The now famous California appeals court ruling has given many people the opportunity to ask a lot of offensive questions about parents and their ability to educate their children. Thomas D. Elias, a syndicated columnist certainly asked a lot of questions in his recent column.
His column starts off bad by accusing people of having a “knee-jerk” reaction to the ruling but it really runs off the tracks with this paragraph which follows quotes from the governor and other sources about the right of parents to direct their children’s education:
But pause for a moment and substitute the word “nourishment” for “education” in all this. Do parents have the right to provide as much or as little nourishment for their children as they like? If they don’t provide adequate nourishment, don’t they at some point become guilty of child abuse?
Who is claiming that, Mr. Elias? No one is saying parents have a right to abuse their children and no one is advocating that. It is insulting that you presume parents guilty in this way.
He goes on:
These questions lead to another: What about the rights of children to a quality education? Sure, many of the approximately 175,000 home-schooled California kids do get quality instruction from their parents. But what about children whose parents speak little English? What about those whose parents have less than a high school education of their own? How can they possibly be getting quality education in these circumstances?
Couldn’t all the same questions be asked about the California public schools? Why are parents the ones who are suspect but the state isn’t?
This line of thinking really goes to the heart of the question about parental rights. There are two legal doctrines at debate here: Read the rest of this entry »
Here is a good overview with background and details on the California case. It is written by Chris Banescu and published on the Acton Institute’s website. Here is an excerpt:
The totalitarian impulses of the court were further evidenced by the arguments it used to justify its decision: “A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare.” As someone who has lived and suffered under a communist regime (I grew up in Romania), the “good citizenship,” “patriotism,” and “loyalty to the state” justifications have struck a little too close to home. These were precisely the kinds of arguments the communist party used to broaden the power of the state, increase the leadership’s iron grip on the people, and justify just about every conceivable violation of human rights, restrictions on individual liberties, and abuses perpetrated by government officials.
Less than two weeks ago, a California appeals court declared in In Re Rachel L. that the vast majority of parents in California may only choose between public and private school because they are unqualified to teach their children. Tens of thousands of children in California are currently homeschooled, but this fact was unconvincing for these three judges, who boldly proclaimed that “parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children,” unless they are certified by the state to teach.
In so ruling, the court declined to follow the Supreme Court’s 1972 decision in Wisconsin v. Yoder and its 2000 ruling in Troxel v. Granville, relying instead upon two antiquated lower-court decisions. The California court refused to recognize parental rights as fundamental rights (even though the Supreme Court did in Troxel), opting instead for the more lenient, pro-government standard of “reasonableness.” According to the court, homeschooling could not be a legitimate educational option because it would place “an unreasonable burden on the state to have to supervise each and every home in which a child was being educated.”
How do you like that? Read the rest of this entry »
You can read his column here on the recent California decision.
My favorite part of his column:
As our Founding Fathers swore to uphold these, so must we. Thomas Jefferson committed, “I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” I know others would join me in rightly assuming that in our day “every” form of tyranny could also include publicly forced educational indoctrination. Friends, while you keep one eye on our national borders, you might keep the other on your state’s. If academic corruption is easily conceived in California, how long will it take to crawl to your state line?
My warning to such creeping companies of corruption is this: Best not to test Texas. If you thought we fought hard for the Alamo, wait until you see what we can do for academia. You can hide your sleaze behind No. 2 pencils, but our branding irons will find your tail sides.
That is what a California court recently said. Regrettably the Supreme Court of the United States might agree with that view. If the fundamental parental right was enumerated in the Constitution through a Parental Rights Amendment, we would not have rulings like this California case.
Sign the petition today and get your friends involved. We can’t wait until it is too late.
Two weeks ago, I had an opportunity to speak with Dr. James Dobson about the threat that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child poses to parental rights, particularly the right of parents to direct the education of their children. In retrospect, these warnings almost appear to have been prophetic. Read the rest of this entry »
