America's Fear of Teen-agers
            

            This is my summer schedule, which is basically no schedule at all ... my
daughter, who's 15, is away at camp; the two of us are rattling around the
house with no classes, meetings, etc., to worry about ... closest thing to
nirvana except for places like the McDowell Colony, where they give you meals
and bring lunch to your studio door.

            On Columbine, before I forget: I don't, in general, buy as a sufficient
explanation for media obsessions that "it's all about ratings and selling
papers," for two reasons. First, because you have to ask why huge numbers of
people are so interested that they watch the TV shows and buy the papers. And
second, because the money explanation assumes a detached cynicism--or a totally
mechanical subservience to their bosses' interests--on the part of the
reporters, editors, producers, etc., who are responsible for the actual
coverage, when in fact journalists are caught up in the same fears and
fantasies as their audience. As I see it, Columbine hit more of a cultural
chord than the Atlanta murders because Americans are in turmoil about children
and teen-agers: On the one hand, everyone's political agenda is rationalized as
protecting children, whether it's censorship and drug testing or welfare and
gun control; on the other, adults are fearful of young people, feel that
they're out of control, and at the same time guilty about the many ways kids
are being shortchanged in this enormously pressured, work-obsessed, and uptight
environment.

            Speaking of drug testing, according to today's Times , the ACLU has
taken on the case of high-school kids in a "small rural town" in Oklahoma who
are forced to take urine tests if they want to participate in extracurricular
activities or take the classes that are, in some cases, connected with these
activities. Aside from the travesty against the Fourth Amendment, this is just
another example of the paranoia and contempt aimed at teen-agers. Treat them
all like presumptive criminals who deserve no autonomy and respect, and then
wonder why some actually fulfill your expectations.

            On the hate-crime issue, it's true you can't execute someone twice; but most
such crimes are assault or rape or lesser degrees of homicide--not capital
crimes. For the record, I'm basically against the death penalty on the grounds
that its application is discriminatory, mistaken executions of innocent people
are inevitable, keeping people on death row for years during the appeal process
amounts to cruel and unusual punishment, yet limiting appeals is even worse,
there's no evidence that executions have any practical deterrent effect, and
emotional catharsis is not a good enough reason for the state to kill people.
But I'm not an absolutist on the subject. For instance, there's a legitimate
question to be raised about what you do about someone who's already serving
life without parole who kills an inmate or guard; how to deter a murderer who
shoots the cop trying to arrest him, figuring he has nothing to lose; and other
such situations. And then there's the issue of whether politically motivated
mass murder, like the Oklahoma City bombing, should be in a special category.
Which leads back to the issue of why we ought to create a special category for
what I'm calling intimidation or political terrorism: because these crimes are
more deleterious to the social fabric than ordinary crimes. I disagree with you
about Matthew Shepard. I believe it was a lynching. Those guys were out to
teach him--and by extension all gay men--a lesson.

            This is already too long, so later for Maureen Dowd. What do you think of
the Village Voice redesign? And what's the NYPress in-house
culture like?