|
This is a couple weeks old, but wanted to point it out. Let's allow the ACLU to tell us the happy news:
A Massachusetts federal appeals court today ruled that an elementary school can continue to use children's books that encourage tolerance for gay people. The ACLU cheers the decision, which rejected the claims of parents who said exposing their children to such books violated their ability to direct the religious training of their children.
Noting that there has never been a federal case finding a constitutional right of parents to exempt their children from exposure to books used in public schools, the court said, "There is no free exercise right to be free from any reference in public elementary schools to the existence of families in which the parents are of different gender combinations."
The books at issue in the case were "Molly's Family," "King and King," and "Who's In A Family?"
This particular case, Parker v. Hurley, stemmed from, well, here's the Boston Globe, in 2005,
For David Parker, the first alarm went off in January, when his 5-year-old son came home from his kindergarten class at Lexington's Joseph Estabrook School with a bag of books promoting diversity.
Inside were books about foreign cultures and traditions, along with food recipes. There was also a copy of ''Who's In a Family?" by Robert Skutch, which depicts different kinds of families, including same-sex couples raising children.
You can read here the opinion given by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. This paragraph from the opinion sums up the case, which would take awhile to recount in detail,
The Parkers object to their child being presented in kindergarten and first grade with two books that portray diverse families, including families in which both parents are of the same gender. The Wirthlins object to a second-grade teacher's reading to their son's class a book that depicts and celebrates a gay marriage. The parents do not challenge the use of these books as part of a nondiscrimination curriculum in the public schools, but challenge the school district's refusal to provide them with prior notice and to allow for exemption from such instruction.
What I find of particular interest in this case is what the court, and other courts, say about what rights we have as parents. Again, here's the court,
First, as to the parents' free exercise rights, the mere fact that a child is exposed on occasion in public school to a concept offensive to a parent's religious belief does not inhibit the parent from instructing the child differently. A parent whose "child is exposed to sensitive topics or information [at school] remains free to discuss these matters and to place them in the family's moral or religious context, or to supplement the information with more appropriate materials." C.N., 430 F.3d at 185; see also Newdow, 542 U.S. at 16 (noting that the school's requirement that Newdow's daughter recite the pledge of allegiance every day did not "impair[] Newdow's right to instruct his daughter in his religious views"). The parents here did in fact have notice, if not prior notice, of the books and of the school's overall intent to promote toleration of same-sex marriage, and they retained their ability to discuss the material and subject matter with their children.
Well, how nice. The school can expose children to purt'near anything, because the parents have a chance for a rebuttal at home? Similarly,
Joey has a more significant claim, both because he was required to sit through a classroom reading of King and King and because that book affirmatively endorses homosexuality and gay marriage. It is a fair inference that the reading of King and King was precisely intended to influence the listening children toward tolerance of gay marriage. That was the point of why that book was chosen and used. Even assuming there is a continuum along which an intent to influence could become an attempt to indoctrinate, however, this case is firmly on the influence-toward-tolerance end. There is no evidence of systemic indoctrination. There is no allegation that Joey was asked to affirm gay marriage.
I am curious as to just what the court would consider indoctrination.
I am certainly no legal beagle, but among the previous opinions this opinion refers to is Swanson, which had this little snippet,
The case law in this area establishes that parents simply do not have a constitutional right to control each and every aspect of their children's education and oust the state's authority over that subject.
And, this gem from everybody's favorite court, the 9th Circuit, in the case Fields v. Palmdale School Dist,
Parents have a right to inform their children when and as they wish on the subject of sex; they have no constitutional right, however, to prevent a public school from providing its students with whatever information it wishes to provide, sexual or otherwise, when and as the school determines that it is appropriate to do so.
And that's what we're up against, fellow parents.
(cross-posted at Truth v. the Machine) |
