yes. But it is obviously not enough. How do we know? Because there simply are not enough young people in the country.

From the cited article: According to the waiver, which was obtained by Reason,…..

If you are going to use a document as a source, link to the document so the rest of the world can see it.

I would argrue that, as a society, we should be willing to have our children get injured. That is what happens when they take chances. We should mitigate the risk as it applies to parents of young children, who may be in the worst position of all to absorb the cost.

I hear conservatives bemoan the fact that Americans are having too few children and that is why we are in the ‘unfortunate’ position of needing more immigrants. That sounds like a societal problem. Perhaps if we made having children less costly, people would have more. We subsidize companies for capital investments, we can do the same for families. IMHO, it’s all about the incentives.

And what pray tell will happen if some prankster swaps one of the eggs for the Holy Hand-grenade of Antioch?

That creature is always a risk when you’re poaching Easter eggs, both literally and figuratively.

Although I am unfamiliar with UC Berkeley’s experience, I suspect your explanation is correct– parents behaving badly Lenore Skenazy posts occasional stories like that, as another example of “helicopter parenting” out of control.

Rather than merely protecting themselves, UC Berkeley might try to clean things up a little by adding the following paragraph to the consent agreement:

“I accept that this event may be under video surveillance, and that children– and especially parents– behaving in an aggressive or unsportsmanlike manner can have their actions posted on the Internet for identification, public shaming, and in serious cases prosecution.

The agreement might contain a short preamble explaining why it is necessary.