Utterly Meaningless » Blog Archive » HEY SCOTT–
  • HEY SCOTT–

    Filed at 6:28 am under by dcobranchi

    Does HSLDA think the recent sex survey case ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was incorrect? This townhall.com piece implies it, but the Jim Mason quotes are a bit ambiguous:

    The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling denying parents the right to opt their elementary school-age children out of a public school sex survey is no surprise to pro-family advocates who say they’ve been fighting courts’ encroachment on parental rights for decades. They warn that the decision must be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

    “This case and the way that it’s written is cause for great alarm,” Jim Mason, an attorney with the Home School Legal Defense Association told Cybercast News Service, “because this case will serve as a springboard where people will attempt to use the sloppy way the case was written to justify greater intrusions into parental freedoms.”

    …”The central holding of the opinion is parents have a right to direct the education of their children,” Mason said. “But when they choose to send them to public schools, once the children are in the public schools, (parents) have less control than if they’d chosen some other alternative.”

    I think the ruling might actually be good for home education in particular and the country in general. Folks need to see just how much control they give up when the send their kids to jail the g-schools. And they need to understand that there are alternatives.

    So, is HSLDA fer it or agin’ it?

    3 Responses to “HEY SCOTT–”


    Comment by
    izzy
    November 8th, 2005
    at 11:00 am

    homesc.../37728

    Scott is in Europe, so he may not be able to respond.


    Comment by
    Tad
    November 8th, 2005
    at 3:47 pm

    From reading the decision, I can’t tell if the lawyers arguing the case blew it or they were dealing with an activist court. The case pits the parent’s right to control the upbringing of the child against the state’s authority as Parens Patriae. Rather than decide which doctrine is supreme, the court decided that the parent’s rights are not exclusive.

    The court also found that there was a legitimate state interest for the school to run the survey. Says who? Was there an election? Did some elected body make this determination for the people of California? Is there some historical precedent? Nope. It was a M.A. intern volunteering at a school to research her thesis, and the principal, who decided this was a state interest.


    Comment by
    Scott W. Somerville
    November 14th, 2005
    at 3:44 am

    Im still in Europe (Florence, at the moment, which is why I cant find the apostrophe key on this Italian keyboard), and I still havent read the case. But your comments remind me of a MA case where parents challenged the distribution of condoms to high school students. The case was a ringing reaffirmation of parents rights… but the parents lost because the State did not FORCE kids to take the condoms. The MA court held that parental rights were only triggered when the State acted in a coercive or compulsory way.

    Ill be interested in reading it as soon as I get back. Which should be next week, unless I cant tear myself away.