ChessBanter - View Single Post - Child Molestation Risk Management Program for Chess Organizers

**The Historian** · September 30th 06, 12:58 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics

wrote:
Rob wrote:
.
Thanks James.
It is a problem and I also agree that ultimatly it is the parents job
to make sure their children are same. Many kids want the experience of
scholastic chess. For those childrenand as a parent it is why I ask the
question..

I just can't figure out how prevalent it is and what sort of safeguards
are acceptable. It would seem to me that a study should probably be
comissioned to get some data.

How would you construct the definition of "abuse"? "Mommy, the TD was
mean to me!?"

The cases we see are high-profile,
probably because the world doesn't associate chess with abuse,
especially sexual. What happens in other countries? I know in Germany
there are various trainer levels, are these things covered?

Maybe there is nothing we can do.The world isn't the same place it was
40 years ago. Things that would have seemed silly paranoia then may be
common sense today.

May be. Perhaps it is then the environment that needs changing, not the
people. That can bring you back to my point (scholastic tournaments
should be small) or one of many others.

Or scholastic events should be eliminated entirely. (Calm down David,
and wipe the foam off your lips; this is just a discussion of
possibilities.) Child abuse seems to take place when one sick adult is
in a position of authority over children. A few prodigies playing in an
adult tournament are probably safe - what perv will try something with
a roomful of adults?

We have so many laws in this country, for example, and it seems to me
that much abuse stems from not properly implementing those laws. Once
you start layering this on top of that, it becomes pretty complicated.

One small step might be to revive the USCF'S certified coaches program,
but put more teeth in it. That would make it no more different than a
certification a nurse, an LPN, a NA, an RT, or any number of health
professionals take and pass to provide a modicum of protection to
patients, who are in probably even more compromised positions than
these players. No felony convictions, pass a test that includes moral
dilemmas, etc.

What would you do about TDs? They are all volunteer, and the only
requirement for the title is a signed statement that you have read the
rulebook and that you will abide by it.

But this may simply lead to a system without teeth as well, and there
is nothing worse than more government or administration than is
necessary.

But I hold little hope that the USCF will do this, although one can't
help think that it wouldn't make money for them, properly implemented.
And I said that without laughing!

Perhaps David Kane, in his-ever-so-polite way, was suggesting a greater
role for the USCF. But over the grunting and squealing I found it hard
to hear what the heck he was talking about, except perhaps that I lost
to kids too often.

Scholastic chess industy employees always argue along those lines.
Think back to Richard Petersen and Kevin Bachler.

This should perhaps be posted somewhere else, like a blog where
comments could come in on both sides - another way to gather data to
see if this is worth pursuing.