Under-age drinking, taking drugs and shoplifting are all criminal acts. It is reasonable for an organisation to say they don't want somebody representing them (as in a cheer leader or member of a school sports team) if that person has committed a criminal offence. It's particularly relevant in the case of the benched players, because alcohol and drugs directly impact on their performance.
The rules about not dancing and the like...I wonder how much choice children get over whether or not their parents sign them up to these strict regimes. But they are being expected to adhere to a standard of behaviour which most adults would feel a) that it was an unreasonable infringement on their free time and b) somewhat insulted at what those rules say about how those who have to live by them are perceived by those who write them.
What I don't like, what I really, really don't like, is it suggests at no time are these children 'free'. They don't have 'free time' because it's owned by someone else. Bad enough that parents have such absolute power, to hand it to someone else on their behalf seems wrong to me.
|