This story template gets old. Yes, life is tough as a kid with a poor single parent.
Blah, blah. A guy with no arms will have a tough time eating with chopsticks. Equally irrelevant.
Clearly performing a "risk assessment" for an experiment involving washing a toothbrush with lemon juice and vinegar is an incredibly ridiculous display of bureaucratic insanity. I wonder if you need to sign a liability waiver for eating French fries with ketchup? (it contains vinegar, and stains!)
The "privilege" narrative is overplayed to begin with, and in this context it is absurd next to the elephant in the room.
While I don't agree that "the 'privilege' narrative is overplayed," you're right to point out that this article started with the barrier of a form that then magically evaporated midway through the article. Presumably they signed it, otherwise the child wouldn't have been able to compete in the fair. So the argument of privilege kind of falls apart with respect to the form.
But the argument that the kids with the most connections to real labs and real scientists win, is pretty solid. That totally jives with my experience judging regional science fairs. The top kid in each division was inevitably a professor's kid that did the experiments in the university lab. (e.g. "I then used the gas chromatograph...")
Blah, blah. A guy with no arms will have a tough time eating with chopsticks. Equally irrelevant.
Clearly performing a "risk assessment" for an experiment involving washing a toothbrush with lemon juice and vinegar is an incredibly ridiculous display of bureaucratic insanity. I wonder if you need to sign a liability waiver for eating French fries with ketchup? (it contains vinegar, and stains!)
The "privilege" narrative is overplayed to begin with, and in this context it is absurd next to the elephant in the room.