9th Circuit Decision Regarding Children and Sex

[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 [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

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.