,
6 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
I really love this story and glad it's being talked about, and I also kinda hate that an inspirational angle no less than winning a state chess championship--in the most competitive chess state in the country for kids--was needed to amplify this child being homeless.
I don't know the statistics on child homelessness (something that should be fairly easy to look up), but there's something that feels very off about the relationship here between extraordinary achievement by a child and an implied urgency in humanity for exceptional aptitude.
No child should have to be gifted for society to care about their stability, health, and potential. I know that's not what @NickKristof and others are doing and I greatly appreciate this story, but god, I don't know, these stories have a subtle, underlying disappointment there.
Like... if this kid hadn't won a state championship, would he have been given a home? Would people care as much? Would it be covered by NYT? Probably not, and that makes me incredibly sad. The dynamic here doesn't feel right.
Sorry to be a Debbie Downer because I am overjoyed for this child and glad child homelessness is being given a spotlight. I just think this is an opportunity to reflect a bit on the way we determine what's worthy of our attention.
Quick postscript: I was a competitive chess player as a kid. I won a state championship. It's really hard, as you'll imagine. A child can win every game, draw one, and lose the title. By half a point. Imagine one chess game being the difference between stability and the street.
