Richman, Sheldon
Atlanta Inquirer
02-11-2006
If you believe that parents have a natural and constitutional right to
raise their children as they see fit, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals recently ruled against you.
The occasion was not a case of child abuse or neglect. Quite the contrary,
it was a case of parents objecting to a school's asking their 7- to
10-year-old children about sex.
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 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.' This should have been a tip-off to
parents.
The letter made no reference to the sexual content of the survey, which
asked children how often they engaged in, for example, 'Touching my private
parts too much,' 'Thinking about touching other people's private parts,'
and 'Thinking about sex when I don't want to.'
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. The
plaintiffs have not decided whether to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Two issues deserve attention: (1) Judge Stephen Reinhardt'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 the judge ruled that the school district has the legitimate
authority to look after not only the education, but also the mental health,
of children.
Imagine a Wal-Mart customer demanding, as a matter of right, that the store
manager carry certain items and not others. We understand that a customer's
right consists in patronizing or not patronizing the store. If he enters,
he takes the store as he finds it. If he dislikes the store, he can go
elsewhere.
Judge Reinhardt believes that, in educating their children, parents are in
the same position as the Wal-Mart customer. He writes, 'Once parents make
the choice as to which school their children will attend, their fundamental
right to control the education of their children is, at the least,
substantially diminished. The constitution does not vest parents with the
authority to interfere with a public school's decision as to how it will
provide information to its students or what information it will provide, in
its classrooms or otherwise.'
This reasoning is plausible - except for one large detail. Even if parents
choose private education, they have to pay school taxes. The choice is
rigged. That's unjust.
Parens patriae, or 'father of the country,' is the doctrine that the state
is the ultimate guardian of children. Judge Reinhardt wrote, 'The
questioning can also be justified on the basis of an alternative state
interest - namely, parens patriae... The School District's interest in the
mental health of its students falls well within the state's authority as
parens patriae. As such, the School District may legitimately play a role
in the care and nurture of children entrusted to them for schooling.'
In fact, parens patriae is one of those high-sounding slogans (the Latin
helps) that comes down to this: the state is more powerful than anyone with
the audacity to disagree. Did you consent to parens patriae? If not, by
what authority does it apply to your children?
Judge Reinhardt's presumptuous ruling embodies Senator Hillary Clinton's
favorite quotation, 'There's no such thing as other people's children.' Any
self-respecting parent rejects that philosophy root and branch.
Article copyright The Atlanta Inquirer.
V.45;
Atlanta Inquirer
02-11-2006
If you believe that parents have a natural and constitutional right to
raise their children as they see fit, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals recently ruled against you.
The occasion was not a case of child abuse or neglect. Quite the contrary,
it was a case of parents objecting to a school's asking their 7- to
10-year-old children about sex.
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 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.' This should have been a tip-off to
parents.
The letter made no reference to the sexual content of the survey, which
asked children how often they engaged in, for example, 'Touching my private
parts too much,' 'Thinking about touching other people's private parts,'
and 'Thinking about sex when I don't want to.'
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. The
plaintiffs have not decided whether to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Two issues deserve attention: (1) Judge Stephen Reinhardt'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 the judge ruled that the school district has the legitimate
authority to look after not only the education, but also the mental health,
of children.
Imagine a Wal-Mart customer demanding, as a matter of right, that the store
manager carry certain items and not others. We understand that a customer's
right consists in patronizing or not patronizing the store. If he enters,
he takes the store as he finds it. If he dislikes the store, he can go
elsewhere.
Judge Reinhardt believes that, in educating their children, parents are in
the same position as the Wal-Mart customer. He writes, 'Once parents make
the choice as to which school their children will attend, their fundamental
right to control the education of their children is, at the least,
substantially diminished. The constitution does not vest parents with the
authority to interfere with a public school's decision as to how it will
provide information to its students or what information it will provide, in
its classrooms or otherwise.'
This reasoning is plausible - except for one large detail. Even if parents
choose private education, they have to pay school taxes. The choice is
rigged. That's unjust.
Parens patriae, or 'father of the country,' is the doctrine that the state
is the ultimate guardian of children. Judge Reinhardt wrote, 'The
questioning can also be justified on the basis of an alternative state
interest - namely, parens patriae... The School District's interest in the
mental health of its students falls well within the state's authority as
parens patriae. As such, the School District may legitimately play a role
in the care and nurture of children entrusted to them for schooling.'
In fact, parens patriae is one of those high-sounding slogans (the Latin
helps) that comes down to this: the state is more powerful than anyone with
the audacity to disagree. Did you consent to parens patriae? If not, by
what authority does it apply to your children?
Judge Reinhardt's presumptuous ruling embodies Senator Hillary Clinton's
favorite quotation, 'There's no such thing as other people's children.' Any
self-respecting parent rejects that philosophy root and branch.
Article copyright The Atlanta Inquirer.
V.45;
