ViRedd
New Member
Who Made the State the Ultimate Parent?
[FONT=Arial,Geneva,sans-serif]by [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Geneva,sans-serif]Sheldon Richman[/FONT], [FONT=Arial,Geneva,sans-serif]Posted May 8, 2006[/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]When an opponent declares, “I will not come over to your side,” I calmly say, “Your child belongs to us already.”[/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]If you believe that parents have a fundamental, natural right (recognized in the Constitution) to raise their children as they see fit, a federal appellate judge recently issued a reminder of just how wrong you are. After reading his lengthy recitation of all the ways the government may legally override parents’ supposed rights, one is impressed by how empty of meaning the concept right now is. A “right” that is subject to unending grounds for state interference is a logical absurdity. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]The occasion for U.S. Ninth Circuit Appellate Judge Stephen Reinhardt’s stern reminder was not a case involving child abuse or neglect. Quite the contrary, it was a case of parents objecting to a school’s asking, without express consent, their 7- to 10-year-old children questions about sex. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]In 2001 the Palmdale School District, in Los Angeles County, California, had a graduate student in psychology design a survey for children in the first, third, and fifth grades. In a notice to parents, the district said the 79-question survey was intended to “establish a community baseline measure of children’s exposure to early trauma (for example, violence)” and to “identify internal behaviors such as anxiety and depression and external behaviors such as aggression and verbal abuse.” The notice told the parents that they could opt out of the survey and included a letter of consent, which stated, “I understand answering questions may make my child feel uncomfortable. If this occurs, then, Kristi Seymour, the research study coordinator, will assist us in locating a therapist for further psychological help if necessary.” (Note the presumptuousness!) [/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]The letter made no reference to the sexual content of the survey. Only “violence” was specified as a subject of questioning. Parents did not learn the actual nature of the survey until their children told them after the fact. Questions alluded to suicide, wanting to harm others, and bad dreams, but 10 were sexually explicit. Children were asked to rate, from “never” to “almost all the time,” such things as “Touching my private parts too much,” “Thinking about touching other people’s private parts,” and “Thinking about sex when I don’t want to.” [/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]After filing an unsuccessful complaint with the school district, several parents went into federal court for an injunction and damages, charging that the school violated their rights to privacy and “to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex.” The district and appellate courts rejected those claims. At this writing, the plaintiffs have not decided whether to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]In this article I will avoid the federalism issue, that is, whether the Tenth or Fourteenth Amendment governs. Some libertarians will applaud the 3-0 ruling on the grounds that the federal courts have no business interfering with local school districts or state laws. (Some will applaud it because more parents will become alienated from the government’s schools.) I ignore the issue because Judge Reinhardt’s opinion gives us much to critique, and I would hate to pass up the opportunity. Suffice it to say that the judge did not side with the school district on Tenth Amendment grounds. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]Two issues above all deserve attention: (1) the judge’s claim that parents’ freedom regarding education is limited to choosing the schools to which they send their children; and (2) the doctrine of parens patriae, under which Judge Reinhardt ruled that the school district has the legitimate authority to look after not only the education of children, but also their mental health. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Geneva,sans-serif]by [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Geneva,sans-serif]Sheldon Richman[/FONT], [FONT=Arial,Geneva,sans-serif]Posted May 8, 2006[/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]When an opponent declares, “I will not come over to your side,” I calmly say, “Your child belongs to us already.”[/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]— Adolf Hitler [November 6, 1933] [/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]If you believe that parents have a fundamental, natural right (recognized in the Constitution) to raise their children as they see fit, a federal appellate judge recently issued a reminder of just how wrong you are. After reading his lengthy recitation of all the ways the government may legally override parents’ supposed rights, one is impressed by how empty of meaning the concept right now is. A “right” that is subject to unending grounds for state interference is a logical absurdity. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]The occasion for U.S. Ninth Circuit Appellate Judge Stephen Reinhardt’s stern reminder was not a case involving child abuse or neglect. Quite the contrary, it was a case of parents objecting to a school’s asking, without express consent, their 7- to 10-year-old children questions about sex. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]In 2001 the Palmdale School District, in Los Angeles County, California, had a graduate student in psychology design a survey for children in the first, third, and fifth grades. In a notice to parents, the district said the 79-question survey was intended to “establish a community baseline measure of children’s exposure to early trauma (for example, violence)” and to “identify internal behaviors such as anxiety and depression and external behaviors such as aggression and verbal abuse.” The notice told the parents that they could opt out of the survey and included a letter of consent, which stated, “I understand answering questions may make my child feel uncomfortable. If this occurs, then, Kristi Seymour, the research study coordinator, will assist us in locating a therapist for further psychological help if necessary.” (Note the presumptuousness!) [/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]The letter made no reference to the sexual content of the survey. Only “violence” was specified as a subject of questioning. Parents did not learn the actual nature of the survey until their children told them after the fact. Questions alluded to suicide, wanting to harm others, and bad dreams, but 10 were sexually explicit. Children were asked to rate, from “never” to “almost all the time,” such things as “Touching my private parts too much,” “Thinking about touching other people’s private parts,” and “Thinking about sex when I don’t want to.” [/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]After filing an unsuccessful complaint with the school district, several parents went into federal court for an injunction and damages, charging that the school violated their rights to privacy and “to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex.” The district and appellate courts rejected those claims. At this writing, the plaintiffs have not decided whether to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]In this article I will avoid the federalism issue, that is, whether the Tenth or Fourteenth Amendment governs. Some libertarians will applaud the 3-0 ruling on the grounds that the federal courts have no business interfering with local school districts or state laws. (Some will applaud it because more parents will become alienated from the government’s schools.) I ignore the issue because Judge Reinhardt’s opinion gives us much to critique, and I would hate to pass up the opportunity. Suffice it to say that the judge did not side with the school district on Tenth Amendment grounds. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]Two issues above all deserve attention: (1) the judge’s claim that parents’ freedom regarding education is limited to choosing the schools to which they send their children; and (2) the doctrine of parens patriae, under which Judge Reinhardt ruled that the school district has the legitimate authority to look after not only the education of children, but also their mental health. [/FONT]