Innoculating Our Teens Against "Affluenza"

Last week, Ethan Couch, a sixteen year old boy in Texas who killed four people he hit while drunk driving, was only sentenced to ten years probation and not the twenty years in jail recommended by prosecutors. Couch and friends were seen on surveillance video stealing two cases of beer from a store. He had seven passengers in his Ford F-350, was speeding and had a blood-alcohol level three times the legal limit, according to trial testimony. His truck slammed into the four pedestrians, killing Brian Jennings, 43, Breanna Mitchell, 24, Shelby Boyles, 21, and her mother, Hollie Boyles, 52.

Ethan's lawyer claimed that he would benefit more from rehabilitation then from jail time as he suffered from “affluenza”- that his parents were very wealthy and spoiled him so that he never had to suffer the consequences of his actions. His lawyer stated that, his “family felt that wealth bought privilege and there was no rational link between behavior and consequences... Couch's parents never punished him for his behavior, even when, in a separate incident, cops found him passed out in a car with a naked 14-year-old girl.”

As one could well imagine, there has been much debate about this case of “affluenza.” The term "affluenza" is not a true psychological diagnosis. Jessie O'Neill, in her book The Golden Ghetto: The Psychology of Affluence used the term. “It's since been used to describe a condition in which children — generally from richer families — have a sense of entitlement, are irresponsible, make excuses for poor behavior, and sometimes dabble in drugs and alcohol.”

Some have maintained that not only have parents not provided any consequences, but now the court system has done the same. Others have discussed the issue of race. Dr. Suniya Luthar, a psychologist who specializes in the costs of affluence in suburban communities, asked, “"What is the likelihood if this was an African-American, inner-city kid that grew up in a violent neighborhood to a single mother who is addicted to crack and he was caught two or three times ... what is the likelihood that the judge would excuse his behavior and let him off because of how he was raised?"

Luthar shared that in her research at Columbia University, she has shown that “20 percent of upper middle-class adolescents believe their parents would help them get out of a sticky situation at school.” This sentence, she maintains, reinforces this belief.

In our community, our children are mostly middle to upper middle class adolescents as well. How many of our teens are stricken by “affluenza”? We discussed this topic with some of our 8^th graders this past Friday in Advisory. Some questions we discussed with them were:

1. Who is to blame in this case- the parents or the boy?
2. What do consequences have to do with knowing right from wrong? How do you think kids learn right from wrong? How did you learn? (Role models, peer environment, learning Torah...)
3. “Chosech shivto soneh b'no” (mishlei 13:24)- “Spare the rod spoil the child”- what does that mean? Does that apply in this case? Do you think there is a piece of us that should thank our parents for “punishments”/consequences?
4. So, who do you think should have been guilty? What do you think of his punishment?
5. “Affluenza” do you think this term applies to our community?
6. “20 percent of upper middle-class adolescents believe their parents would help them get out of a sticky situation at school...Boyd's sentence reinforces that belief.”- We are the middle- upper class. Do we think this is true?

Dr. Luthar states in her research that “U.S.’s new group of “at risk” children are preteens and teens from affluent, well-educated families, not from low–income homes.” Why? Who are these children. Dr. Madeline Levine, author of the book, The Price of Privilege states that these are children who “look great on the outside, but are empty on the inside.” Anxiety, depression, drug abuse, eating disorders and suicide are three times higher in affluent communities than in low income communities.

The Alliance for Early Childhood, ( Blakely Bundy and Kathy Hardy ), presented what they thought as the there underlying reasons for this at-risk community.

1. Overscheduling and specialization- days are overscheduled, and children are forced to become experts at something at a young age. There is no time to process the learning and less time for unstructured play. Preschool teachers note that more and more children need to be taught how to play. They haven't learned the social skills needed for interacting with others often gained in simple unstructured play.
2. Schools- Parents in schools tend to advocate for their own children more than for all the children. Hara Marano, author of a A Nation of Wimps- The High Cost of Invasive Parenting shares, “The most affluent parents have the means, the power, and the know-how of the system’s workings to in­fluence it on behalf of their children.  ...They are not afraid to  challenge the system and make it serve their interests, actions fed by their sense of entitlement as ‘full payers.’  …They may seek advantage for their own children over general im­provements that would help all children, including their own.”
3. Isolation- parents have to overwork to maintain their standard of living and are connected 24/7via internet to their jobs. Often one parent is never seen by his/her children during the week, and it is as if the children are being raised by a single parent.
4. Cell phones- Marano calls the cell phone the “eternal umbilicus” stating that it has changed the parent-child relationship. “Children report every blip and flicker of experience immediately as it happens, without engaging in reflection or otherwise processing the experience….  The main problem with having your parents in your jeans pocket is that you never have to activate the mental machinery for independence.  As a result, you never learn how to guide yourself thru the making of decisions on your own or come to rely on your own judgment.”
        “Dr. Don Monroe, former superintendent of the Winnetka Public Schools and recent­ly headmaster of Baker Demonstration School, says that, 25 years ago, he might get a phone call from a parent in June, saying, 'You know, Johnny didn’t have a great year with Mrs. X, so let’s think about his placement for next year.'  Now, he’ll get a call from a parent who has talked with or texted her child during the school day.  The parent might say, 'Mrs. X didn’t call on Jacob  in math class today.  She isn’t recognizing his potential, and I’d like you to do something about it right away.'”
5. Creating the “perfect” life- parents want perfection for their children and see happiness as the most important value. If children are given everything they want, and they feel they do not deserve it, that can lead to more anxiety. They may feel guilty for feeling unhappy. Seeking perfection is exhausting.  
6. Overindulgence and materialism- It is often easier to get them what they want even if it is not in their best interest.
7. Overprotection- this is a topic we had discussed in last week's article, highlighted in Wendy Mogul's The Blessing of a Skinned Knee.

After the A.E.C. presents us with all of this issues to confront in our communities- what are their solutions? I believe that many of their suggestions are intuitive. I would like to focus on one. “Fourth, and probably most important of all, is to bring together parents with similar values and ideas about parenting. There are many parents who don’t buy into the fast-paced, competitive values that have taken over many affluent communities...Speaking up, validating feelings and ideas, and bringing those parents together can not only be help­ful and reassuring to individual parents, but, as like-minded parents find each other, they can gain strength and courage and perhaps begin to change  the prevailing climate in their affluent community.  This may be the first step in getting “affluenza” under control.”

Many of us proudly maintain that our values are not the values in items 1-7 that the A.E.C. lists. We need to continue reinforcing our own values with our children. We constantly point out the values in society that are antithetical to our own. When our children come home and say, “But, so and so's mother is doing so and so for him” we respond, “But in our family we don't do that because...” The sentencing of Ethan Couch is one such “teachable moment” to discuss with our children, as we did in Advisory, the pitfalls of our middle class lives and the importance of maintaining ones Torah values and ethics despite the relatively comfortable lives with which G-d has blessed us.

Advisory Update:

1. Sixth Graders spent some time scheduling their evening routines as part of time management.

2. Seventh Graders investigated the stereotype often presented of the homeless, and how that stereotype is not always true.

3. Eighth Graders discussed the value of consequences and whether teens are responsible for their own actions through understanding the Couch case above.