Last Monday, an opinion piece in the Herald by Cruz Ramirez openly criticized the Chinese form of parenting. The issue – the pros and cons of the American way of parenting compared to the Chinese way – has recently generated a buzz thanks to Yale Law School professor Amy Chua and her book, “Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother,” an essay excerpt of which was published in the Wall Street Journal.

What the comparison ultimately comes down to is whether to stress hard work and go as far as micromanaging a child’s life or to give more freedom and leave it to the child whether to put in the effort. Clearly, there is a spectrum that spans across the two extremes, yet it is also true that significantly different sides exist under which the Chinese and American parenting style can be classified.

Having been raised in a parenting style that would be classified as ‘Chinese’ myself, I find Ramirez’s characterization of it to be unfair. He claims, for instance, that Chinese parenting sacrifices the “individualism and creativity” which has made America great. Throughout his piece, Ramirez continues to promote those two words – individualism and creativity- yet, is it true that individualism made America what it is today? Is it true that Americans are more creative than others?

While I do not want to make arguments from personal experiences, I think it can serve to illustrate how individualism – the freedom of the individual, if that is what he meant – might not be as exemplary as Ramirez makes it for children. As a child, or even a teenager, my natural tendency would be to spend all my time playing video games and ignoring homework – I wouldn’t even care if I went on to fail tests and exams.

The only reason I prevailed through school was because of my mother pushing, forcing and nagging at me to work hard. Now that I look back, though, I regret no moment of it: I appreciate even those hour-long lectures on why I was a terrible child for failing the math test that no one else passed.

I would like to note, though, that I am in no way disregarding the importance of freedom. I completely agree that the breach of human rights in totalitarian governments is outrageous and under no circumstances acceptable. Nonetheless, parenting is not a perfectly appropriate analogy to governance for one simple fact: kids will be kids.

The reason there is such a practice as an age of consent is because children are not fully capable of making their own decisions. Instead, it is the parents who are legally expected – even in America – to make decisions for their children on more serious matters.

As my mother often says, a parent cannot allow a child to play with a knife, even if it cries and yells for it, because the parent is responsible for protecting his or her child from harm. In the same way, parents who give children the freedom to fail under the excuse of individualism are abdicating responsibility.

Sure, there should be some room for freedoms, like the choices of whether to play the piano or the trumpet, whether to study in the afternoon or at night, but not whether to read comic books all day or whether to drop out of high school.

Calling out Chinese parents for being ‘communist’ or ‘iron-fisted’, then, is inaccurate, especially since what those parents want is really the best for their own children. Instead of insisting that the American way is always the best way, we should stop treating ‘America’ as a sacred word and realize that, like any other nation, we have our strengths and weaknesses.

And if ‘American values’ in parenting involve letting children fall short of the best of their potential – to only regret it later in life –  we really need to rethink whether it is really worth preserving that value.

Albert Budhipramono ([email protected]) is a freshman majoring in biology.