Spunky Homeschool

Parental Rights

Apr. 25, 2006 at 10:40 AM

Homeschooling

Michael Farris wrote a very thought provoking article in the March / April issue of the HSLDA Court Reporter. He believes that the time is right for an amendment to the US Constiution to preserve the right of the parent to direct the upbringing and education of their children. In the article, Mr. Farris gives a brief history of parental rights protection. He then asserts, based on recent Supreme Court decisions, that judicial support for parental rights is thin. That fact coupled with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, could spell trouble down the road for the American family.

The threats to parental rights are real and growing. And we must face the fact that the right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is not explicitly written in the text of the Constitution. If we wish to preserve this right, it is my contention that now is the time to put parents' rights into black and white - that is, to adopt an explicit constitutional amendment. If we wait until the threat fully matures, we will have waited too long.
Have we come to the place in our country where this is now necessary? In the past, the law and its writers recognized the unalienable right and responsibility of the parent. In 1841, Francis Wayland President of Brown University, authored The Elements of Moral Science. This book became a standard university textbook. He wrote

While [a parent] discharges his parental duties within these limits, he is, by the law of God, exempt from interference both from the individual and from society.
I wonder how many universities still teach from this text. I bet not many.

Mr. Farris's idea definitely merits strong consideration. The struggle between the rights of the parent and the rights of the state are only going to get more intense.

I would be interested in knowing the exact wording of before I could fully support the idea. I hope that it would state that it was an unalienable right and not just a fundamental right of the parent. A fundamental right would mean that the state and its courts could weigh a competing claim in the care or education of a child. Thus, a fundmanental right would be much more limiting that an unalienable right.

I'm also curious, if such an ammendment were successful, would it nullify compulsory attendance laws as well? That would seem to be the logical outcome of such an ammendment if it were framed as an unalienable right of the parent to direct the upbringing and education of their children free from societal interference. If that's the case, we should all be supporting this.

In any case, read Mr. Farris's whole article. I'd love to know what others think about the ideas he presents. Would you support a move toward a Constitutional ammendment to protect the rights of the parent?

This is a lot to think about. But I definitely agree with Mr. Farris that we need to be proactive in our thinking on these issues. The best defense is a good offense.

(Note: Some information for this post and the quote from Francis Wayland were taken from the book Real Choice Real Freedom in American Education by Kerry Morgan and used with permission.)

Thanks to Jacque Dixon for pointing me to the HSLDA article.

Related Tags: , , , , , , ,

9 Comments and Trackbacks

posted by jacobsacademy on Apr. 25, 2006 at 11:41 AM

The lines of authority become blurrier each year and our governing authorities have no conscience over when to blurry them - even when it is "they" who drop the ball in so many numerous cases when they should have intervened in true abuse and neglect cases. The problem is all too obvious that they (the government authorities) seem to have an autonomous use (more often abuse of...) of authority to pick and choose where they want and I agree - overall parental rights are in their high beams.

Still - in a recent homeschooling seminar when the history of homeschooling in our state of Georgia was reviewed in brief - there were cases cited nationwide where judges ruled against the state and in favor of parental rights superceding those of the State.......albeit, one case was in 1923 "Myer vs. Nebraska" and another in 1925 "Pierce vs. Society of Sisters" - this ruling noted, "The child is not a mere creature of the State." Maybe we need to have this case printed on tee shirts and posters, huh? That was then - it is 2006 now......

We live in confusing and challenging times - the confused being those in government positions of authority(?)......hee hee - but in a time when legislation is being passed for everything - perhaps, sadly, we/parents must recognize that we do indeed need our rights in written word and is no laughing matter.


Thanks for the post and information,
Harriette Jacobs

posted by homeiscool on Apr. 25, 2006 at 12:06 PM

I agree--a preemptive strike is necessary. This issue is too important to let go by the wayside and wait around until we sign that treaty. I just finished reading about the hysteria over TOS visiting the UK, and I can just imagine the political climate here if that kind of thing took hold. A great many homeschoolers would be instant criminals in the eyes of the 'law'.

This article reminded me: many years ago, there was an e-mail from a lawyer making the rounds in AZ, stating that the marriage license we sign makes the 'products' of our marriages property of the state. Of course, it's not a very big step to interpret that the product of a marriage is children. I'd like to try and find this again, it was a very lengthy article, and from what I remember, had a lot of good information. I think this man was just a little before his time.

posted by pianosteve on Apr. 25, 2006 at 12:51 PM

I agree with you that the wording would need to be examined, but if the HSLDA is writing the draft of the amendment, I think it will at least start out in the right direction. What happens to it once it reaches committee in the federal legislature is a completely different question, though. We should probably anticipate that there will be attempts to either bury it or soften it so as to take the very teeth out of it.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Spunky. I had no knowledge about this, and the article you linked to was very helpful in getting an awareness of the situation.

steve :)

posted by Lynda on Apr. 25, 2006 at 4:35 PM

I'll have to take the opposite position that Steve takes, if HSLDA is the one writing the amendment then I would be very, very leary!

First, they will be defining who and what constitutes a parent, not something I want them doing.

Second, their whole history is about children being possessions, not individuals with rights of their own.

Third, I really don't want anyone who supports folks such as the Pearls, Ezzo and Gothard having a say over anything parental!

Somewhere there has to be a middle ground between the UN Rights of the Child and the theocratic, religious right fanatics. If someone comes up with something that hits that middle ground, I'll be for it but not until.

posted by on Apr. 25, 2006 at 5:28 PM

Steve, keep in mind that HSLDA is proposing an ammendment to the Constitution which is different than just a law.

Lynda, I hear your caution and I am sympathetic to some of your argument. It is definitely something to be cautious about. That's why I said I'd want to see the wording. But the idea of being proactive in this is important. Homeschooling is illegal in many countries. And with the emerging "international law" and UN treaties this could be a problem when our children attempt to homeschool. Laying a foundation for the continued freedom to homeschool is something for all of us to concern ourselves with.

Edited by spunkyhomeschool on Apr. 25, 2006 at 2:29 PM

posted by pianosteve on Apr. 25, 2006 at 10:33 PM

People had recommended to us that we join the HSLDA as we embark on our homsechooling journey, so is there something I should know about them to make that decision more intelligently? I was suprised at the response above.

And Spunky, I understood it was an amendment to the Constitution. That was the point of the article you linked to. But doesn't it still have to go through the congressional process before being presented to the states for ratification? Or am I fuzzy on the process? I just wasn't sure I understood why you thought I needed clarification on that. :)

steve :)

posted by spunkyhomeschool on Apr. 26, 2006 at 11:09 AM

Steve, I was fairly certain you understood you knew that it was an ammendment. But when you didn't mention it going to the states, or the need for 2/3 vote in Congress I just wanted to make sure. I also commented for the benefit of others who may have just skimmed the post and then went on to read the comments. I just wanted to make sure readers knew what was being proposed.

As for HSLDA, we are not members. We have never been. HSLDA has excellent men in leadership. I have the utmost respect for Scott Somerville one of their attorneys. However, there are some things as an organization that go beyond just the defense of homeschool families that they represent that are bothersome to me and others. The formulation of Patrick Henry College is one area that has been troubling. I posted this question once before on my blog. Unfortunately, all the comments were accidentally deleted.

As a defense of the homeschool family they are outstanding. As a politcal action group they have their opinions and are right to express them. However, often the two are mixed together. I would rather see two separate organizations. One for the defense of the homeschool families. A second for political action. It seems a lot cleaner. That way I know my membership is being used in the way in which I intended it.

I'll have to write more about this when I have time. If others would like to jump in feel free.

posted by homeiscool on Apr. 26, 2006 at 12:07 PM

I received this article today about adopted children and how they are best reared in an intact family with a married mother and father. A thought came into my head: The UN treaty is so big on the phrase "in the best interest of the child", I wonder if they would agree that adopted children having a married mother and father is in the best interest of the child. Of course I answered myself, probably not. How sad.

You can view this article at: http://www.azpolicy.org/html/currentcitizen.html

Lisa

posted by pianosteve on Apr. 26, 2006 at 2:02 PM

Spunky, thank you SO much for your thoughts on the HSLDA. Obviously, we hadn't heard these other viewpoints yet, and I'm glad you said something before we got too far. We'll definitely have to do some research and make a more informed decision. I'm glad I read this! :)

steve :)

Post a comment!