QUESTION 1.
Youth are often marginalized in society due to assumptions about their lack of knowledge and experience. However, young people also wield significant social influence and purchasing power.
On the one hand, youth are frequently dismissed as naive or uninformed on serious topics, leading to exclusion from crucial policy and social debates that impact them. There tends to be an attitude that young persons cannot contribute meaningfully or lack awareness of consequences (MacArthur Foundation, 2022). Socially, youth get stereotyped as irresponsible risk-takers and labeled as apathetic or self-interested. Economically, young people face disproportionate unemployment rates and dependence on family support structures well into adulthood.
However, despite marginalization, youth simultaneously hold power via their massive digital presence and significance as trendsetters. Over 93% of Gen Zers are digital natives, giving them amplified voices online (Parker & Igielnik, 2022). Given their digital interconnectedness and innovation, youth drive mainstream culture—from slang to fashion to social movements. With an estimated buying power of $360 billion annually in the U.S. alone, brands compete intensely for youth loyalty and input (Silverman, 2022). So, while young people contend with harmful assumptions, they also significantly shape broader culture and economics. Ultimately, dismissing youth deprives society of their considerable contributions.
QUESTION 2.
Intersectionality significantly impacts youth organizers, as young people with multiple marginalized identities face compounding barriers to advocacy but also bring valuable perspectives. Young organizers of color must contend with racial stereotypes that label their passions as aggressive or threaten adultism biases against their competence. Black youth activists risk being perceived as violent or angry when leading protests (Umemoto, 2021). Young women trying to pioneer movements also battle sexism, reducing their voice and agency. Economic disadvantages make activism more challenging for working-class youth lacking resources or access to closed-door policy talks. LGBTQ+ organizers face homophobia/transphobia, undermining their efforts from both conservative opponents and occasionally even allied progressive groups.
However, intersectional youth organizers leverage their unique standpoints to elevate overlooked issues. Young Black femmes draw on embodied knowledge of oppression to lead passionate calls for police reform. Indigenous youth weave cultural traditions into climate activism to emphasize humanity’s ecology interconnectedness (Wildcat et al., 2021). Undocumented youth organizers fuse art and storytelling to campaign for migrant justice. Ultimately, while facing multiple barriers, intersectional youth organizers introduce creativity and build solidarity across diverse marginalized experiences. Their leadership voices urgently need amplification to promote equity.
QUESTION 3.
There are several effective techniques to strengthen the collective power of diverse youth groups united behind shared goals. Facilitating personal storytelling and cross-identity dialogues spotlights common marginalization, building empathy. Co-creating respectful discussion ground rules allows for processing disagreements without derailing the mission (Warren & Lessner, 2021). Identifying collaborative projects supporting distinct struggles demonstrates interconnectedness, like trans and youth of color jointly leading an anti-police in-schools campaign.
Structuring peer mentorship workshops for teaching tailored advocacy approaches leverages unique perspectives as youth leadership best practices advocate (National et al., 2019). Finally, amplifying culturally relevant activist role models provides empowering representation to fuel self-belief. In essence, the most critical techniques fully harness the strategic power within youth diversity itself, fostering solidarity across differences to enable meaningful and sustainable social change efforts.
QUESTION 4.
Practitioners can attend to their privilege and hold empowering spaces for youth in some fundamental ways. First is acknowledging that any intergenerational collaboration begins in a span of inequality, with adults granted default authority while youth experience marginalization of their perspectives. Directly discussing this power imbalance and the greater equality necessary for successful partnerships is essential.
Additionally, it creates opportunities for youth to lead, allowing them to direct meetings or campaigns while adults step back from traditional roles. This reinforces youth voice and strength, breaking down tokenism (Cushing et al., 2019).
Practitioners should provide mentorship skillfully, not prescriptively, by offering resources for youth to amplify their creativity without imposing definitions of what their work should entail. Ensuring openness to youth shaping the partnership is critical (Sanders, 2017). By mitigating adultism, providing meaningful direction to youth as partners, and rooting efforts in true youth empowerment, practitioners can create liberating spaces for marginalized young people.
QUESTION 5.
Practitioners have several key ethical responsibilities towards youth organizers. First, they must safeguard fundamental welfare—physical, emotional, and communal—since activism often demands bravery and sacrifice (Delgado, 2016). This includes facilitating psychological support to prevent burnout and working to mitigate community backlash risks.
Second, thoughtfully preparing youth for potential fallout by assisting in planning to weigh the pros/cons of strategies and considering broader impacts. Building peer support systems also creates crucial resilience.
Finally, specific protocols to protect uniquely marginalized youth are imperative. For immigrant organizers, vigilance around legal status exposure and interactions with authorities is paramount (Galindo, 2012). Tailored privacy strategies for queer, trans, or system-involved youth are also essential, given that activism revelations may spark guardianship/familial conflicts.
Youth organizers place immense trust in—and face heightened jeopardy from—partnerships with practitioners. Upholding that ethical covenant demands diligence across needs provision, risk mitigation, and safeguarding measures for society’s most courageous voices.
QUESTION 6.
We can attend to ethical duties and risks in youth organizing while embracing self-determination through open communication and flexible support. Practitioners must have candid dialogues about potential consequences, providing realistic assessments but not directives (Delgado, 2011). It means outlining tangible worries around physical safety, legal status, educational disruption, or family conflict that may occur while confirming that the choice ultimately lies with each youth organizer about their preferred level of visibility or confrontation in activism.
Additionally, meeting self-determination needs requires adapting guidance to each youth’s evolving sense of what their liberation necessitates (i.e., supporting escalation for some and less vocal roles for others). Rather than strangers mandating blanket protection rules, practitioners should offer toolkits for assessing when risks feel necessary or untenable (Christens & Kirshner, 2011).
This empowers youth organizers to weigh options tailored to their marginalized realities and make informed decisions about pathways forward. Embracing self-rule does not absolve ethical obligations around care but reframe adult partners as resources to collaborate with, not decide for, courageous young leaders at the frontlines of justice.
REFERENCES
Christens, B. D., & Kirshner, B. (2011). Taking Stock of Youth Organizing: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2011(134), 27–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.309
Cushing, D. F., Cleveland, R., & van Veen, D. (2019). The positive development of solidarity through youth organizing. Journal of Adolescent Research, 34(1), 99–128.
Delgado, M. (2016). Urban youth and photovoice: Visual ethnography in action (Vol. 14). Oxford University Press.
Galindo, R. (2012). Undocumented & unafraid: The DREAM Act 5 and the public disclosure of undocumented status as a political act. Urban Review: Issues and Ideas in Public Education, 44(5), 589–611.
Kwon, S. A. (2006). Youth of color organizing for juvenile justice. In Youth activism: An international encyclopedia, pp. 634–638. Greenwood Press.
MacArthur Foundation (2022). Building momentum for youth political participation. https://www.macfound.org/press/article/building-momentum-youth-political-participation
National Youth Leadership Council (2019). Intersectionality: What it means to youth organizing. https://www.nylc.org/blog/intersectionality-what-it-means-to-youth-organizing
Parker, K., & Igielnik, R. (2022). How does Gen Z compare with prior generations at the same age on 15 key measures? Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2022/05/25/how-gen-z-compares-with-prior-generations-at-the-same-age-on-15-key-measures/
Sanders, J. (2017). How can the practice of youth development benefit from an intersectionality framework? Strategic Practice Series on Youth-Adult Partnerships. Innovations In Evaluation. https://www.innonet.org/resources/how-can-the-practice-of-youth-development-benefit-from-an-intersectionality-framework
Silverman, R. E. (2022). The report says that Gen Z wields nearly $360 billion in buying power. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/gen-z-set-to-wield-buying-power-of-nearly-360-billion-report-says-11666706201
Umemoto, K. (2021). “Crazy-ass Asians” and model minorities: Intersections in the experiences of Asian American and Pacific Islander youth organizers. Race Ethnicity and Education, 24(1), 89–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2019.1679752
Warren, M. R., & Lessner, S. J. (2021). “We make space for each other”: How youth organizers generate and sustain youth–adult partnerships. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 30(1), 87–127.
Wildcat, M., McDonald, M., Irlbacher-Fox, S., & Coulthard, G. (2021). Indigenous youth engagement and leadership on climate justice: the NDN Youth Delegates carry sacred responsibilities. Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie, 58(3), 404-425.