9th Circuit Decision Regarding Children and Sex

[BCPVP]

How do any parents here feel about this? (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47223)
The story is from the WND (for those who need to screen their info). Here's (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E8695945B7C6F6B5882570AD0051320A/$file/0356499.pdf?openelement) the opinion on the case. I've only briefly read the opinion, but it seems incredible...

[BCPVP]

I'm not even sure if it's the court that I disagree with. I think the school definitely has some splainin' to do. The method with which they snuck this in seems underhanded to say the least. On the consent form, if they'd said: "The goal of this assessment is to establish a community baseline measure of children’s exposure to early trauma (for example, sex)." (as opposed to violence) I don't think near as many parents would have consented.

So...why not a poll?

[jt1]

I believe that schools should abide by the morals and principles of the community in which they reside. Let the parents of that school district decide what is appropriate and leave it out of the courts.

What if a school conducted a survey about how often kids think about watching TV? Should a parent have the right to sue the school over that survey? I would say no, but that parent should have the right to bring the issue up in a PTA or school board meeting, and to force a vote on the matter.

[New001]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this entirely. I also think the survey was a stupid idea, but the worst it could do in my eyes would be to force a child's parents to actually explain sex to him/her. Is that such a bad thing?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that schools should abide by the morals and principles of the community in which they reside. Let the parents of that school district decide what is appropriate and leave it out of the courts.

[/ QUOTE ]
In general, I agree.

[ QUOTE ]
What if a school conducted a survey about how often kids think about watching TV?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not even close to comparable.

[ QUOTE ]
Should a parent have the right to sue the school over that survey?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think they have the right to sue. Doesn't mean they are in the right.

[ QUOTE ]
that parent should have the right to bring the issue up in a PTA or school board meeting, and to force a vote on the matter.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. The one thing I worry about is the slippery slope. At what point does parental objection overrule the state? Or can the state "teach" children anything it wants and be free from any redress? If the state wanted to teach kids exactly how to have safe sex and had them pair up and [censored] each other, wouldn't parents have no right to object to their kids doing this under this decision? Where's the line?

[mmcd]

Refreshingly enough, you're consistant in your logic between this thread and the other one. I was expecting you to tear into the court here.

As for what the school did, I think it was clearly wrong in the case of the 1st and 3rd graders, but not as bad for the 5th graders. I can't remember that far back with any degree of certainty, but I think it was probably around 5th grade when my elementary school had it's first sex education classes (they didn't hand out condoms or anything like that) and I don't think there is anything wrong with broaching the subject of sex with kids that age as this is around when puberty starts, but I think with the 1st and 3rd graders perhaps a redacted version of the survey should have been given. I can imagine the uncomfortable dinner table conversations that followed, "So, what did you do at school today?"

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
but the worst it could do in my eyes would be to force a child's parents to actually explain sex to him/her. Is that such a bad thing?

[/ QUOTE ]
Shouldn't that time and place be up to the parents and not the state? This survey was given to 1st graders. Why not kindergarteners? Pre-schoolers?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Refreshingly enough, you're consistant in your logic between this thread and the other one. I was expecting you to tear into the court here.

[/ QUOTE ]
To tell you the truth, tearing into the decision was my gut reaction. But then I thought about it a little and decided that this was one of those things I'd prefer the courts stay out of because they would have to make such a decision. But I do try to stay consistent.

[ QUOTE ]
As for what the school did, I think it was clearly wrong in the case of the 1st and 3rd graders, but not as bad for the 5th graders.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sort of my feeling as well. 5-6th grade was about when I got "The Talk". But I think how the school got this through is the real outrage. The school was not very upfront about what would be discussed in the survey and I can understand the parents' outrage. If anything, maybe it will encourage a little more attention during PTA/school board meetings/elections, which I suppose is a good thing.

[New001]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but the worst it could do in my eyes would be to force a child's parents to actually explain sex to him/her. Is that such a bad thing?

[/ QUOTE ]
Shouldn't that time and place be up to the parents and not the state? This survey was given to 1st graders. Why not kindergarteners? Pre-schoolers?

[/ QUOTE ]

It should be up to them, yes, in an ideal world. Parents can't control everything their children get access to though, and they're kidding themselves if they think they can. It shouldn't harm the kid, and it might make him and his parents uncomfortable about it, but meh. I know I was in first grade when I first heard about those "baginas" from a friend of mine, and I wasn't scarred or traumatized by it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to rationalize the survey (which I think was clearly stupid), but it's really not as harmful as some people have been making it out to be. My opinion, of course.

[jt1]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What if a school conducted a survey about how often kids think about watching TV?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This is not even close to comparable.


[/ QUOTE ]


No, sex and TV aren't comparable but constitutionaly sex isn't any different from TV. This is a constitutional case and sex isn't even mentioned in that document (though it may be mentioned in federal law and/or previous precedent...i have no idea) so a jurist would have no choice but to rule that if schools can teach and ask about TV or chocolate or smelly socks then they can do the same regarding sex.

[ QUOTE ]
At what point does parental objection overrule the state? Or can the state "teach" children anything it wants and be free from any redress? If the state wanted to teach kids exactly how to have safe sex and had them pair up and [censored] each other, wouldn't parents have no right to object to their kids doing this under this decision? Where's the line?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, here, the analogy doesn't take into account that non-consenting sex is a crime. Schools cant force students to commit crimes as that would violate civil liberties.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, here, the analogy doesn't take into account that non-consenting sex is a crime. Schools cant force students to commit crimes as that would violate civil liberties.

[/ QUOTE ]
True. Instead of all the kids, the teacher asks for volunteers and gets some. Is this okay? If that's still a little iffy, how bout the teacher brings in two pornstars and has them bang on the students' desks (these are 1st graders, remember). If the school claims this is "teaching" them, I don't see how this decision does not allow a parent to object. I guess it puts a lot of pressure at the very local levels, but what redress does the parent have if the school does something like the above examples I gave?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, here, the analogy doesn't take into account that non-consenting sex is a crime. Schools cant force students to commit crimes as that would violate civil liberties.

[/ QUOTE ]
True. Instead of all the kids, the teacher asks for volunteers and gets some. Is this okay? If that's still a little iffy, how bout the teacher brings in two pornstars and has them bang on the students' desks (these are 1st graders, remember). If the school claims this is "teaching" them, I don't see how this decision does not allow a parent to object. I guess it puts a lot of pressure at the very local levels, but what redress does the parent have if the school does something like the above examples I gave?

[/ QUOTE ]

How about ordinary tort law? Not everything is a Constitutional issue.

[jt1]

[ QUOTE ]
True. Instead of all the kids, the teacher asks for volunteers and gets some. Is this okay? If that's still a little iffy, how bout the teacher brings in two pornstars and has them bang on the students' desks (these are 1st graders, remember). If the school claims this is "teaching" them, I don't see how this decision does not allow a parent to object. I guess it puts a lot of pressure at the very local levels, but what redress does the parent have if the school does something like the above examples I gave?


[/ QUOTE ]


Sex in public is illegal becuae it disturbs the peace. But that aside, I would say that a parent has the right to petetion, organinze, address the school board, put a referendum on the ballot, pull his/her kid out of the school, sue the school for emotional distress, etc. My point still stands, however. Ignoring the fact that your example is a criminal violation of most local statutes, I argue that if the community agreed that porn stars in school is a valuable teaching tool then that particular community has the right to hire them....especially if midgits are involved /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Because I do things that many people consider degenerate and dangerous, yet I still want to do them, I agree to let others do things that I disagree with as long as no one gets hurt. (in this case, with enough evidence, i could be easily convinced that first graders watching a live porn show is a form of emotional abuse.)

[BCPVP]

After more thinking, this is basically where I'm at. The parents don't have a federal claim, but they should be persuing their options in civil court. Like I said earlier, this might actually be beneficial in a way as it will make sure parents pay closer attention to what their school is up to. Any line that would be drawn regarding what's appropriate would be drawn at the local/state level. Where it should be.

On a lighter note, I do find it slightly humerous that a liberal court would use the "can't find it in the constitution" argument while conservatives (or those who claim to be) would probably have wanted the court to rule the other way and engage in a lil activism.

[PoBoy321]

My question in all of these issues is that the school system has a right to determine a curriculum and determine what is appropriate to be taught. If the parents object to the curriculum, they can homeschool or send their children to private school.

What's next, parents will feel that teaching children about slavery is too detrimental to their mental health, so they have to strike that from the curriculum?

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
My question in all of these issues is that the school system has a right to determine a curriculum and determine what is appropriate to be taught. If the parents object to the curriculum, they can homeschool or send their children to private school.

What's next, parents will feel that teaching children about slavery is too detrimental to their mental health, so they have to strike that from the curriculum?

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, but key here is not the issue of sex education. That is really neither here nor there. The problem is the 9th court ruling that parent to not have an "exclusive" right to the education of their children.

With that precedent, you may see homeschooling being shut down and maybe even private schooling shut down. It is a horrid ruling.

Its even questionable to the constitutionality of federally funded education. So 9th Court is dead on both counts.

9th Court needs to stop existing...

-Gryph

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
With that precedent, you may see homeschooling being shut down and maybe even private schooling shut down.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think so. WI v Yoder still applies and to the 9th's credit they acknowledge the right of the parent to choose where the child is educated, but once the parent chooses public education, they cannot demand that their child not be taught history, for example, even if they find some parts of history personally offensive. I agree with that. You can't run a school if every kid needs a unique curriculum. On the flip side, this case was about a survey not related to actual educating of the children but some nebulous future program to deal with "barriers to learning". But when deciding whether the survey was appropriate or not, I suppose while I would probably be angry as a parent, as a citizen (and conservative) I'd like that decision to be made on a local level so that my opinion would have some meaningful weight, whereas if it's done by judicial fiat from the 9th circuit (or SCOTUS for that matter) there's not much I can meaningfully do to change that ruling.

Whew, that was long! I'd be interested in hearing why you think this was a terrible ruling. And I'm a little surprised this hasn't made much of a splash in the media. I mean you've got kids, sex, public education, the 9th circuit! What more drama could you need for a story? That's why I used the WND as a source because there just wasn't much else!

They dont call it the 9th circus for nothing.

[BCPVP]

Hey, I'm by no means a pinko liberal, and even I agree (and think that if you're a conservative you have to agree) with this ruling. In a way this is similar to Kelo. The court defers to the legislature (or in this case the school) instead of dictating what the law (or schooling in this case) should be. Isn't that what conservatives harp on the courts for?

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
But then I thought about it a little and decided that this was one of those things I'd prefer the courts stay out of because they would have to make such a decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have not yet read the decision (I will later) but at first blush it appears that the court said that it is not upto them to get in the middle of the debate that is should be upto the community.

The parents have no fundamental right to prevent schools from doing this (according to the linked articles -- not the, yet unread, opinion) so the community must decide if the community based school should be acting along these lines.

If this is the thrust of the opinion then the opinion may have been a reasonable one.

[BCPVP]

That's pretty accurate. The court said the parents do not have a right to *exclusive* control over the child's education. While the parents do have the right to choose where their kids go to school, once they choose public school, they do not have the right to dictate what the school may and may not teach their child. So a parent can't say "Don't teach my son math, it offends me." because a school can't function if it has to have unique curriculums for every kid.

I think the ruling was reasonable and deferred the judgement about what should be taught back to the school. Which is a conservative ideal, so I'm surpised at some conservative's reactions.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Completely ridiculous ruling. Will be overruled by SCOTUS.

[BCPVP]

Please elaborate.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Since I'm at work, I can't elaborate too much. The concept that once a parent allows a child to set foot in a public school, they lose all right to teaching morality is beyond the pale. Our government schools are woefully inadequate in teaching math, science and language, yet they somehow think they can mold the moral fibre of our children?

The questions in this test were completely inapropriate to ask a 7 year old.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
The concept that once a parent allows a child to set foot in a public school, they lose all right to teaching morality is beyond the pale.

[/ QUOTE ]
This was not what the ruling was. The court said the parents do not have the exclusive right to such teaching. Wouldn't you agree that if you send your kid to public school, you don't have the right to start picking and choosing what parts of the curriculum they will learn? Do you feel that you have the right to say "I don't want my kid to learn about war in history class because war is offensive to me."?

[ QUOTE ]
The questions in this test were completely inapropriate to ask a 7 year old.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm with you on this, but do we want the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to be "legislating from the bench" what morality is appropriate for your child? Or would you rather they defer to the local governments and school boards so you can actually have some influence in the decision?

[elwoodblues]

Okay, the survey might have been dumb. But, this lawsuit is not about wisdom of the particular survey. The question is whether the school can teach sex ed in the way it deems appropriate. If the parents don't like the method of teaching they can try to get it changed (through the school board), but what makes people think there should be a lawsuit about it.

Here are the fundamental holdings of the case --- can people explain where they disagree. Thanks

Holding 1: There is no fundamental due process right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children. NOTE: this is NOT saying that parents don't have a say in teaching sex education, nor that they would be disallowed from holding their children out of such a survey.

Holding 2: Parents have no Constitutional right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students.

To quote the court:
[ QUOTE ]
the state does not have the power to "standardize its children" or "foster a homogenous people" by completely foreclosing the opportunity of individuals and groups to choose a different path of education. We do not think, however, that this freedom encompasses a fundamental constitutional right to dictate the curriculum at the public school to which they have chosen to send their children. We think it is fundamentally different for the state to say to a parent, "You can't teach your child German or send him to a parochial school," than for the parent to say to the state, "You can't teach my child subjects that are morally offensive to me." The first instance involves the state proscribing parents from educating their children, while the second involves parents prescribing what the state shall teach their children. If all parents had a fundamental constitutional right to dictate individually what the schools teach their children, the schools would be forced to cater a curriculum for each student whose parents had genuine moral disagreements with the school's choice of subject matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Holding 3: Once parents make the choice as to which school their children will attend, their fundamental due process right to control the education of their children is, at the least, substantially diminished.

I was 5 when i was in 1st grade.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Completely ridiculous ruling. Will be overruled by SCOTUS.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll bet you $500 you are wrong here. Terms: if the case is overruled the at least one of the bases of the ruling has to be the substantive holding of the case (not a procedural issue.)

Send me your e-mail and I will create a Clip where we can monitor this case as it moves up the appellate chain (I would suspect it won't even be heard by the Supreme Court.) All results of the clip will be posted here (i.e. when the Supreme court grants/denies review.) Payment due within 2 weeks of final disposition. If no appeal is made (even though I would really win the bet) no payment is required. If the Supreme court denies review or grants review and upholds the lower court's substantive holding - I win. If the Supreme Court grants review and reverses the lower court's substantive holding you win.

Whaddya say?

[elwoodblues]

Does anyone think that parents have a Constitutional Right to force the school to not teach evolution? How is this any different?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone think that parents have a Constitutional Right to force the school to not teach evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not through the courts.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone think that parents have a Constitutional Right to force the school to not teach evolution? [ QUOTE ]
Not through the courts.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

It sounds like you don't (or shouldn') disagree with the 9th circuit. You have the right to vote like-minded school board members in, create petitions, withhold donations...but the federal courts aren't the arbiters of what is "good" curriculum.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Wouldn't you agree that if you send your kid to public school, you don't have the right to start picking and choosing what parts of the curriculum they will learn? Do you feel that you have the right to say "I don't want my kid to learn about war in history class because war is offensive to me."?


I believe I absolutely have that right. I want a range of choices that allows me to choose the school with the curriculum I want (we do that for colleges). The problem is government monopoly schools that add these extraneous items. This questionnaire is not part of a "curriculum" of study.

legislating from the bench

As an aside, this is a phrase I love to hate. I contend that there are many things that should be decided by courts and not by the legislative process (aka the will of the collective). Where those boundaries lie is certainly open to debate, but not every aspect of society should be subject to the whim of 50% + 1.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe I absolutely have that right. I want a range of choices that allows me to choose the school with the curriculum I want (we do that for colleges).

[/ QUOTE ]
And this decision has no impact on this as well as reaffirming the right of parents to decide where their child goes to school.

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is government monopoly schools that add these extraneous items.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then don't send your child to a public school. That is your right.

[ QUOTE ]
This questionnaire is not part of a "curriculum" of study.

[/ QUOTE ]
Correct, it was a voluntary survey asked of the children. I have already stated that I think the questions were inappropriate for the age level of the children and the survey's consent form failed to mention that such questions would be asked. But the argument before the court was whether parents have the right to be the exclusive providers of sexual information while the child is in public school not the correctness of the survey. Indeed, several times the court said it did not want to comment on the wisdom of the survey or its questions.

[ QUOTE ]
I contend that there are many things that should be decided by courts and not by the legislative process (aka the will of the collective). Where those boundaries lie is certainly open to debate, but not every aspect of society should be subject to the whim of 50% + 1.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course there are things that should be decided by the courts. But do you really want moral issues settled by the court system, where they are much harder to undo than when legislatures of popularly elected representatives make such determinations? Especially of local issues like this one? Wouldn't you agree that the power of one parent to make a difference in these types of cases is much greater when the decision is made by someone who answers to the people than by someone who doesn't? If you have any conservative/libertarian tendencies, you should have a lot of trouble with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals deciding what your child can and cannot be taught in school, much less any other moral issues.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone think that parents have a Constitutional Right to force the school to not teach evolution? [ QUOTE ]
Not through the courts.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

It sounds like you don't (or shouldn') disagree with the 9th circuit. You have the right to vote like-minded school board members in, create petitions, withhold donations...but the federal courts aren't the arbiters of what is "good" curriculum.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly the conclusion I've come to after reading about this. I didn't at first. At first, the social conservative inside me cried foul, but after looking deeper, I see it is the conservative solution.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe I absolutely have that right. I want a range of choices that allows me to choose the school with the curriculum I want (we do that for colleges).

[/ QUOTE ]

And you still can under this decision. What you can't do is upon selecting a school (with a particular curriculum) sue because you don't like the curriculum. If the decision went the other way you could potentially have 1000 Kurn (and Kurn wannabes) suing over each curriculum decision by the school. That is an absolute disastrous result.

[TomCollins]

You just have to move or pay again. No biggie, shouldn't be inconvinient for you.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
You just have to move or pay again. No biggie, shouldn't be inconvinient for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the solution is to give curriculum veto power to every parent in the district? Brilliant.

The other solution is, obviously, to actively engage in the political process to affect changes in your district --- to persuade the school board that their curriculum is bad.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
How do any parents here feel about this? (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47223)
The story is from the WND (for those who need to screen their info). Here's (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E8695945B7C6F6B5882570AD0051320A/$file/0356499.pdf?openelement) the opinion on the case. I've only briefly read the opinion, but it seems incredible...

[/ QUOTE ]

It goes without saying that the current version of our public school system is a cancer on our society.

The tragedy here is NOT that some kids were taught about sex. Just as the tragedy in Kansas is NOT that some poor backwards kids will be taught that intelligent design has merit.

The tragedy is that parents have no control over their child's education, and that certain portions of our society have no qualms about commandeering those decisions from parents.

Self-righteous leftists think nothing of sneakily indoctrinating children with, to put it charitably, a bit over the top graphic sex ed that some parents oppose. Self-righteous christians think nothing about recruiting the state to force their silly superstitiouns onto the whole of the public school populations.

Both of these sides are terribly, terribly, wrong.

Neither can see that they are employing the same tactics backed by the same philosophy: WE believe your kids should be indoctrinated in OUR way and screw you if you don't like it.

There is an obvious answer to all this.... And anyone who actually values true liberty knows that school choice is the only moral approach to publicly providing education to the masses.

If you can't live with the fact that some people may not think like you and yet they should have the freedom to raise their children the way they like, then you don't value freedom.

natedogg

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
It goes without saying that the current version of our public school system is a cancer on our society.

[/ QUOTE ]
Harsh wording. I (and probably millions of others) don't feel like the product of a cancer on society.

[ QUOTE ]
The tragedy is that parents have no control over their child's education

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not true.

[ QUOTE ]
and that certain portions of our society have no qualms about commandeering those decisions from parents.

[/ QUOTE ]
Which is why parents should fight back. Big government is like a weed; give it an inch, it'll take up the yard. But that implies you gave it an inch and did little to fight back. Isn't this our responsibility as citizens?

[ QUOTE ]
Self-righteous leftists think nothing of sneakily indoctrinating children with, to put it charitably, a bit over the top graphic sex ed that some parents oppose. Self-righteous christians think nothing about recruiting the state to force their silly superstitiouns onto the whole of the public school populations.

Both of these sides are terribly, terribly, wrong.

Neither can see that they are employing the same tactics backed by the same philosophy: WE believe your kids should be indoctrinated in OUR way and screw you if you don't like it.

There is an obvious answer to all this.... And anyone who actually values true liberty knows that school choice is the only moral approach to publicly providing education to the masses.

If you can't live with the fact that some people may not think like you and yet they should have the freedom to raise their children the way they like, then you don't value freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed.

[mmcd]

[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't you agree that if you send your kid to public school, you don't have the right to start picking and choosing what parts of the curriculum they will learn? Do you feel that you have the right to say "I don't want my kid to learn about war in history class because war is offensive to me."?


I believe I absolutely have that right. I want a range of choices that allows me to choose the school with the curriculum I want (we do that for colleges). The problem is government monopoly schools that add these extraneous items. This questionnaire is not part of a "curriculum" of study.


[/ QUOTE ]

"I believe that fancy "mathematics" is the devil's work. Now, rather than homeschool my kid like most others with my views do, I am going send him your school. And I better not here him talk about learning none of them fancy numbers. When you teach the heathens about math, I want you to pull my kid out of the class and put him somewhere else where he can quietly read the bible."

That sound about right to you?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
"I believe that fancy "mathematics" is the devil's work. Now, rather than homeschool my kid like most others with my views do, I am going send him your school. And I better not here him talk about learning none of them fancy numbers. When you teach the heathens about math, I want you to pull my kid out of the class and put him somewhere else where he can quietly read the bible."

[/ QUOTE ]

You got it totally wrong. He doesn't want to pull his kid out, he wants to be able to sue in federal court to force the school to teach something else to meet his whims and fancies.

[Snoogins47]

As a bit of an aside, hopefully to spark some conversation on the related topic of sex-education in general...

Is it the absolute worst facet of our children's education today? (both in schools, and in regards to parents) or is drug education worse?

Anyway, on the note of parents losing control of a child's education... it goes deeper than this. The schools become de facto parents/guardians. The whole push toward hands-off parenting is quite frightening to me, really. And I'm not even a parent. I'm a kid.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
Which is why parents should fight back. Big government is like a weed; give it an inch, it'll take up the yard. But that implies you gave it an inch and did little to fight back. Isn't this our responsibility as citizens?

[/ QUOTE ]

most citizens are too stupid to realize the consequences of giving too many inches, just like most citizens aren't smart enough to get a phd in a scientific field. they clearly shouldn't be allowed any control in the advancements of sciences because they lack qualification. similarly, voting should be restricted to examined and licensed citizens. only drivers who prove to be competent through examanation are licensed to drive on public roads, yet any shmoe can, in essence, vote on public policy matters? (not the best example because one is more of right while the other is more of a priveledge, but you get the idea.)

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
most citizens are too stupid to realize the consequences of giving too many inches, just like most citizens aren't smart enough to get a phd in a scientific field. they clearly shouldn't be allowed any control in the advancements of sciences because they lack qualification. similarly, voting should be restricted to examined and licensed citizens. only drivers who prove to be competent through examanation are licensed to drive on public roads, yet any shmoe can, in essence, vote on public policy matters?

[/ QUOTE ]

A decent argument favoring representative forms of government.

[ QUOTE ]
similarly, voting should be restricted to examined and licensed citizens.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dumb people shouldn't be able control their destinies. Nor poor. I'm thinking poll taxes coupled with an education qualification...I don't know...maybe college professors?

[caretaker1]

This actually isn't that controversial. Remember, they're coming from a legal/constitutional perspective (what they're saying is, "there's no law or legal precedent to make this a problem right now") They're job is to interpret the existing law, not to create new ones to suit parents. If the legislature wants to make some inherent rights for parents or prevent schools from eliciting such information, they could do so and the law would become such.