When
Hillary Clinton proclaimed
that it takes a village to
raise a child, many people
didn't realize that she was
enunciating liberal dogma
that the government should
raise and control children.
This concept fell on fertile
soil when it reached activist
judges eager to be anointed
as elders of the child-raising
village.
The U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit ruled on November
2, 2005 that parents' fundamental
right to control the upbringing
of their children "does
not extend beyond the threshold
of the school door,"
and that a public school has
the right to provide its students
with "whatever information
it wishes to provide, sexual
or otherwise."
Instead
of using the "village"
metaphor, the judges substituted
a Latin phrase that has the
same effect. Parens patriae
(the country as parent) was
a legal concept used long
ago by the English monarchy,
but it never caught on in
the United States and the
few mentions of it in U.S.
cases are not relevant to
this decision.
The Ninth
Circuit case, Fields v. Palmdale
School District, was brought
by parents who discovered
that their seven- to ten-year-old
children had been required
to fill out a 79-question
nosy questionnaire about such
matters as "thinking
about having sex," "thinking
about touching other people's
private parts," and "wanting
to kill myself." The
decision claimed that the
purpose of the psychological
sex survey was "to improve
students' ability to learn."
That doesn't pass the laugh
test.
The parents
were shocked and looked to
the court for a remedy. No
such luck. The three-judge
Ninth Circuit panel unanimously
ruled against the parents.
One judge had been appointed
by Jimmy Carter, one by Bill
Clinton, and one by Lyndon
B. Johnson. We live in times
when judges (especially on
the Left Coast) seize opportunities
to create new law and new
government powers even if
they have to hide behind a
Latin phrase of bygone years
unknown to Americans.
The Ninth
Circuit decision stated that
"there is no fundamental
right of parents to be the
exclusive provider of information
regarding sexual matters to
their children" and that
"parents have no due
process or privacy right to
override the determinations
of public schools as to the
information to which their
children will be exposed."
The school
had sent out a parental-consent
letter, but it failed to reveal
the intrusive questions about
sex. The letter merely mentioned
concerns about violence and
verbal abuse, adding that
if the child felt uncomfortable,
the school would provide "a
therapist for further psychological
help." That should have
been a warning, but many parents
don't realize that the schools
have an agenda unrelated to
reading, writing and 'rithmetic.
Anticipating the new push
to subject all schoolchildren
to mental health screening,
the decision gratuitously
stated that the school's power
extends to "protecting
the mental health of children."
The court
didn't bother to defend the
nosy questionnaire itself,
and said that public school
authority is not limited to
curriculum. The court made
no mention of the need for
informed parental consent
or a right to opt out of an
activity the parents deem
morally objectionable.
The Ninth
Circuit agreed with the lower
court's broad ruling that
the fundamental right to direct
the upbringing and education
of one's children does not
encompass the right "to
control the upbringing of
their children by introducing
them to matters of and relating
to sex in accordance with
their personal and religious
values and beliefs."
How did
the Ninth Circuit circumvent
"the fundamental right
of parents to make decisions
concerning the care, custody,
and control of their children,"
which has been U.S. settled
law for decades? The court
referred to this as the Meyer-Pierce
right because it was first
explicitly enunciated in two
famous Supreme Court cases
of the 1920s, Meyer v. Nebraska
and Pierce v. Society of Sisters,
and was reaffirmed as recently
as 2000 in Troxel v. Granville.
The Ninth
Circuit court said that since
the government has put limits
on parents' rights by requiring
school attendance, therefore,
the school can tell the students
whatever it wants about sex,
guns, the military, gay marriage,
and the origins of life. The
judges emphasized that once
children are put in a public
school, the parents' "fundamental
right to control the education
of their children is, at the
least, substantially diminished."
How did
the court feel empowered to
put new limits on the settled
law of Meyer-Pierce and give
public schools the power to
override parents on teaching
about sex? Simple. The three
liberal judges based their
decision on "our evolving
understanding of the nature
of our Constitution."
Liberal
judges have no shame in proclaiming
their belief that our written
Constitution is "evolving."
In this case, the judges bragged
that the Constitution has
evolved to create the right
to abortion, and then ruled
that the evolving Constitution
takes sex education away from
parents and puts it "within
the state's authority as parens
patriae."
Judges
Protect Mental Screening
The Ninth Circuit decision
proclaiming that parents'
rights over the education
of their children terminate
at "the threshold of
the school door" has
understandably stirred up
a tremendous backlash. But
in asserting the public schools'
right to overrule parents,
the decision in Fields v.
Palmdale School District is
much broader than the matter
of a nosy questionnaire interrogating
elementary schoolchildren
about their assumed sexual
activities.
The decision
appears to be inventing a
judicial argument for the
new federally proposed mental
health screening of all schoolchildren.
In dicta wholly unnecessary
to the decision, Judge Stephen
Reinhardt casually asserted
that the school's power extends
to "protecting the mental
health of children."
The school
had sent a letter to parents
stating that if a child felt
uncomfortable about answering
nosy questions, the school
would assist in "locating
a therapist for further psychological
help." First-, third-
and fifth-grade children would
be provided with therapists
to enable them to cope with
a classroom activity.
An activist
court has thus brought out
in the open a trend that started
years ago. When Samuel Hayakawa
was a U.S. Senator urging
passage of the Protection
of Pupil Rights Amendment
in 1978, he predicted that
the schools were succumbing
to "a heresy that rejects
the idea of education as the
acquisition of knowledge and
skills . . . [and] regards
the fundamental task in education
as therapy."
One of
President George W. Bush's
first initiatives was to create
the New Freedom Commission
on Mental Health. The Commission
issued its report in 2003
and some of its recommendations
are now being implemented
by SAMHSA (Substance Abuse
& Mental Health Services
Administration).
SAMHSA
proudly asserts that its goal
is a "fundamental transformation"
of the mental health system.
SAMHSA says that "the
word transformation was chosen
carefully" because it
empowers new federal action
in "policy, funding,
and practice, as well as for
attitudes and beliefs."
The federally
funded activities announced
on SAMHSA's website are awesomely
comprehensive and expensive.
SAMHSA is planning "a
national effort focused on
the mental health needs of
children and early intervention
for children identified to
be at risk for mental disorders."
Ask yourself:
How are these federal bureaucrats
going to "identify"
children at risk, and where
will "early intervention"
take place? The original report
of the New Freedom Commission
was blunt in stating that
the plan is to make the public
schools "partners,"
and conduct "routine
and comprehensive" mental
health examinations linked
with "state-of-the-art
treatments" using "specific
medications."
As a result
of grassroots opposition,
SAMHSA now denies that the
plan is universal or mandatory,
but it's difficult to see
how else they can achieve
their national goal of "transformation."
TeenScreen
is a program developed by
Columbia University to screen
young people for mental illness
because the United States
is alleged to be suffering
a "crisis in child and
adolescent mental health."
The TeenScreen program brags
that it is recognized by the
President's New Freedom Commission
on Mental Health as a model
program and has been used
in 43 states (but SAMHSA does
not mention it).
In a Mishawaka,
Indiana high school, 15-year-old
Chelsea Rhoades was given
a TeenScreen exam, after which
she was told she was suffering
from obsessive-compulsive
disorder and social anxiety
disorder. This was based on
her responses that she liked
to help clean the house and
she didn't like to "party"
very much. Chelsea was told
that if her condition grew
worse, her mother should bring
her to the Madison Center
for treatment.
Chelsea's
parents are suing the school,
and we hope they don't end
up in the court of a judge
like Stephen Reinhardt. According
to Chelsea, a majority of
the students who took the
TeenScreen exam were told
they suffered from some sort
of mental or social disorder.
A study
by Harvard University and
the National Institute of
Mental Health released in
August 2005 claims that 46%
of all Americans will, at
some point in their lives,
develop a mental disorder.
Such an extraordinary statement
by so-called experts indicates
that mental diagnoses are
unscientific, and the people
pushing screening of all schoolchildren
are, well, probably crazy
- or are shilling for the
manufacturers of the psychotropic
drugs that will be prescribed
for kids who flunk mental-health
screening.
The Protection
of Pupil Rights Amendment,
which was reaffirmed in the
No Child Left Behind Act,
prohibits schools from interrogating
students about "mental
or psychological problems"
without prior informed written
parental consent. The Department
of Education has sent a letter
to every school superintendent
setting forth the school's
obligations.
Congress
should make compliance with
the law about parents' rights
a condition of federal funding
to schools just like other
civil rights requirements.
House Judiciary Committee
Chairman James Sensenbrenner
(R-WI) emphatically stated,
"It is not, and should
not be, the role of government
to subject children to arbitrary
mental health screenings without
the consent of their parents."
Right on, Rep. Sensenbrenner!
Ninth
Circuit Federal Judge Stephen
Reinhardt, who wrote the opinion
in Fields v. Palmdale asserting
that parents have no rights
in public schools, was appointed
by Jimmy Carter in 1980 and
is probably the most supremacist
judge in America. This is
only the latest example of
his sweeping liberal decisions.
In Silveira v. Lockyer (2002),
Reinhardt's 70-page opinion
discussed the Second Amendment
at length and asserted that
there is no individual right
to keep and bear arms, citing
with approval the bogus research
of Michael Bellesiles. (A
few weeks later, Reinhardt
issued an amended opinion
omitting the references to
Bellesiles.)
Reinhardt
is married to Ramona Ripston,
who has been executive director
of the ACLU of Southern California
since 1972, was a cofounder
of NARAL in 1969, a leader
in People for the American
Way, and a longtime political
associate and appointee of
Los Angeles Mayor Villaraigosa.
Ripston was responsible for
forcing Los Angeles County
to remove the tiny cross from
its seal, and she led the
initial court victory attempting
to stop the 2003 recall of
Governor Gray Davis based
on a phony argument about
voting machines (which the
full Ninth Circuit reversed).
Ripston is Reinhardt's third
wife and he is her fifth husband.
PPRA
Can Stop School Mischief
The Protection of Pupil Rights
Amendment (PPRA) (20 U.S.C.
1232h; regulations: 34
CFR Part 98), passed in 1978,
states that schools may not
interrogate students about
"political affiliations
or beliefs of the student
or the student's parent; mental
or psychological problems
of the student or the student's
family; sex behavior or attitudes;
illegal, anti-social, self-incriminating,
or demeaning behavior; critical
appraisals of other individuals
. . .; religious practices,
affiliations, or beliefs of
the student or student's parent;
. . ." without prior
informed written parental
consent.
The public
school system and the National
Education Association have
bitterly - and in most cases
effectively — fought enforcement
of this law.
Eagle
Forum has always been a leader
in the passage, the writing
of regulations, and the attempted
enforcement of this important
law. PPRA was the subject
of Phyllis Schlafly's best-selling
book
Child Abuse in the Classroom
(1984), and is a major motivation
for Eagle Forum's
Education Reporter (subtitled
"the newspaper of education
rights"), published monthly
since 1987.
Enforcement
of PPRA was strengthened in
the No Child Left Behind Act
passed in 2002, and the Department
of Education's Family Policy
Compliance Office sent notice
to this effect to all school
superintendents. The challenge
is to require schools to obey
the law.
The
'Village' Is Taking Over
The right of parents to authority
and autonomy in the rearing
of their children has always
enjoyed consensus in the United
States. This principle — that
"parents have a fundamental
constitutional right to rear
their children, including
the right to determine who
shall educate and socialize
them" — was unanimously
reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme
Court in 2000 in Troxel v.
Granville.
Over the
past 30 years, there has been
a steady erosion of this fundamental
right by liberals who believe
that various so-called experts
are better able to make decisions
about children than mere parents.
These experts can be teachers,
school counselors, pediatricians,
psychiatrists, social workers,
custody evaluators, or judges.
This denial of the fundamental
role of parents is illustrated
by the slogan "it takes
a village to raise a child."
Public
schools have been taking over
many responsibilities traditionally
in the domain of parents such
as providing meals, health
care, and pre-kindergarten
services. Public schools notoriously
assert their right to override
parental decisions about the
assignment of books that parents
find immoral or profane, the
use of privacy-invading questionnaires,
the teaching of sex and evolution,
the provision of contraceptives
and abortion referrals, the
use of school counselors,
and demands that children
be injected with vaccines
or put on psychotropic drugs.
This widespread
campaign to give the "village"
(speaking through the public
schools or the family courts)
— instead of parents — the
authority to make major decisions
about the care, upbringing
and education of children
is taking place despite the
fact that no scientific basis
exists for "village"
methodologies, for the tests
used, or for the recommendations
and decisions made. There
is no agreement among professionals
on how to conduct a proper
examination, what standards
to use if any, or what should
go into any assessment. The
reports are not scientific
findings but expressions of
personal preference. Often
the practices are wrapped
in the expression "the
best interest of the child,"
but the use of people other
than parents to determine
the best interest of a child
cannot be justified by science,
law, morality, or common sense.
The erosion
and denial of parents' rights
by the public schools is similar
to what has been happening
in family courts, i.e., the
use of persons other than
parents to make major decisions
about the care and upbringing
of children. Court-appointed
evaluators purport to judge
parents' parenting capacity
and determine custody. Scientific
American Mind
(October 2005, p.65-67)
published a paper by psychologists
Robert E. Emery, Randy K.
Otto and William O'Donohue,
entitled "Custody Disputed,"
which states: "Our own
thorough evaluation of tests
that purport to pick the 'best
parent,' the 'best interests
of the child' or the 'best
custody arrangement' reveals
that they are wholly inadequate.
No studies examining their
effectiveness have ever been
published in a peer-reviewed
journal. . . . Court tests
that expert evaluators use
to gauge the supposed best
interests of a child should
be abandoned. . . . We believe
it is legally, morally and
scientifically wrong to make
custody evaluators de facto
decision makers, which they
often are because judges typically
accept an evaluator's recommendation.
. . . Parents - not judges
or mental health professionals
— are the best experts on
their own children. We are
simply urging the same rigor
that is applied to expert
testimony in all other legal
proceedings."
'Village'
Impudence in Massachusetts
David Parker of Lexington,
Massachusetts was arrested
on April 27, 2005 after insisting
to school officials that under
Massachusetts state law he
had a right to be notified
in advance about the human
sexuality curriculum, and
to have an opportunity to
opt out his kindergarten son
from any discussion of homosexuality.
He refused to leave the school
meeting without assurance
that his request would be
honored.
The school
retaliated by having Parker
arrested for criminal trespassing.
He was handcuffed, jailed
overnight, and banned from
school property. He steadfastly
maintained that he had committed
no crime. The Parker case
caused a great local uproar.
David
Parker objected to the book
called Who's In a Family?,
which his kindergarten son
brought home from school in
a "Diversity Book Bag."
The book by Robert Skutch
illustrates same-sex couples
and contains descriptions
about them, such as "Robin's
family is made up of her dad
Clifford, her dad's partner
Henry, and Robin's cat Sassy."
It is listed on the book list
published by the Gay Lesbian
and Straight Education Network.
The school
superintendent ordered all
teachers not to notify parents
in advance when discussing
homosexuality because they
are just teaching about diversity,
citizenship and tolerance,
and he said, "Parents
can't pick and choose what
they want their kids to study."
Most parents consider this
attitude an arrogant intrusion
into the privacy of family
values and parental rights.
Although
the Massachusetts district
attorney announced on October
20 that David Parker would
not now be prosecuted for
criminal trespassing, he remains
under pretrial probation for
a year and is forbidden to
go on school property. The
school still maintains its
right to teach students whatever
the school wants and without
parental consent.
Congress
Starts to Hear from Parents
On November 16, 2005, the
House by 320-91 passed House
Resolution 547 introduced
by Rep. Tim Murphy (R-PA).
The resolution doesn't do
anything, but it does indicate
that Congressmen are starting
to understand that we cannot
live under the unconstitutional
notion that whatever some
judge rules is "the law
of the land." The lengthy
resolution states in part:
. . . the United
States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit deplorably
infringed on parental rights
in Fields v. Palmdale School
District. . . .
Whereas
in Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)
the Supreme Court recognized
that the liberty guaranteed
by the 14th amendment to
the Constitution encompasses
"the power of parents
to control the education
of their [children]";
Whereas
the Supreme Court in Pierce
v. Society of Sisters (1925)
. . . emphasized that "[t]he
child is not the mere creature
of the state; those who
nurture him and direct his
destiny have the right,
coupled with the high duty,
to recognize and prepare
him for additional obligations";
Whereas
in Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)
the Supreme Court acknowledged
that "This primary
role of the parents in the
upbringing of their children
is now established beyond
debate as an enduring American
tradition. . . . The duty
to prepare the child for
'additional obligations',
referred to by the Court
[in Pierce] must be read
to include the inculcation
of moral standards, religious
beliefs, and elements of
good citizenship";
Whereas
a plurality of the Supreme
Court has stated, "it
cannot now be doubted that
the Due Process Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment
protects the fundamental
right of parents to make
decisions concerning the
care, custody, and control
of their children"
(Troxel v. Granville, 2000).
Whereas
the rights of parents ought
to be strengthened whenever
possible as they are the
cornerstone of American
society: Now, therefore,
be it
Resolved,
That it is the sense of
the House of Representatives
that — the fundamental right
of parents to direct the
education of their children
is firmly grounded in the
Nation's Constitution and
traditions . . .
|