I haven't seen the documentary yet, but a few years ago I saw an extensive interview with Billie Jean King (maybe on PBS?) And she felt the same way about the Bobby Riggs match - that beating an over-the-hill male player really didn't mean much in terms of tennis or women's equality. But once it became such a big deal in the press, she used it to publicize and promote women's tennis and women's sports in general. She could have used the event just for her own money and fame - instead she took this somewhat silly event and used it to help those who came after her.

I was one of those kids who didn't react the "normal" way to Benadryl: it made me hyper instead of sleepy. Even now in my 30's, cold medicines that are supposed to knock me out leave me wide awake instead. So if parents plan to try this, they should try it first at home - the last thing you want is a kid on a plane who's even more hyper than usual.

I'm sympathetic to parents with babies and young toddlers on planes. There's only so much you can do for a screaming two year old, no matter how good a parent you are. But I'm less sympathetic when it comes to older kids, because I see kids all the time who are rewarded for having tantrums. At the grocery store, I see the same parents all the time, and some of them repeatedly bride the kids with candy or toys when the child cries. Gee, do you think that kid might learn that screaming = toys? Cry loud enough and you'll get candy? I lived in Europe as a child, and I routinely took 13-14 hour plane rides when I was as young as 5 or 6. But because I wasn't allowed to run wild at home, I didn't run wild on the plane. It's not an inevitable result of flying with kids.

I'm not all that tolerant of kids who behave badly in public places. But at the same time, I hate to see the "solution" as discouraging all kids from traveling (or going to restaurants, or attending theatre, etc.) I grew up traveling - I went to the Louvre at age 8, and I remember it very well. (I only wish I could afford to go back as an adult.) But my parents required me to behave well, and I did. I hate to see the spoiled kids ruining it for the well behaved ones.

When I started out at my public high school, I was a sheltered kid, unsure of myself and painfully shy. When I left for college four years later, I was confident in my abilities and ready to conquer the world. I owe that change to a few teachers who took a special interest in me – a Latin teacher who created after school activities for the school misfits, a chemistry teacher who met with me before and after school when I was struggling and made me believe I could be a scientist, and a debate coach who got up at 5 am to drive us all over the state to attend tournaments. I guess many of these things would be forbidden under the new rules, and that’s a shame.

But a couple of years after I graduated, I heard that one of those teachers was in trouble. He’d had an affair with a 15 year old student, and lost his job. At first I thought it must be baseless, but evidently not. It was hard to think that the teacher who’d led me to greater heights was also the kind of person who could do this to one of his students. Whether it was consensual or not, it must have left her with permanent scars. I couldn’t help but think, that could have been me.

I agree with the author that the best teachers do more than just stand behind a desk and lecture. I learned as much out of the classroom as I did in it. But I can also see the potential for abuse. I don’t think the answer is to cut off teachers from out-of-class contact with students, but there has to be some middle ground.

One thing I've wondered, though. Sports coaches are hardly ever mentioned in articles about teacher abuse - and yet at my high school, they were the ones who spent the most time with students in a "personal" way. It wasn't uncommon for a coach to take a player aside for one-on-one coaching, or to drive a player to a game, etc. But that never seems to be the example that's given - it's always the English teacher who can't be trusted, not the football coach.

I think there's a lot of ambivalence about the visa issue. As a scientist, I'm very skeptical about the use of H1-B visas: I think they're pushing down salaries, increasing unemployment in the sciences and driving American students away from science careers. But at the same time, I work with a lot of foreign-born scientists who have overcome great obstacles to get where they are. Do I side with the collective good, or with the nice people who work with me?