Kimberly Bailey’s fascinating article, Male Same-Sex “Horseplay”: The Epicenter of Sexual Harassment? seeks to expose and to further analyze harassment of women by paying attention to the patterns and meaning of male-male harassment between straight men. By the sophisticated use of masculinities theory and research, she seeks to expand not only the boundaries of male-male harassment but also the linkages between male-male and male-female harassment. Sexualharassment doctrine as constructed thus far excludes certain conduct as not discriminatory. As Professor Bailey notes, in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., the Court stated that it was not creating a “general civility code.” Professor Bailey seeks to carve out some male on male “horseplay” as discrimination that should be actionable under sexual harassment theory rather than tolerated or understood as nondiscriminatory. More broadly, Professor Bailey suggests male on male harassment is central to all sexual harassment.

The latest book from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child Implementation Project focuses on Article 5 of the convention, which provides: States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention. Article 5 thus recognises parental rights, responsibilities and duties modified by the evolving capacities of the child with the goal of supporting the exercise of the child’s rights under the CRC. As the 14 chapters in this volume reflect, the Article functions with inherent tensions and possibilities, between protection of the child from the state by empowering parents, but also protection of the child within the family, when the child might be in conflict with their parents. Both parents and the state are to operate within the evolving developmental capacities of children generally and the specific characteristics of individual children, with the goal of supporting the child’s assertion and exercise of their rights.

In this Essay, I focus on abolition of the juvenile justice system, including the virtual elimination of incarceration; the dismantling of the existing juvenile justice (or injustice) system; breaking the school to prison pipeline and the criminalization of school discipline; creating social services with the goal of problem-solving and support of children and youth; teaching skills of restorative justice to support the development and conflict resolution skills of every child; comprehensively surrounding every child, every youth with the means and resources to succeed rather than systems designed to make them fail; and addressing the disproportionate negative contacts between schools, police, teachers, administrators, judges, and other system actors, by eliminating bias and fostering affirmative multidimensional, multiracial, multicultural humanity. The goal of abolition is not simply to dismantle the structure and culture of harm, but also to replace harm with support.

Family law, and the systems with which families interact, and child law or children’s rights, are typically viewed as separate legal subjects or categories. This essay challenges that separation and its consequences for family issues, arguing that family law and the systems with which families interact would benefit from a stronger infusion of children’s perspectives, interests and rights. One benefit would be a stronger structural or systemic focus to family law, reflecting the responsibilities of the State for children in the form of positive socio-economic supports for systems of health, education, housing and employment that are critical to children’s development. Through the example of immigrant children and their families, the essay explores the potential structural impact of children’s rights and perspectives in order to illustrate how a child rights perspective would affect the content and implementation of law and policy.

Early childhood is a critical time in development when equality can be sustained, or inequality can take root. As a developmental period, it is marked by rapid neurological development, and thus the period from birth to three is a foundation for all future development. In early childhood, children’s critical need is developmental support through nurturing and responsive interactions in everyday activities and routines. Differences commonly emerge linked to the differences in children’s immediate ecologies. As the contributions to this symposium underscore, one of the major impacts on ecologies is income inequality, and in particular, poverty. While it is not the only factor contributing to early inequalities among children, it is certainly a major one. In addition, some children are subject to various traumas in their early years that create additional developmental hurdles. This symposium is an effort to break ground on these critical issues. Early childhood has been an area largely neglected by law. Here, we start the conversation about the role of law, as well as the intersecting roles of other disciplines, in developing new policies, whether designed to remove barriers and stumbling blocks, or to embrace a level of support and insure its provision to every child. The contributions by legal scholars as well as medical, public health, and early education scholars, demonstrate the broad questions that must be addressed—they provide a starting point that we hope others will follow.

Children are born equal. Yet as early as eighteen months, hierarchies emerge among children. These hierarchies are not random but fall into patterns by race, gender and class. They are not caused nor voluntarily chosen by children or their parents. The hierarchies grow, persist, and are made worse by systems and policies created by the state, perpetuating the position of the privileged and continuing the disadvantage of the subordinated. Children’s equal right to develop to their capacity is severely undermined by policies and structures that hamper and block the development of some by creating barriers and challenges or failing to support them. This Article argues that hierarchies among children violate their constitutional rights, by both the infliction of harm and the failure to provide affirmative support. It documents how our policies and structures reinscribe inequality on children and proposes a constitutional obligation to the contrary. The Article takes on the challenge of articulating a general constitutional theory of children’s rights, suggesting that children’s status, circumstances, and needs are the basis for a distinctive claim of positive rights. Among the most critical of those positive rights is the right to developmental equality: the right of every child to maximize their developmental potential. Equality of development is a universal right of every child based on the principles of equality, equity and dignity at the core of our equal protection jurisprudence. To make this claim, the Article unearths existing hierarchies and identifies the parameters of children’s equality that is constitutionally meaningful. It then grounds a proposal for children’s constitutional rights, including a positive right to developmental equality, in existing constitutional doctrine.

Hierarchies among children dramatically impact their development. Beginning before birth, and continuing during their progression to adulthood from birth to age 18, structural and cultural barriers separate and subordinate some children, while they privilege others. The hierarchies replicate patterns of inequality along familiar lines, particularly those of race, gender, and class, and the intersections of those identities. These barriers, and co-occurring support of privilege for other children, emanate from policies, practices, and structures of the state, including education, health, policing, and juvenile justice. Reimagining Equality: A New Deal for Children of Color takes on the task of confronting and addressing these hierarchies, as well as articulating a comprehensive strategy for change to achieve equality, equity, and dignity for all children. In this Essay, I outline the core components of the book as a backdrop and focal point for dialogue and discussion on children and poverty in this issue of the Fordham Urban Law Journal. I also present questions that remain in order to achieve children’s equality. Part I of the book synthesizes the interdisciplinary research on the life course of African American boys from birth to adulthood as a means to concretely examine the creation of hierarchies among children. Black boys are presented as exemplars, not as a prioritized group. Their life patterns have been extensively examined, often to reinforce a stereotype of deviance, but this research nevertheless clearly exposes the making of hierarchy based on race, gender, and class. Part II of the book uses the pattern of Black boys to explore the impact of subordination on development, and the making of inequality. Developmental analysis in law and other disciplines commonly centers around a neutral child, ignoring the impact and pattern of hierarchies among children. This Part argues developmental analysis — the use of developmental research in law — must instead consciously focus on the actual developmental path of children of color in order to be a vehicle for equality. Introducing the theoretical contributions of Margaret Beale Spencer and Cynthia García Coll, this Part constructs a model of developmental equality. Developmental equality centers the goal of equality on the lived experiences of children of color upon whom heavy additional burdens have been imposed. Burdens and barriers to maximizing the development of all children must be removed to achieve children’s equality. With this reimagined definition of equality in mind, Part III of the book explores strategic alternatives. These include potential statutory and constitutional litigation strategies, but most expansively, a legislative strategy — A New Deal for Children. Borrowing from the tradition of prior expansive legislative programs enacted in response to the need for dramatic change and problem solving, such as the 1930s New Deal, the post-World War II G.I. Bill, and the Great Society programs of the 1960s, a New Deal for Children argues for a comprehensive approach of intersecting programs to create the necessary supports for children. At its core, the New Deal for Children would ensure equality, equity, and dignity, and change children’s hierarchies to children’s opportunities. Both visionary and pragmatic, the New Deal for Children is grounded in systems and policies in place elsewhere in the world, as well as localized models of comprehensive, intersecting programs in place in the United States. Finally, the Essay concludes with a series of questions that remain to be explored, discussed, and debated to achieve the goal of equality among children. Equality has eluded America’s children for generations because their ability to develop has been stymied, blocked, and undermined. The process to challenge that reality and implement real change raises complex, but not insurmountable, issues.

Children’s developmental equality is critical to their opportunity and lifetime success. If we are to dismantle hierarchies among children, we must dismantle barriers placed in their way as well as insure affirmative support so that each child achieves their full developmental potential. The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) framework identifies factors that create hurdles, not necessarily insurmountable, to children’s development. A higher ACEs number translates into geometrically increased challenges for individual children. Identifying ACEs, if used simply to count obstacles for children, does not contribute to the goal of children’s equality. Indeed, counting ACEs may have the converse effect, if identifying factors supports a story of deviancy and incapability, to stigmatize those children with high ACEs counts. In this essay I consider whether ACEs could have radical potential, as a framework for dismantling the causes of developmental hurdles. I consider both whether current, immediate uses of ACEs can facilitate broad solutions, as well as whether ACEs data can be used to trigger legal or policy responses to change structural conditions that generate ACEs.

In this Essay I explore the definition and scope of children’s equality. I argue that equality includes equity and dignity. The meaning of each of these concepts is critical in imagining a deep, rich vision of equality, and in constructing policies to achieve that vision. This definition of equality creates affirmative rights, demands action to resolve structural discrimination that creates and sustains hierarchies among children, and requires affirmative support for children’s developmental equality.

It is the ultimate gift to have one’s work trigger feedback, critique and challenge that expands and deepens the project. Professors Cooper, Huntington, McGinley, Silbaugh, and Woodhouse all have been sources of inspiration for me; their Articles and Essays in response to Reimagining Equality contribute both to my thinking and to the core focus of the book, the well-being, development and equality of all children, but also to the broad focus of this special issue on children and poverty. I am particularly grateful for their challenges and critiques, and their shared focus on the strategies I explore in the book, including statutory, constitutional, and legislative approaches.

Four million children will be born during the first year of the Trump administration. Globally, an estimated 130 million children are born each year. By the end of the president’s term, assuming that he serves a full term, sixteen million will be born in the U.S., and 520 million globally. One lens to explore the impact of this administration is to consider what might happen to those children in that time frame. Here, my lens is domestic, to consider the impact of this administration on U.S. children.

In the United States, children of color are disproportionately affected by poverty, poor educational outcomes and structural discrimination. In Reimagining Equality: A New Deal for Children of Color, Nancy Dowd sets out to examine the roots of these inequalities and their implications for all children by tracing the life course of Black boys from birth to age 18. Drawing on interdisciplinary research, the book demonstrates that Black boys encounter challenges and barriers that funnel them toward failure rather than developmental success. Their example exposes a broader reality of hierarchies among children. Government policies, practices, structures and institutions are substantially responsible for generating those hierarchies. Dowd argues for a new legal model of developmental equality—ensuring that every child has an equal opportunity to reach their fullest potential—grounded in the real challenges that children currently face on the basis of race, gender, and class. Using that model, she offers strategies for change, including a groundbreaking proposal for a New Deal for Children to ensure equality for all children. In the introduction posted here Dowd outlines her core thesis and the framework of the volume.