Quote:
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.
Taxation without representation! The parents sure do have a say. It's their tax money that's funding the schools and it's their children who are being educated there. And the Constitution does not give any judge the right to say what a school can teach. That is left to "We the People." But then who cares what the Constitution says: NOT any Federal Judge that I have read about lately.
There's so much wrong with his ruling that it would take pages to refute it.
Gah. I've been thinking about becoming a Mathematics teacher, and the state of the public school system (higher grades but lower scores? And it's happening at the same time a student's "self-esteem" is more important than getting a good education? No kidding!) is making me wonder if I know what I'm getting into.
Anyone's thoughts on public school are welcome...not just America's system...or do you think private school/charter school/home school could work better?
And what reforms do you think are needed in the public school system?
There's always what this couple did.
Honestly, though, my big problem are standardized tests based on OBE principles, which have really hampered education. Not only does this force teachers to narrow what they teach to specifics that might or might not be on a test that determines your future, but also, it narrows what can be done with what is taught (as the whole point is to pass the test), which in turn can cause students to tune out if they are not given any choice of what they wish to do. Depending your entire school career and future on several tests does not allow for a student to define their own strengths, as instead, they have to cater to a status quo.
And then people wonder why "No Child Left Behind" doesn't work properly.
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
Wow, I wanna send a trophy the size of manhattan to that judge. I always thought the judicial system was full of crazy right wing religious dingbats.
I guess there are always the few exceptions that prove the rule. Down here at least parents are to stupid to give kids the freedom they need to decide. You can ignore a teacher saying something, you cannot ignore an overbearing bible thumping soccer mom quite so easily.
Thanks for the AWESOME news Ultra. 😉
~Tobe
Quote:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
Show me where that is in the Constitution, and then we'll talk.
Right after you show me where is says "Brown people suck". I'd ask about about gays but Bush pretty much crayoned that one in there.
~Tobe
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
First Amendment, from the Bill of Rights, which are Amendments to the Constitution - but nevertheless part of the Constitution.
Whicvh Constitution have you been reading? o_O
The parents could always like, ask the teacher what's about to be taught. I'm pretty sure teachers don't have the right to refuse to inform parents, and anyway, at least here we always know what the next subject is.
Right, and to address the other paw on this it's not like one crazy teacher is going to ruin a kid anyway. Unless your kid is stupid. Mind you I was pretty shy and impressionable and my 3 crazy religious teachers and that one guy obesessed with the JFK/Lincoln "conspiracy" didn't affect me much.
I know there's going to be someone harping on me about, "What are you going to say when a situation where a non-traditionalist family facing a religious teacher pops up." The answer? Read back through marble garden and MFC, I know it's already happened SEVERAL times, and not just to me and mine but in "the news" as well.
~Tobe
My lit teacher believes in the 9/11 Conspiracy. He has taught several students after class about the "proof" of it (Which is something my father informs me is against some kind of ethical code, as abuse of a position of authority or something). I've seen multiple students totally believing it.
Teachers, especially in elementary- and middle-school levels, but even in High School and college, can have a lasting impact in the way a child thinks. Sure, students that already KNOW about something aren't going to be affected by some idiot telling people Bush flew planes into the towers, but that dooesn't change the fact that I myslef have seen him convince multiple students on proof that is "damn stupid" at best and "horribly shameful" at worse. Yeah, if I were a parent, I'd want to draw the line somewhere too. There's a difference between reading, writing, and 'rithmatic, and political opinion and personal thought.
I think Ultra was being too literal. It doesn't acutally contain the words "Separation of Church and State," it does say Cooki's quote. "Separation of Church and State" was coined by Thomas Jefferson. and James Madison.
"Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
That refers to the establishment of a government-mandated religion (a la the Church of England, which prompted a great many people to leave for the New World, IYR). The whole 'Separation of Church and State' only ocurred in a letter by Thomas Jefferson. Those words cannot be found ANYWHERE in the Constitution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" means that Congress is prohibited from establishing a national religious denomination, that Congress cannot require that all Americans become Catholics, Anglicans, or members of any other denomination. Only a lawyer could interpret it any differently.
Does this mean we're to totally ignore the moral values that influenced the men behind the Constitution's creation? No. Why do you think they'd constantly reference a Creator in the founding documents?
Mandating that Catholicism or Protestantism be the country's official religion is one thing. Completely removing any and all reference to such things from public and civil life is another thing entirely.
There's a difference between reading, writing, and 'rithmatic, and political opinion and personal thought.
Ah yes, God forbid those poor children be exposed to political and/or religious beliefs that differ in the slightest from those of their parents. That can only lead to disaster, as those kids might use their brains for something other than rote memorization and spelling quizzes... or worse, critical and abstract thought. They might even begin to question their parents' idiodic dogma!
If you somehow missed the rest of that, I said that students, especially younger students, usually don't see fact from opinion when it comes to politics. Thus, if a teacher was so inclined, they could persuade students for or against a political topic. I know, because I've seen teachers do that. What right does a Literature teacher have to tell students they're right or wrong, or even openly harass students, based on political opinions? Where in all of applicable US law does it say a teacher has the right to tell children that their parents are wrong and they are not in a field of complete opinion?
Note, this does exclude classes where opinion discussion is EXPECTED, like Current Issues, Political Theory, whatever.
If you somehow missed the rest of that, I said that students, especially younger students, usually don't see fact from opinion when it comes to politics. Thus, if a teacher was so inclined, they could persuade students for or against a political topic.
So? I fail to see how this is illegal, let alone a bad thing. This is not harmful to children. If anything, this is in fact beneficial because it might cause them to think about the world differently, perhaps introduce them to the concept of opinion versus fact. And this is all assuming that any efforts by adults, prior to or during the age of puberty, to make a kid believe something would actually matter in the long run, which they probably won't.
What right does a Literature teacher have to tell students they're right or wrong, or even openly harass students, based on political opinions? Where in all of applicable US law does it say a teacher has the right to tell children that their parents are wrong and they are not in a field of complete opinion?
Ummm...
...the First Amendment gives the right for a teacher to discriminate against certain students based on their political views?
And yeah, actually, a lot of people learn most everything they know about living before puberty. That's why we educate children at all. That's why people call them "Life Lessons"
Most any adult I've spoken to on the matter can still remember things taught to them in second, third, fourth, fifth grade. Things that made them who they are today.
So yeah, it does kinda matter.
...the First Amendment gives the right for a teacher to discriminate against certain students based on their political views?
Now hold it right there. One minute you're talking about teachers who "tell students they're right or wrong, or even openly harass students, based on political opinions". Now you're talking about teachers who "discriminate against certain students based on their political views". So what exactly are we arguing about here, teachers who say things or teachers who discriminate? Because I'm pretty sure that there First Amendment gives them the right to say anything they want.
harrassment based on race, age, sex, political views, etc, is considered discrimination. mostly because the definition of the word involves things liek, y'know, singling something or someone out because of a particular trait or quality (In this case, the fact that I don't think the government did 9/11).
And who was it that said "Your rights end when they infringe upon the rights of others?" what about Lincoln's fire-in-a-theater arguement? I have the right to have a fair and impartial education as much as he has the right to tell me about the "truth" of 9/11.
Webster's dictionary: Discriminate: "to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit"
harrassment based on race, age, sex, political views, etc, is considered discrimination.
By you, maybe. But then, you're the one with the persecution complex.
And who was it that said "Your rights end when they infringe upon the rights of others?"
Whoever it was, this is exactly the kind of situation they were talking about, and I'm afraid they weren't siding with you.
what about Lincoln's fire-in-a-theater arguement?
Although I do find the thought of a bunch of sheltered kids fleeing in panic after being taught about homos quite humorous, I fail to see how the fire-in-a-theater argument applies in this situation.
I have the right to have a fair and impartial education as much as he has the right to tell me about the "truth" of 9/11.
What the hell is a "fair and impartial education"? And once you're finished explaining that, please kindly tell the court what law gives you a "right" to a "fair and impartial education", and how this "right" trumps your teacher's freedom of speech.
Personally, I think sheltering kids from other people's political or religious beliefs is not just a bad idea, it's child abuse. They grow up with a distorted view of how the world works and how other people think. With no concept of opinion or nuance, they wind up with severely underdeveloped critical thinking skills. And the worst part is, eventually they're going to grow up, get some friends, discover the Internet, or find some other way of being exposed to impure thoughts, whether you like it or not. And then all that work you put into programming your child will have been pointless.
<i>But then, you're the one with the persecution complex.</i>
I am? o.o
As for the next two, you've just totally astounded me with your ability to totally miss the point.
Well, same with the last one, but freedom of speach doesn't equal freedom to openly harrass students, and even clearly state that said students will be graded more unforgivingly than others. You tell me why a teacher has the right to tell a student he is more likely to recieve a failing grade in Literature because the student does not agree with a teacher's [incorrect] political views?
Everything Ultra said because I'd rather not quote everything he says and make this post uber-long
The problem is that the gay issue has become, more or less, a religious issue, since marriage itself has been taken to be by anti-gay marriage advocates to be a religious issue alongside a moral issue as well. That's why it is a question of separation of church and state issue, Ultra. The parents were introducting religion into what is supposed to be, by theory, an institution apart from religion and free from religious discrimination - that place being a public-government-funded school.
Obviously, religious schools operate somewhat differently, but in some cases (particularly in SBE-crazy areas, like my state), not by much.
Such schools, Cooki, are different, as they aren't state-run, theyre private institutions. As far as such things go, they can teach pretty much what they want.
Well, same with the last one, but freedom of speach doesn't equal freedom to openly harrass students, and even clearly state that said students will be graded more unforgivingly than others. You tell me why a teacher has the right to tell a student he is more likely to recieve a failing grade in Literature because the student does not agree with a teacher's [incorrect] political views?
I'm not defending any such person. What you're talking about is discrimination, I'm talking about speech. I'm defending the right of teachers to make their political views known in the classroom without fear of prosecution, legal action, loss of job security, or pretty much anything else.
I'm also still waiting to hear what a "fair and impartial education" is.
I'm not defending any such person. What you're talking about is discrimination, I'm talking about speech. I'm defending the right of teachers to make their political views known in the classroom without fear of prosecution, legal action, loss of job security, or pretty much anything else.
There is a difference between making one's views known and harrassing students for differences in the views during class. There is a difference between harrassment (which is against the law) and free speech. I have the right to go to a classroom and not worry if I'm going to be harrassed, targetted, or "pretty much anything else" because of MY political views.
And as for your waiting, use a dictionary on "Fair" and "Impartial," and "Education." They aren't hard words, c'mon now.
Person 1: What is a hot dog?
Person 2: Look up 'hot' and 'dog' in the dictionary, it's not that hard.
I fail to see what's unclear in what I said. Additionally, Hot dog is in the dictionary. At least, I saw it in one once.
Hmm, I actually agree with Ultra's first post. His antidisestablishmentarianism is, of course, offensive to my opinions. Students should have the option of opting out of any particular class if they don't want a certain subject. I had such an experience and I think it's something they should be able to do with parental permission. However, I don't think parents should be able to opt students out unless the students agree. It has to be a mutual decision (so that the opt-outs don't turn ridiculous on either side). This is a freedom issue and without the ability to opt-out a school becomes an involuntary programming center.
Cycle makes a good point that opting out is probably not as good as just exposing the student to diverse views, however. I think that, if schools start teaching crazy crap, I'd just inform the student of opposing views so that they can easily discover which opinion is more valid.
But you have to consider that grades may be affected by rebellion against the teacher's position. Opting out isn't just a principle in such a case, but a practical tool. Imagine if, for example, a student is failed for blaming socioeconomic factors for the civil war, instead of saying that Lincoln was a great guy and the Yankees made a huge sacrifice to free the slaves. You'd probably want some parental control in such a case yourself.
I opted out of a sex ed class. My parents had paranoia, probably from hearing stories of horrific things in such classes. I saw a choice between "Ew, oh yeah and I gotta do that egg crap?" and "cool hour off school in study hall." This may have been a psychological and social error, but then, maybe I'm stronger for it now due to not socializing with those of lesser intelligence (this was a school for the 98th percentile, but, you know, they weren't me LOL)? How can I say?
On the other side of it, my grades in (private) high school were abysmal thanks to utterly stupid and unyieldingly opinionated teachers and subjects like Bible topics and history of early man (creation). The private school had considerably less accountability and options for parents, and I wouldn't want public schools to be the same way.
Who should decide then? Teachers or Parents? I'm not seeing a clear answer here at all. It seems like the best answer is go with Teachers deciding and giving the students the right to opt out.
Parents can force their kids to do things, I've seen that in first and third person. This is another one of the tricky issues, personally I believe that kids are people and can make their own decisions. They'll make some wrong ones, but it's better they do it earlier than later. People are more forgiving when a eight year old says he hates school and wants to quit, then decides to come back. Than they are when an eighTEEN year old does the same.
"Imagine if, for example, a student is failed for blaming socioeconomic factors for the civil war, instead of saying that Lincoln was a great guy and the Yankees made a huge sacrifice to free the slaves."
Here's where one of my crazy beliefs comes in. I have issues with people getting rather jealous that kids try to stick to me even when I dislike them to all ends. But I hold the belief that I should give everyone 5 minutes. If they haven't made an argument by then I can go back to being bias. This is true of everyone, even religious people, even kids.
The problem you stated, Vec, could be solved as easily as the school counselor or principal hearing the kid out and not assumed he/she's trying to dodge responsibility.
I have an example of people assuming kid's are trying to get outta stuff. I know a lot of people (or so Acrio says) hate my stories but you're going to get one anyway. The other night I'm over watching TV at my cousin's as my satelitte is out. I realized that instead of bugging me to my last nerve as per usual, one of the kids (Sparky) was half asleep and curled up by me, at 4pm. And you can only assume that when a nine year old is asleep doing prime cartoon/play outside time something is off.
His dad is a friend of mine, wanders past and I wave him down and point at the rugrat. His reply of yelping for the kid to "goto bed if you're tried and quit putting off homework" rather irritated me as I would of asked why he was sleeping anyway. The answer came really quick when he tried to get up brushed his head against my arm and burned the crap outta it.
Took me TELLING the guy to take HIS kid's temperature to get him to see the kid was sick with a 102 degree temp. He'd probably been that way for days (Since I'm only over there once or twice a week) but everyone assumed that since he's a kid he was just trying to get out of responsibility. Much like the school staff does in situations like Vector described. Five minutes of listening could have resolved Sparky's situation. Five minutes could resolve your situation, Vec.
It's not that parents shouldn't be involved, they should, but not to the degree that religious beliefs are taught in school. It's not that teachers should teach anything they want, they need ground rules to stick to whats known and whats not (conspiracies and invisible deities for example). It's more that when a teacher is saying something that really shouldn't be said because its overly religious or inappropriate other adults need to take five minutes and listen. NOT OVER-REACT. Hear them out, if it's a concern, wait and talk to them 5 minutes a day, several days in a row, see if it's consistent.
The problem with this is simple.
1. Adults don't listen to kids.
2. When they do, they over-react worse than Rico in an anti-gay topic.
~Tobe
For me, it's far more simple.
Should ANYONE have the right to tell a parent that "You Don't Have A Say" on something so important to THEIR CHILD'S future?
o_o This topic has made me realise something. This problem (in theory anyway) doesn't exist in the UK.
I recall a number of teachers acting very nervous when students would ask them what they thought about certain topics. They'd always reply with something like:
"If I told you what I thought about this I'd lose my job."
It's apparently illegal over here for any teacher in a public school to do anything but state the facts on a topic; they can't colour the issue with their own perceptions, as it were. Hence, the issue of teachers influencing children doesn't exist here. At least that's the theory.
In practice, though, everyone remembers their favourite teachers from school, and those people invariably have affected the person in some way. It's nigh-on-impossible to surpress individuality in people, and even though our teachers have to jump through a lot of hoops to keep their jobs, they're still themselves at the end of the day.
Ultimately, we are discussing whose opinion matters most and this is where we should stop immediately, for to suggest anyone's opinion is superior or inferior to another person's is both foolish and arrogant beyond belief. Admittedly, I, like anyone else, hold certain opinions in a lower regard than others and similarly hold others high up on a pedestal, but that's social conditioning at its best. There is no reason to consider an opinion more valid than another; only facts can be safely disputed in such a manner. We can argue against opinions because they (should be) based on fact, but the opinion itself can be neither disproven nor proven.
However, in this situation, though the above is the correct solution, it is usually not possible to apply this truth to scholastic matters because you're attempting to place an anti-social solution on a social environment. Hence we get this topic full of heavily flawed solutions on the matter; after all, the schools cannot do nothing.
It would seem the optimal (though not ideal) solution is the one I have discussed - that a teacher can be themselves but not actually promote or dismiss an opinion on an issue, no matter how wise or stupid they believe it to be. The problem, and reason, why this solution is not applied in America is because it deliberately and actively bans teachers from their right to free speech whilst at work.
I've got to admit I'm thinking free speech is a privilege more than a right these days, but I'm aware actually applying that belief to law is problematic in the extreme and it's a subject for another time, and topic.
My favorite teachers are the ones who toss in their own opinions (when they aren't idiots), because they often have insights into the subject or make it fun that way. Besides, it can be pretty hard to define what is accepted as objective fact.
Same here Vec.
Yeah, I had a math teacher that insisted:
2.00x4.0=8.000
"8" was wrong.
But I ALSO had an english teacher that had a way to explain a lot of the bible in a way that it make since in real history. He's probably the only reason I'm agnostic and not atheist. And of course you know the story of my rather flamboyant ethic's teacher who rather ENJOYED walking into a class half full of preppy rich kids and walking up and sitting cross legged on the piano in his pink sweater and making all their little religious minds cringe horridly.
You get the good with the bad, and like I said earlier, I'll suffer through a few stupidier than dirt coach teachers for a few actually interesting ones.
~Tobe
I like a teacher that isn't afraid to have a discussion about a political or other topic. It makes a class less classroomlike and more pesonal and interactive. I don't like a teacher that teaches students that Bush ordered the military to fly planes into the Twin Towers, and I don't like a teacher that tells me I will be judged more harshly when projects and essays are graded because I disagree with his opinions.
I like a teacher that isn't afraid to have a discussion about a political or other topic. It makes a class less classroomlike and more pesonal and interactive. I don't like a teacher that teaches students that Bush ordered the military to fly planes into the Twin Towers, and I don't like a teacher that tells me I will be judged more harshly when projects and essays are graded because I disagree with his opinions.
Why were we even arguing? 
Uh, probably one of us didn't say our full point, then the other mistook what we did say, then we argued about it for a page and a half, then we read the last few posts and saw similarities?
