February 17, 2003
On February 1, an accident on a British Columbia mountain took the lives of seven high school students. The seven, from Strathcona-Tweedsmuir School, a private institution located just outside of Calgary, were killed when they were caught in an avalanche while backcountry skiing. The accident occurred less than two weeks after a similar B.C. avalanche killed another seven skiers.
Although there were some calls for investigations as to why the students were on the mountain to begin with, there was virtually no criticism of either the parents or the school in allowing the kids to ski in what was obviously dangerous terrain as the previous accident so clearly illustrated. The fact that the lives of these children (and yes, despite the plethora of their early accomplishments, they were still children) were at risk was downplayed. Excuses and rationalizations abounded. The principal of the school justified the trip by saying that the students knew the risks and agreed to go anyway. And the risks were that there were avalanche warnings. Other people ran to defend the school’s popular outdoor program. Clichés such as "they died doing what they loved" could be heard. For all practical purposes, they were treated as adult adventurers. It didn’t seem to matter that they were all young people who died after conscious decisions were made by adults to allow them to go.
More comparisons were made between the kids and the space shuttle Columbia astronauts who died the same day, than were made with the previous skiers who lost their lives. It was as if the students were some adult pioneers, engaged in activities that had some societal benefit. Even accepting the fact that "outdoor education" provides benefits to those that can afford it, activities other than skiing down a mountain where dangers from avalanches were not unknown, could have been found.
Let’s change the facts around a little bit. Instead of kids from well-to-do homes headed by prominent business people and lawyers, let’s make them lower income teenagers from families headed by single parents who either have part time jobs or are on assistance. And instead of attending an expensive private school, these kids attend an inner city school with an un-hyphenated name. Instead of going backcountry skiing, these students go on a boat trip in a river in Northern Ontario. Fifteen students are on the boat when it capsizes drowning seven of them. The accident occurs where a similar occurrence happened the two weeks previously.
Would this scenario be treated in the same manner as the skiing accident? Not very likely. There would be no comparison with the crew of the Columbia. Much like the five persons who drowned in a Newfoundland boating accident two days after the last fatal ski trip, it would make the news for one day and then be relegated into history. Backcountry skiing for the elite is like a double latté from Starbucks; a bunch of lower income kids on a river is like a double double from Tim Horton’s. It lacks pizzazz.
If there were such an accident, there would be a huge outcry about it. Police investigations would be demanded to look into how adults, both parents and in schools, could allow seven children to risk their lives like that. Ontario Liberal Leader Dalton McGuinty, in between big gulps of Tropicana orange juice, would do what he does best--call for a public inquiry. Children’s aid societies would be called in to interview the parents about whether or not their surviving children should be taken into care. No one would speak up for keeping the river program. No one would compare to the kids to astronauts. And no one would mention how these children died doing what they loved to do.
The reason for this is that there is one law for the elite in our society and one for everyone else. Both the political elites and the elites in the media can identify with the kids that attend schools such as Strathcona-Tweedsmuir. It’s their kids. They can’t criticize the actions of the school or the actions of the parents without criticizing themselves.
In our well regulated nanny state, the elites believe that they alone, are entitled to make choices for themselves, even if those choices are dangerous.