posted
It's not so much that the court found no fault with the school that bothers me, it's the statement that parents don't have a fundamental right to overrule what their kids learn in school. I believe they do have that right, whether it is recognized or not, and if they want to opt out their child from a particular non-education related lesson, they should be able to. (By that I mean the character and social "education" that schools do, not subjects like math, history, english, etc.)
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I believe they do have that right, whether it is recognized or not, and if they want to opt out their child from a particular non-education related lesson, they should be able to. (By that I mean the character and social "education" that schools do, not subjects like math, history, english, etc.)
We can't, and we shouldn't try to, seperate history and english from character, and there is an extent to which public education has a duty to addreses controversial issues, or education becomes irrelevant to the lives of the students. It was a study-- because, you know, that's how we get information in order to make better decisions-- parents were asked their consent, and the children were not forced to reply.
If the proctors of the study were unclear as to the nature of the questions on the study, then that is another issue. If you don't think that the survey should be in school, period, that's an understandable view; take it up with the school board.
Look there are checks and balences in the public school system. Parents can go to the teacher, the principal or the board if necessary, and its been my experience that all three of these entities are solicitous of parent's requests, and word rather the parent agree with the curriculum than disagree with the curriculum.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why would parents have a right to overrule what their kids learn in school? A school has a more imporant responsibility to teach kids what the school deems accurate, factual, and important for them to know. It would be irresponsible for them to let kids out of learning certain things just because their parents don't think it is right or important. What if some parent thinks history shouldn't be taught, or algebra is useless? The school can't let kids pass without learning those lessons. If the school deems certain sexual issues to be similarly important, the school has a responsibility to teach it - or, in this case, if the school deems it important to ask certain questions for the sake of properly educating kids, it has the right and responsibility to do so. (That is, unless those questions are violations of privacy, which I don't think is the case here.)
The parent's ability to counter this are twofold: They can teach their kids whatever they want outside of school, and they can switch their kids to a different school. But they don't have the right to demand that a school teach what they want the school to teach.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
But schools haven't been listening to the parents. Wasn't there a case just a few weeks ago where a parent objected to a book that portrayed gay couples and the school told him he couldn't have his child opt out? That they had no obligation to inform him ahead of time?
I'm not saying take out sex education or character education--unfortunately, a lot of parents don't do that part of their job for whatever reason, and the school is the only place they'll get it. But for those parents that DO teach their children, they have the right to remove their children, especially when things are being taught that are contrary to their religious beliefs.
As for the survey, while I am not very comfortable with the types of questions asked, and think they at least border on inappropriate, that is not the core of my problem. Though, I think the school probably should have been clearer regarding the nature of the survey when they asked for consent. My problem is with the broad response of the court. Specifically, this part:
quote:We also hold 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 while enrolled as students.
posted
Tresopax, I'm not sure who you're responding to... it doesn't seem as if you read what I wrote.
I made a distinction between math, history, english and other subjects like them and sexuality/values courses. You seemed to be making a point that parents shouldn't have a right to protest the teaching of those subjects (math, history, english, etc.) as if I had said otherwise. Well, I didn't.
You go on to say that sexuality is the same thing as those subjects (if the school deems it so). Now that is the part that I disagree with. Sexuality being different from biology, that is.
You also seem to be implying that I was saying that parents should set the curriculum in all areas when you said:
quote:But they don't have the right to demand that a school teach what they want the school to teach.
But I didn't say that they should. All I want is for a parent to have the right to remove their child from sexuality and other values lessons if they so choose. I don't think the programs should be removed from schools, as some are needed.
And I think that's what the parents in this case wanted. I could be wrong.
Edited for clarity, I hope.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:We also hold 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 while enrolled as students.
The word "right" is a big deal in a legal opinion, the court just can't go around giving those out.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott: I disagree. It is not prohibited by law that I travel 30 mph on the local roads, but I do not think it a right; it could be prohibited with relative ease. Rights are those things which trump laws.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The court's statement there is entirely too broad. It could even be interpreted to say that parents don't have the right to NOT enroll their children in public school.
And about rights... that's the question, isn't it? Do parents have the right to raise their children as they see fit? I'm talking about non-abuse issues, here.
Who's really has charge of your children? You? The schools? The government? "Society"?
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a tricky issue, but when a child robs me, needs medical help that he/she can't afford for decision that could have been avoided, or goes on the dole because his or her parent doesn't abide by all of that fancy education, then I have to say that society has a stake in that child.
We are all in it together, that's why there are parent/teacher conferences, back-to-school nights, PTAs and school boards.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu, I agree with you-- I'm not sure how you see we're disagreeing.
If a law is not spelled out in the Constitution, then the administration of that particular behavior or whatever falls to the States or to the People. In this way, the Bill of Rights turns the Constitution on its head, because it specifies which rights the people have access to. One of the founding fathers (Madison? I'm not sure) was adamantly against the Bill of Rights and its implied limitations on what were rights.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I lived in the South during the late 60's and early 70's. I have seen what happens when a large percentage of society opts out of the public education system. It is not a pretty sight. We shriveled up the lives of a whole generation. The answer is not to withdraw from the process. You need to participate fully in that process. Don't "find a good private school". Find a way to improve the pubilc school system in your attendance area. If more than a fringe group opt out, the Nation as a whole will suffer.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
"fundamental" or "(substantive) due process" rights are those that fugu is referring to. This also includes specific, enumerated constitutional rights such as a free speech, free exercise, etc. A fundamanetal right may only be violated with a "good enough" reason. Determining what is "good enough" is a very complicated process.
In a much more general sense, a right is something which, if violated, can be remedied in law or equity. This would include the fundamental rights, a right to recover damages caused by negligence, a right to money owed to you by another person, and many others.
In practical effect, the extent of a right is defined by the remedy. For example, you have a right not to have your home searched without probable cause. However, if the police search your house and don't find anything, you have no remedy, assuming there was no physical damage to your residence. If they find something to use against someone else, no one has a remedy. Unless the violation was particularly egregious, the officers involved can't really be punished. A court might make a finding that your "right" was violated, but this would have no practical effect.
This means that the right to avoid unreasonable search and seizure has been changed to the right to not have evidence used against you in a criminal proceeding that was obtained through an unreasonable search or seizure of you or your property.
Scott is also right in a very general sense to say that we have the right to do something not prohibited by law, but really this is based on a couple of fundamental rights to notice.
So yes, fugu, you have a right to travel 30 MPH on local roads absent a law to the contrary. You cannot be punished for doing so until such a law is passed. But you don't have a fundamental right to do so.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: It's a tricky issue, but when a child robs me, needs medical help that he/she can't afford for decision that could have been avoided, or goes on the dole because a parent doesn't abide by all of that fancy education, then I have to say that society has a stake in that child.
But society has a stake when certain conditions are met.. when "it" itself has been affected in a profound way. (I didn't understand the phrase: for decision that could have been avoided, though.) But generally, shouldn't the parents have the say?
My supposition is that parents should know when sexuality and values classes are being taught, and given the opportunity for their child to opt out. Honestly, I thought it was already done that way, since that's the way it was in my school...but I attended Christian schools mostly.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, its powers not given to Congress in the Constitution which are reserved to the states or the people, a very different thing.
The Constitution also specifies that the lack of mention in the Constitution does not mean a right does not exist, but it does not say that everything Congress is not given power over is a right, which particularly destroys any notion that a power might be a right.
There are issues with implied limitations on right through the bill of rights, but I think the historical record is fairly clear on its positive application, and furthermore that where it wasn't spelled out, courts were perfectly willing to let Congress and other legislatures legislate what was a right and what wasn't. Without the bill of rights, many rights in it would not have been recognized, at least until much later.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would you all mind applying the rights/powers/etc. talk to the particular issue? I am having problems understanding the distinctions and how it relates to the issue at hand.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag: I like the stronger usage of the term and would prefer the weaker changed to a different term (this is just a philosophical desire). I think the different uses confuse the issue such that many people, particularly lay-people, think fundamental rights weaker than they are and "rights" nonexistent but by the lay of the law stronger than they are.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:My supposition is that parents should know when sexuality and values classes are being taught, and given the opportunity for their child to opt out. Honestly, I thought it was already done that way, since that's the way it was in my school...but I attended Christian schools mostly.
From your own article:
quote: The controversy began in 2001 when a volunteer "mental health counselor" at Mesquite Elementary School set out to conduct a psychological assessment test of students in the first, third and fifth grades.
A letter to parents asked for their consent to conduct the study but did not indicate that questions of a sexual nature would be asked. The survey included 79 questions divided into four parts. Ten of those questions were of a sexual nature.
A letter was sent, consent was asked for, if the letter was misleading, that's a completely different issue, but you are approaching the situation as if the school ran rough-shod over the parents expressed wishes.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The school did run rough-shod over the parent's whishes. Those wishes could not be expressed beforehand because the school kept the nature of the situation hidden.
quote:Dag: I like the stronger usage of the term and would prefer the weaker changed to a different term (this is just a philosophical desire). I think the different uses confuse the issue such that many people, particularly lay-people, think fundamental rights weaker than they are and "rights" nonexistent but by the lay of the law stronger than they are.
But "rights" is actually used far more often in the "weaker" sense, because most of the rights any of us have are of that type.
In addition, most of the rights that get run roughshod over are of the "weaker" type. It's violation of these rights that more often needs to be corrected and are more often the source of injustice. People need to think of them as rights in order to elevate their importance.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:A letter was sent, consent was asked for, if the letter was misleading, that's a completely different issue, but you are approaching the situation as if the school ran rough-shod over the parents expressed wishes.
Well, I'm sorry for being unclear, then. I think it's good they sent a letter. I also think it's probable that the letter was misleading, but I really don't know.
I guess what I would say is that I'm not so sure that the school shouldn't have won this particular case--I don't have enough information to say that they shouldn't. (Maybe if I read the letter they sent out.) My problem is with the overly broad general statement made by the court regarding the rights of parents.
quote:My problem is with the overly broad general statement made by the court regarding the rights of parents.
Yeah, to me, it sounded as if you wanted another clause in the first Amendment. I mean, what if a parent only wants their child to go to 20 days of school instead of 180? There are homeschools and private schools, and avenues of discussion in the public schools, I don't see the requirement to make up and codify some right that can easily be abused.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just want the right to say when I have kids that I don't want them in particular classes teaching things I don't agree with. Even though personally, I'd probably let them stay in the class and counter it at home myself. But I believe I should have the right anyway.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here in Ontario we are lucky enough to have a parallel system of catholic schools. Now, I am not myself catholic, but since the public system is openly anti-christian, anti-family and pro-homosexual, if I am living in Ontario by the time I have kids, they will be going to the catholic schools. If they haven't all been shut down or emasculated by then, which wouldn't surprise me in the least.
Posts: 109 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel as if there's this trend that says what you believe is so obviously wrong that you have no right to teach it to your children, therefore, we're going to teach your children whatever we like and you have no right to say otherwise.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
mph : Irami is just like that, from what I've seen of his posts in the couple years that I've been here.
Posts: 109 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
Yes, there it is. Rights are important, and asserting ones rights when appropriate is an important civic responsibility.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: Would you all mind applying the rights/powers/etc. talk to the particular issue? I am having problems understanding the distinctions and how it relates to the issue at hand.
Won't anybody address my question? Please???
is the court saying it's not a fundamental right, whatever that means? Is this as alarming as I find it to be??
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rights are important, and asserting ones rights when appropriate is an important civic responsibility.
The rhetoric of rights never did do anything for me, and I've read enough seminal texts on the subject to call myself reasonably informed.
Tom actually articulated my position fairly well here:
quote: I believe there are no inherent human rights. I believe that we as a people -- as a society -- have resolved to pretend that certain rights exist, and have come together to enforce the recognition of those rights. But there's nothing in nature that suggests that any one individual is truly entitled to anything.
quote:is the court saying it's not a fundamental right, whatever that means? Is this as alarming as I find it to be??
The court is saying that parents do not have a fundamental (read it as constitutional if that helps) to control what their kids are exposed to at school, at least concerning topics of sexuality.
If the parent has a fundamental right to such control, then there may be a duty for the schools to fully inform the parents in time to exercise this right. This is called "notice." Notice is not an absolute right, but is usually required when a right may not be meaningfully exercised without it. In a situation where the right is to control exposure, the case for notice may be strong.
If a state law gives a parent a right (not a fundamental right) to control such exposure, then there are two implications: 1) Federal jusrisdiction is inappropriate, and 2) notice may or may not be required, and it probably depends on state law.
Where Irami's analysis falls short is that consent for psychological studies is a totally different issue. It's required by independent review boards and human experimentation regulations/statutes. If the informed consent forms were inadequate, then parents may have a right of recovery for that violation. However, those regulations may or may not make the sexual content of the survey something that must be disclosed.
If there is a fundamental right, then even if IRB regulations do not require such disclosure, the constitution might. If there is no fundamental right, then even an error in the consent form wouldn't be actionable.
The question of whether a fundamental right exists also determines whether parents can exclude outside the context of a study.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What do you call rights that may not be specifically covered in the constitution but should be considered valid? Like the right of a parent to raise his/her child? It's a right they can lose by endangering the child, but isn't it a right nevertheless?
If there's no state law relating to notices, then isn't that a real lack?? Does it not lead to the erosure of parental rights all together?
Is it really not a constitutional right?? Shouldn't it be?
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rights are important, and asserting ones rights when appropriate is an important civic responsibility.
The rhetoric of rights never did do anything for me, and I've read enough seminal texts on the subject to call myself reasonably informed.
Tom actually articulated my position fairly well here:
quote: I believe there are no inherent human rights. I believe that we as a people -- as a society -- have resolved to pretend that certain rights exist, and have come together to enforce the recognition of those rights. But there's nothing in nature that suggests that any one individual is truly entitled to anything.
Seems to me then you would like the distinction I made, which relies not at all on rights being an inherent entitlement.
When people don't assert their rights against a phone company that illegally switched their service, they encourage the phone company to do this to others.
When people cave in to greenmail lawsuits, they encourage them against others in the future.
When people don't go after an insurance company unjustly limiting a claim, they encourage future behavior.
Sometimes one can't assert every little right one possesses. Sometimes one voluntarily chooses not to. But an endemic failure to do so leads to harmful behavior.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Where Irami's analysis falls short is that consent for psychological studies is a totally different issue. It's required by independent review boards and human experimentation regulations/statutes. If the informed consent forms were inadequate, then parents may have a right of recovery for that violation. However, those regulations may or may not make the sexual content of the survey something that must be disclosed.
Irami's analysis falls short because he thinks that these parents could have resolved this with the school and not the court, and instead of appealing to their rights, get back to talking about their purpose.
quote:I would call it a God-given right, but what is the secular way to say that?
That's the elephant in the room.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Gee, no that Declaration specifically acknowledges God. I suppose it had better be declared unconstitutional.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure there is a secular way to put it, Katarain. I've never heard a compelling secular argument for inherent rights, which is why I don't believe in 'em. But I know that some people here DO, and maybe they can help.
I think you can make the argument that it is a right we must assume for the benefit of the continued existence of society -- that if we do not presume that parents have the "inherent" right to raise their children as they see fit, by exposing them to data they wish to control, one of the building blocks of society is replaced by the influence of the state. God doesn't appear in that assertion, but it does make the assumption that parents are automatically entitled to raise their children.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:What do you call rights that may not be specifically covered in the constitution but should be considered valid? Like the right of a parent to raise his/her child? It's a right they can lose by endangering the child, but isn't it a right nevertheless?
Yes - courts have recognized many such rights. The rights given in Roe v. Wade and Lawrence are big examples. On the parental rights front, a law that required education only in English was struck down by the Supreme Court.
A fundamental right is a right identified by the Courts as granted by the constitution, even if it's not explicitly granted therein.
quote:If there's no state law relating to notices, then isn't that a real lack?? Does it not lead to the erosure of parental rights all together?
If there's a fundamental right, there doesn't need to be a state law (although many state laws grant rights of greater extent than the Constitution).
quote:Is it really not a constitutional right?? Shouldn't it be?
There is a fundamental constitutional right related to parenting. It's extent is not clearly defined.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Irami's analysis falls short because he thinks that these parents could have resolved this with the school and not the court, and instead of appealing to their rights, get back to talking about their purpose.
These parents obviously thought that the school's practices were harmful enough that they wanted to make sure other schools would not be capable of subjecting their children to such harmful experimentation.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
That's the elephant in the room.
