teenagers don't want to be the odd one out. You can imagine how frustrating this is for teenagers like myself who make a point of being politically engaged, only to find that our interest is seen as a figment of someone's imagination. Such ignorance could almost lead to politically active teens to ask themselves, "Is there any point in me having an interest at all?"

There is also an aspect of circular reasoning to Redwood's comments. Many politicians have consistently shown that they do not care about teenagers' opinions, and then condemn them for not having an opinion, using this as a reason why they should continue not to have an opinion. If left to certain individuals, this damaging cycle could continue forever. If teenagers don't have a vote, having a political opinion can be seen as useless to them, and because they don't have an opinion, this is used to explain why they shouldn't be given the vote.

Furthermore, the fault is not with teenagers alone. Yes, to some extent, teenagers should be responsible for actively engaging themselves in politics, but politicians and adults in general need to do more too. Parents, teachers and politicians have a duty to let teenagers know why it's important to pay attention to politics, instead of complaining that they don't care about it. This cycle needs to end, and giving teenagers a vote in the EU referendum would be a start.

If there is any example that shows how ridiculous Redwood's claims are, it is the Scottish referendum, when 16 and 17-year-olds were allowed to have a say. It is estimated that 75% of those eligible turned out to vote, compared with 54% of 18- to 24-year-olds. Where's the myth in that?

The reason 16- and 17-year-olds need a vote in the EU referendum is that it's their future that is being decided on, and denying them a say in this is simply unacceptable. Of course there will always be those who say "If not 16, what about 15, or 14, or 13?" and although this may seem valid, there has to be a cut-off point. But by 16, young people are forced to make many important decisions about their own future, so why shouldn't the future of their country be one of them?
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
We political teenagers are not a 'myth' - so let us vote in the EU referendum | Abby Tomlinson

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With the EU referendum likely to be the hot topic of conversation among politicians over the next two years, there is no doubt that one of the most fiercely debated aspects of it will be the electorate, and, in particular, whether 16- and 17-year-olds should be allowed to vote, which the bill, published today, rules out.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
oday's youngest generation with a label, born after 2000, are connected yet isolated, savvy but anxious, indulged yet stressed. They have grown up with social media, a constant proliferation of information on a fully mobile internet, the rise of Islamic State and other forms of terrorism. As these teenagers approach adulthood, against the political backdrop of Brexit and President Trump, how will they shape the future?

The single biggest difference between Generation Z and other generations is how connected they are, and have been since birth. On average, young people in the UK, aged between five and 16, spend three hours online every day. Connectivity permeates their lives - from friendships to relationships, news, entertainment, shopping - and has transformed how they interact. The most popular apps are Snapchat, Instagram and messaging app Kik; the average teenager has at least 150 followers on Instagram, and spends around half an hour a day on Snapchat.

Young people are also reported to have a much more fluid sense of sexual identity and gender. A National Citizen Service (NCS) poll of 1,000 teenagers published in October this year found that only 63% of teens aged 16 and 17 define themselves as 100% straight (compared with 78% of adults). Gender identity is also less binary, with 78% of young men identifying as 100% male, and 80% of young women identifying as 100% female, according to the same NCS poll.

How happy is Generation Z? A World Health Organisation survey carried out in 42 countries in 2013/4, and reported this year, found that young men and women in the UK are among the least satisfied with their lives, particularly 15-year-olds in England and Wales. The survey (which measures life satisfaction in relation to everything from relationships with family to school, mental health and drug use) showed that the highest rate of anxiety and health worries occurred among teenage girls in England, Wales and Scotland.

The biggest concern of young people calling ChildLine was mental health issues, accounting for 31% of calls

One of the starkest markers of Gen Z to date is the sharp rise in reported mental health issues. Young men and women in the UK are seeking treatment for low self-esteem, anxiety, depression and self-harm, in greater proportions than any other generation on record. (Some of this may be because these conditions were not widely diagnosed or understood in the past.)

According to the NSPCC, the biggest concern of young people calling its ChildLine in 2015/16 was mental health issues, accounting for 31% of telephone counselling sessions. In 1986, ChildLine's first year of taking calls, the most common reasons for contacting the NSPCC were sexual and physical abuse, and family issues. Mental health concerns didn't rank anywhere in the top 10. So what has changed?

"What we're seeing is a generation of children who are expressing much more clearly that they are just generally so unhappy with themselves and the situations around them," says Emily Cherry, head of participation at the NSPCC. "When it comes to low self-esteem, a lot of young people are putting that down to [concerns about] education, their future and the online world. Particularly the online world, and how it's following young people around - it's with them 24/7. Every time they switch on their phones they're getting messages about parties they haven't been invited to, or they're seeing photos of their friends doing things, or their whole self-worth is based on how many likes they're getting on Facebook. It absolutely permeates their sense of self-worth."

How happy is Generation Z? Photograph: Tempura/Getty Images

The mass availability of news has had an impact, Cherry adds, and there is a spike in the number of calls to ChildLine during major world events. "Not just terrorism - we also saw this with the US elections and Brexit. Online, they are seeing quite adult-focused news and phoning ChildLine really fearful for themselves and their future."

However, Cherry also points out that many of the children contacting ChildLine are doing so because there are fewer mental health services available to them. "Child and adolescent services in particular are massively stretched in the current climate. There is no support available, and that's a difference to what we were hearing in 1986."

Thirty-seven per cent of girls reported feeling unhappy, worthless or unable to concentrate

One of the most striking developments is the increase in depression and anxiety among young women in England, with more than a third reporting symptoms of distress, according to a survey of 13,000 14-year-olds by the Department for Education in 2014. Thirty-seven per cent of girls reported feeling unhappy, worthless or unable to concentrate, an increase of 4% since 2010, and more than double the proportion of boys reporting the same feelings.

Betsy de Thierry is a child and adolescent psychotherapist, and a founding director of the Trauma Recovery Centre, an organisation that supports traumatised young people across the UK. She says the levels of stress among the children and teachers she works with is unprecedented. "The pressure on young people these days is absolutely extraordinary - it has never been the same before. They're living with lots of stress - their parents desperately wanting them to do well because of financial pressures, teachers wanting them to do well because they'll be assessed," De Thierry says.

She points to a shift of focus in schools, towards "hard" subjects and away from arts and sport, as one cause of increased pressure on young people. "I would argue that the biggest damage has been done in the reduction of creative arts, sports, music and free time. We know from neuroscience that young people are dependent on having time to play - that's how their brains develop, how they make sense of the world and how they become healthy young people. Without that, their behaviour changes and they act out or act in - and when they act in, they can self-harm and get depressed."

But the big positive is that teenagers are wise to the challenges facing their generation, and taking action. In 2014 the UK Youth Parliament, a youth organisation of elected members, voted to campaign on raising awareness around mental health issues among young people; in 2015, they called for greater health service provision and compulsory mental health education in schools, to help challenge damaging stereotypes.

This year, the youth parliament's focus is on education, under the banner " Curriculum for Life ". They are calling for schools to put more on the syllabus about finance, sex and relationships, and politics. At the same time, the parliament has focused on tackling racism, religious discrimination and the dangers of hate speech.

Generation Z's wider political engagement is going through a period of transformation. Young British voters have become more active in politics, with an estimated 58% of 18- to 24-year-olds voting in the 2015 general election, according to the British Election Study; this represents a significant jump, from 38% turnout among the same age group in 2005. For the EU referendum in June, an estimated 64% of young voters went to the polls, according to a survey conducted by Opinium and the London School of Economics - far higher than the initial gloomy estimates.

But while casting a vote at the polling station is one way of making your voice heard, young voters are finding other outlets for their political views. While their parents grew up in a world focused on two or three political parties and national debates, the approach of younger voters is quite different. Research by the European Commission in 2013 found that "young people regard voting as one option among many, and they show their political engagement in many different, issue-specific ways that can potentially influence policies more directly".

The feelings of social isolation reported by many teenagers can be hard for older people to understand. Photograph: Getty Images/Hero Images

While most of Generation Z are still too young to vote, their focus has shifted away from party politics to single-topic issues such as feminism or climate change; much of the civic engagement and organising they do takes place on social media rather than through traditional political structures.

Today's teenagers might be our most abstemious yet. Smoking and alcohol use is at its lowest levels among young people in England since 1982, when records began, according to a 2014 NHS survey. Less than one in five 11- to 15-year-olds said they had smoked, while 38% of adolescents in the same age group had tried alcohol at least once - also the lowest proportion since records began. Drug use among under-16s was also down: 15% of 11- to 15-year-olds reported having taken drugs of any kind, a dramatic decrease from 29% in 2001.

The feelings of social isolation reported by many teenagers can be hard for older people to understand. "There's a perception that this generation should be the happiest and the most content, because they've got so much connectivity, across the world, and so much information at their fingertips," Cherry says. "But that connectivity is actually disconnecting people from real friendships and the opportunity to enjoy the world together. It's creating absolutely unrealistic ideals that young people can't get to."

De Thierry believes the solution is more real-life contact and interaction. "We know that social isolation can have lifelong consequences on the brain and relationships and teenagers' ability to make sense of the world. Depression and anxiety are already on the rise and being normalised. When children have childhoods, and young people are allowed to be creative and spend time with each other, then they shouldn't be depressed or anxious."

Without intervention, De Thierry anticipates an increase in adult mental health issues, unemployment and burnout. "People think they've got 1,000 friends but in actual fact, who really knows them? It's probably nobody these days - not their parents, as they don't eat together and are working longer hours. And not their siblings, possibly because they're sitting in separate rooms on phones and they text each other. Being known is a really important part of being alive."

The contradictions of connectivity are the real challenge for Generation Z and for society at large. In many ways, they already appear more responsible than their predecessors - more politically engaged and eager to reframe our perspectives on sexual orientation and gender, while demanding action on the issues of mental health, education, equality and racism. As they emerge into adulthood, we will see what world they make.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Who are Generation Z? The latest data on today's teens

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sexually fluid, socially anxious, politically engaged, connected but lonely: what do we know about modern teens?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images

When it comes to politics, conventional wisdom says that kids tend to mimic their parents. The research would seem to reinforce this widespread view: A 2005 Gallup Poll found that 7 in 10 teenage respondents kept roughly the same social and political beliefs as Mom and Dad, and similar research has found that absorbing your parents' views early on strongly influences your political leanings as an adult.

Not so fast, says a new study published in the December issue of the American Sociological Review. The study draws from surveys of thousands of American to find that, actually, most young Americans don't just blindly absorb and regurgitate their parents' political beliefs at the polls. Instead, more than half of respondents either rejected their parents' beliefs outright or failed to even correctly identify their parents' political affiliations.

The study relied on a 1988 survey of more than 8,500 families and a longitudinal survey taken between 2006 and 2008 of more than 3,000 families. The longitudinal study found that 51 percent of respondents rejected or misperceived their mothers' political affiliation; a slightly larger percentage of respondents rejected their fathers' beliefs in that study.

So how could past research have gotten it so wrong? Other studies had looked at shared party affiliations, but not necessarily the reasoning that led the person to those affiliations, says Christopher Ojeda, a postdoctoral researcher at the Stanford Center for American Democracy and first author on the study.* "We never even thought to really question whether transmission would even be occurring most of the time," Ojeda says. "But once we started looking under the hood, we discovered that the story was a little more complex."

The new study interrogated other factors that led children to hold certain political beliefs. For instance, conventional wisdom holds that the higher the level of political discussion in the household, the more that those political beliefs get transmitted from parent to child. What Ojeda found was more nuanced: Discussion helped children understand their parents' beliefs, but didn't necessarily lead to adoption. "We found that discussion could lead to consensus as much as it could lead to conflict," Ojeda said.

One of the more fascinating results of the study was that about 12 to 15 percent of respondents misperceived their parents' party identification and then chose the opposite of that mistaken identity, ending up with the same beliefs as their parents when they thought otherwise. (In other words: Resistance is futile. One way or another, you are going to become your mom.) Around 22 percent, meanwhile, misunderstood their parents' party identification and embraced that misperceived identity.

So what can conscientious, politically minded parents learn about raising their kids from this study? "It's a back-and-forth between parent and child," Ojeda said. "The child is bringing their own perspective and values and whatnot to politics. The child is not merely a receptacle for the parent to fill up with their values."

"Transmission is not automatic," Ojeda added. "You can't just assume your kid is going to be like-minded with you."
*Correction, Nov. 19, 2015: This post initially misidentified Christopher Ojeda as a Ph.D. student.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Study: Turns Out Your Kids Are Not Receptacles for Your Political Beliefs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When it comes to politics, conventional wisdom says that kids tend to mimic their parents. The research would seem to reinforce this widespread view: A 2005 Gallup Poll found that 7 in 10 teenage respondents kept roughly the same social and political beliefs as Mom and Dad, and similar research has found that absorbing your parents' views early on strongly influences your political leanings as an adult.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The "March for Our Lives" was one of the largest demonstrations in American history. Its organizers, the survivors of the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, were teenagers. As were the tens of thousands of students who walked out of their classrooms to protest gun violence just days before. The Black Lives Matter protests that brought new attention to the problems of police violence and systemic racism in 2014 and 2015 saw similar action from teenagers and other young people.

Teens have always been political actors, but the recent rise in youth activism has prompted some cities-and even some states-to consider extending voting rights to people under 18. Washington D.C., for example, is primed to lower the voting age to 16, giving thousands of District teenagers a chance to vote in local and federal elections. In 2013, nearby Takoma Park, Maryland, enfranchised 16- and 17-year-olds, giving them the ballot in local elections. And lawmakers in Arizona, Delaware, Hawaii, Michigan, and New York have introduced bills that would lower the voting age to 16 or 17.

This is progress. At 16, teenagers can drive, work, pay taxes, and if they break the law, they can be tried as adults. At 17, they can join the military (with a parent's consent). Teenagers have a stake in this society. And they deserve the right to advance their interests at the ballot box.

The case against lowering the voting age is straightforward, if a little tautological: teenagers are too young to vote. They aren't mature enough, or smart enough, or engaged enough to have a full say in governance. But then, the same is true for millions of adults who do vote. College students-who aren't much more mature than high school seniors-can vote. Americans without formal education can vote. And the millions of Americans who pay little attention to politics-who might be misinformed on the issues themselves-can vote.

The only formal qualification for voting is age (and in some states, criminal record). And the only real informal qualification is a degree of autonomy-an ability to perceive one's interests and act accordingly. Teenagers have that. By age 15, the typical person has largely developed the cognitive and executive function skills that are most relevant to voting.

But none of these arguments form a case for teen voting so much as a brief against the opposition. If there's an affirmative reason to lower the voting age-beyond the justice of doing so-it's to improve the health of our democracy at a time when it's flailing.

We know from recent activism that teenagers are eager to participate in the political process. We also know that 16- and 17-year-olds possess civic knowledge on par with their slightly older counterparts. What's more, in places where they can vote, they do so enthusiastically. Teens in Takoma Park, for example, voted at twice the rate of older voters in the 2015 local elections. Looking abroad, Austria-which lowered its voting age to 16-has seen similarly high turnout among its youngest voters, especially compared to their 18- to 20-year-old counterparts. Evidence from Scotland, where 16- and 17-year-olds voted in the 2014 independence referendum, suggests that simply enfranchising these younger teens will encourage them to vote.

This is important. Voting is a habit, and getting Americans to vote earlier is a recipe for increasing participation throughout their lives. The reverse is also true: Non-voting produces more non-voting. As it stands, we do a poor job encouraging the habit. Few states have universal voter registration or mail-in balloting-measures proven to increase turnout. Too many states have barriers and obstacles, from cumbersome registration rules to restrictive voter identification laws. In addition to this bureaucracy, 18-year-olds (and other young adults, for that matter) have to deal with their rapidly changing lives. Disruption is not conducive to civic engagement.

One way to push against this-to encourage voting and feed the habit-is to start early. Combined with voting reforms like universal registration, lowering the voting age would give teenagers a chance to learn the routine of elections while their lives are more stable. They would have a stake in the process and a reason to keep voting as they get older. The changes could even have a domino effect. Evidence from Denmark suggests that parents with a younger voter in the household are themselves more likely to vote. Expanding the franchise may boost participation and help build a stronger culture of voting.

"Today's 18-year-old is surely as qualified to vote in every meaningful respect as the 21-year-old of 1867," said Indiana Sen. Birch Bayh in 1970 during hearings on lowering the voting age. "If, as some people believe, young people have to earn the right to vote, I believe that they have met the test." The same logic applies to the current moment. Today's 16-year-olds are as qualified to vote as the 18-year-olds of 50 years ago. And seeing as how they're already fighting to change the world, they deserve it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The "March for Our Lives" was one of the largest demonstrations in American history. Its organizers, the survivors of the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, were teenagers. As were the tens of thousands of students who walked out of their classrooms to protest gun violence just days before.