Critique of Ryan’s “We are Not Created Equal in Every Way”

(In this writing, Eric Ralston makes a critique of “We are Not Created Equal in Every Way” by Joan Ryan.)

Key Points:

Summary Points:

• In an opinion article published in the San Francisco Chronicle on 12 December 2000, columnist and reporter Joan Ryan argues that institutions like San Francisco Ballet School have the right to set whatever standards they want to ensure that those they admit meet the physical or intellectual requirements for professional success.
• But she also believes that some parents push their children too hard to meet those standards. She suggests need of protecting children from the possible abuses of such parents.
• These conflicting concerns regarding the star system that produces American world-class athletes and performers reflect contradictions and tensions in American larger culture.

Detailed Points:

• Ryan maintains, correctly, that the San Francisco Ballet School, like any other private institution, has the right to set standards by which it will accept or reject applicants. The school is not saying that people of a certain skin color or religious belief are not welcome. That would be discriminatory and wrong. But the standard concerning body type cuts across all people, rich or poor, black or white, Protestant or Jew, male or female. If it can be used to distinguish among all people equally, it is discriminating, not discriminatory.
• Ryan’s parallel concern in this essay is the damage done to children by parents who push them at an early age to meet the high standards set by professional training programs.
• Ryan also disapproves of a star track system that puts children into professional training at a young age. The law makes no provision for protecting such elite performers in training, writes Ryan.
• Ryan is subtle enough not to attack Krissy Keefer directly, instead letting the mother undermine herself with a comment few could take seriously: “My daughter is very sophisticated, so she understands why we’re [bringing the lawsuit].” No eight-year-old could fully understand the motivations behind a lawsuit, and the statement suggests a mother pursuing her own-not her daughter’s – agenda.
• When Ryan points out that “no arm of government” looks out for children like Fredrika, she implies the need for a Department of Youth Service to supervise parent managers.
• The tension in Ryan’s essay over high standards and the intense preparation to meet them mirrors a tension in the larger culture. On the one hand, Ryan argues persuasively that elite institutions like the San Francisco Ballet School have the right to set standards for admission. On the other hand, Ryan condemns parents who buy into the star system by pushing their children into professional training programs that demand a single-minded focus.
• If Ryan defends high standards in one breath and criticizes parents in the next for pushing children to achieve these standards, she is only reflecting a confusion in the larger culture: We love our stars, but we cannot have our stars without a star system that demands total (and often damaging) dedication from our youngest and most vulnerable citizens. That parents can be the agent of this damage is especially troubling.
• Joan Ryan is right to focus on the parents of would-be-stars, and she is right to remind us that young children pressured to perform at the highest levels can suffer physically and psychologically. But without clear evidence of legally actionable neglect or abuse, we cannot interfere with parent managers, however much we may disagree with their decisions.

(Source: Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum, 11th Edition, by Laurence Behrens & Leonard J. Rosen)