Judge rules public schools have right to teach charges whatever they deem appropriate

[Snowden]

Judge rules public schools have right to teach charges whatever they deem appropriate — parents and morality be damned
By Jeff Jacoby

Whatever else might be said about it, US District Judge Mark Wolf's decision in Parker v. Hurley is a model of clear English prose.

"The constitutional right of parents to raise their children does not include the right to restrict what a public school may teach their children," Wolf unambiguously wrote in dismissing a suit by two Lexington, Mass. couples who objected to lessons the local elementary school was teaching their children. "Under the Constitution public schools are entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy."

Entitled to teach anything. That means, the judge ruled, that parents have no authority to veto elements of a public-school curriculum they dislike. They have no right to be notified before those elements are presented in class. And the Constitution does not entitle them to opt their children out of such classes when the subject comes up.

As Wolf's straightforward language makes plain, it doesn't much matter what that subject might be. The parents in the Lexington case objected to "diversity" instruction that presented same-sex marriage and homosexual attraction as unobjectionable. That message, the judge noted, contradicted the parents' "sincerely held religious beliefs that homosexuality is immoral and that marriage is necessarily . . . between a man and a woman."

But suppose instead that the facts had been reversed, with parents who passionately support same-sex marriage filing suit because the school kept emphasizing the traditional definition of wedlock — a definition democratically reaffirmed in many state constitutional amendments and statutes in recent years. As Wolf applied the law, the result would have been the same: The complaint would have been dismissed, and the school would have prevailed. Read again the judge's words: "The constitutional right of parents to raise their children does not include the right to restrict what a public school may teach their children."

Similarly, the school would have prevailed if this had been a case about guns, with parents objecting to a curriculum that emphasized the importance of the Second Amendment and armed self-defense. Or a case about evolution, with parents outraged because their children were being taught that Darwinism and intelligent design were equally legitimate approaches to an ongoing debate. Or a case about race, with plaintiffs suing because their kids were learning that affirmative action amounts to reverse racism.

Parker v. Hurley, in other words, was not just a victory for gay-marriage advocates or a defeat for Judeo-Christian traditionalists. It was a reminder that on many of the most controversial subjects of the day, public schools do not speak for the whole community.

When school systems deal with issues of sexuality, religion, politics, or the family, there is always an overriding agenda — the agenda of whichever side has greater political clout. Parents who don't like the values being forced down students' throats have two options. One is to educate their children privately. The other is to find enough allies to force their own values down students' throats. In Judge Wolf's more genteel formulation: "Plaintiffs may attempt to persuade others to join them in electing a Lexington School Committee that will implement a curriculum . . . more compatible with their beliefs."

Once Americans may have agreed on what children should be taught, but that day is long gone. On any number of fundamental issues, parents today are sharply divided, and there is no way a government-run, one-curriculum-fits-all education system can satisfy all sides. The only way to end the political battles over schooling is to depoliticize the schools. And the only way to do that is to separate school and state.

Parents should have the same freedom in educating their kids that they have in clothing, housing, and feeding them. You wouldn't let the government decide what time your kids should go to bed, or which doctor should treat their chicken pox, or how they should spend their summer vacation, or which religion they should be instructed in. On matters serious and not so serious, parents are entrusted with their children's well-being. Why should schooling be an exception?

Get government out of the business of running schools, and a range of alternatives will emerge. Freedom, innovation, and competition will do for education what they do for so much else in American life: increase choices, lower costs, improve performance — and eliminate conflict. So long as education is controlled by the state, the battles and bad blood will continue. With more liberty will come more tolerance — and more resources spent on learning than on litigation.

Jeff Jacoby

[herbstin]

I may not be a professional Constitutional scholar, but I'm rather familiar with that august document. I glanced back through it after reading this article, and for the life of me I can not find any reference in the Constitution to schools or raising of children.
The only thing I can think of is that this judge is quoting from the 'constitution of the unelected power-hungry demigods who know best for everyone' and not the Constitution of the United States. In which case, I'm sure he's right, because that constitution is a 'living document' that is always changing daily, and that such wise and important personage as his odor, er, I mean hotair, er, I mean honor (GAG) could never be in error.

[Caldric]

I never heard of public schools in the Constitution either.

Perhaps he is reading one I never seen. But most likely he is using some broad interpretation of the document.

[Woodmonkey]

Rulings can be appealed and I think this one will be. Also, there are school boards that can have pressure put on them by parents. The schools are not little fiefdoms.

[Manchu34]

You're right there's nothing in the constitution that talks about school no less what is to be taught. However, there is nothing in the constitution that says parents can dictate what will be taught in school either.

From what I've been able to read about this case, though he wrongly used the constitution as his basis, he was in my opinion basically correct. The part that deals with who can or can not dictate what will be taught in school.

While parents should have a right to assist in what should be taught in schools. They should not be the sole ones making that decision. Just like there should be an oversight group that should also be setting what should be taught.

One thing that I see that could happen if parents are have the sole right to determine what will be taught in school. In some areas of the states, in this case here in the Bible Belt; the main topic would be out of the Christian Bible. Other parts of the states would be teaching racism. Other areas, would limit true education.

Let's not forget when a family moves into your town. Will they get to dictate what will be taught in your schools? Should a Buddist family have the right to decide that Budism be taught in the school? What about a family that is against math or science should they have the right to have those topics dropped because of their objections?

We all need to remember that America is made up of many different kind of people. There are Christians, Jews, Buddists, Wiccas, atheists, white, black, native americans, asians, etc. So, when courses are decided for schools, it should be done in a non-biased method and not by a select group of individuals.

[Caldric]

It is basically social engineering though. Right or wrong that is what is being debated and litigated in court. I think one could make the argument that with religion being banned in schools so should be the social indoctrination according to the "few". Rather or not anyone has the balls to do that is another story.

[herbstin]

Originally Posted by Manchu34

You're right there's nothing in the constitution that talks about school no less what is to be taught. However, there is nothing in the constitution that says parents can dictate what will be taught in school either.



From what I've been able to read about this case, though he wrongly used the constitution as his basis, he was in my opinion basically correct. The part that deals with who can or can not dictate what will be taught in school.

While parents should have a right to assist in what should be taught in schools. They should not be the sole ones making that decision. Just like there should be an oversight group that should also be setting what should be taught.



One thing that I see that could happen if parents are have the sole right to determine what will be taught in school. In some areas of the states, in this case here in the Bible Belt; the main topic would be out of the Christian Bible. Other parts of the states would be teaching racism. Other areas, would limit true education.



Let's not forget when a family moves into your town. Will they get to dictate what will be taught in your schools? Should a Buddist family have the right to decide that Budism be taught in the school? What about a family that is against math or science should they have the right to have those topics dropped because of their objections?

We all need to remember that America is made up of many different kind of people. There are Christians, Jews, Buddists, Wiccas, atheists, white, black, native americans, asians, etc. So, when courses are decided for schools, it should be done in a non-biased method and not by a select group of individuals.

A) There is nothing in the constitution that says parents can dictate what will be taught in school at's right, because it doesn't address schooling!

B) "Just like there should be an oversight group that should also be setting what should be taught." (Like the NEA, perhaps? The folks who endorse outcome based education? Or like the California School Board and it's great "Ebonics" language plan?)

C) What's 'true education'?

Unfortunately, our public school curiculums ARE being dictated by a select group of individuals: the NEA. As a nation, we have allowed these unelected people to dictate what will be taught in our schools. Federal, State and local gov'ts simply go along with whatever the NEA decides. Only in a few areas do parents and local officials challenge the NEA edicts and establish their own curiculums, although still confined by existing laws from higher authorities. Only through the courts does anyone have a chance to actually make a change, and sometimes it comes out for the worse, as in this case. If we truly want to regain control of our public school systems, then we as a nation must divest the NEA of it's power, disband the teacher's unions, establish a national minimum curiculum that is not subject to change without the consent of the majority and ENFORCE THE STANDARDS!!!!!!