Below is my column in USA Today on the latest decision against parental rights by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Foote v. Feliciano. The fight over parental rights could become the defining issue for many in the coming years. It is also a type of cultural war over what many of us view as a natural right over the raising of our children.
Here is the column:
In her celebrated book “Red Scarf Girl,” author Ji-li Jiang recounts growing up during the Cultural Revolution in China. She and millions of others had to choose between obeying the country’s communist government or obeying her parents.
“’Now, you have to choose between two roads,’ ” Jiang wrote. “Thin-Face looked straight into my eyes. ‘You can break with your family and follow Chairman Mao, or you can follow your father and become an enemy of the people.’”
Thankfully, we are constitutionally and culturally protected against such authoritarianism. Yet, we are experiencing our own type of cultural revolution as parents and schools collide over the education of our children.
Court refuses to recognize parents’ rights
A recent legal decision captured this growing divide. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit ruled last month that parents had no protected right to be informed when their children change their gender identity in public school.
In Foote v. Feliciano, Marissa Silvestri and Stephen Foote sued Baird Middle School in Ludlow, Massachusetts, after they learned that school administrators did not inform them that their 11-year-old child had self declared as “genderqueer” and that teachers and staff were using a new name and new pronouns for the student.
The parents were initially told only that their child was experiencing mental health difficulties, including depression. Silvestri said they would seek mental health support for their child and asked that administrators “not have any private conversations with (the Student) in regards to this matter.”
The parents later learned that the school’s staff had continued to meet with their child without their knowledge, implemented the change in gender identity and took active measures not to reveal the change to them (including using the student’s birth name in communications with the parents). The school, without the parents’ knowledge, arranged for changes in everything from the use of male bathrooms to the exclusive use of the child’s new name in class.
The district court in Massachusetts denied the parents a trial and granted a summary dismissal in favor of the schools.
A panel of three federal judges agreed and rejected any due process claim of parents to be informed, let alone to control, such decisions for an 11-year-old child.
Court says educators, not parents, are ‘experts’ on children
In a truly Orwellian line, the judges declared, “As per our understanding of Supreme Court precedent, our pluralistic society assigns those curricular and administrative decisions to the expertise of school officials, charged with the responsibility of educating children.”
Most of us must have missed that memo. Few would believe that sending our children to a public school means we have transferred the most fundamental parental rights to “experts” on rearing our children.
We understand that schools need to maintain certain standards and conduct. However, changing the gender of a child is a bit more weighty than requiring a school uniform or stipulating nutritional choices in school lunches.
The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment guarantees citizens that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” There is no part of our lives more valuable to most of us than our children.
I remember when we had our first child and were escorted out of the hospital by a nurse. After helping my wife into the car, I turned around and was handed a swaddled bundle with a baby inside.
The nurse then walked away as I stood there in a moment of utter panic. We were given a small human being at the curbside with the level of preparation of a Starbucks latte. I stood there looking at my son Ben with the same level of confidence that I would have had if handed a small nuclear device and then tasked with defusing it. You soon realize that you are all in.
The only thing you have at that moment is the only thing you truly need. They have you. Every part of you. Our children had us at hello. The moment that bundle was put in my arms, I changed. I was a dad and all of the prior priorities in my life suddenly became irrelevant.
No one told me at the hospital carport that he was ours until he is old enough to be turned over to the expertise of public school officials.
The fact is, by the time our kids go to school, we are the experts of that child. While teachers clearly have important training and expertise, they do not know that child. Not really.
They were not there to perform monster inspections at 3 a.m. or to wrestle with a goat who decided to eat his favorite blankie at a petting zoo. They do not know that look when he is panicked or that curious smile when he is near tears. These experts took Child Development 101. We have a Ph.D. in our kids, a developmental dissertation on late-night fevers, sibling fights and orthodontic bills.
This is not to say that teachers have no responsibility for children. In too many cases, children can be abused or they may be unable to express themselves to their parents on issues like gender identity. Schools have a right to confirm that a child’s mental health issues are being addressed. However, absent evidence of abuse, the parents must be informed and make decisions on such treatment.
Parents have the natural right to control the upbringing of our kids
The Foote case comes at a time when parents are becoming more alarmed and more active in education. The response from some school boards, teachers and politicians has been strikingly hostile and territorial.
In 2023, Rachel Wall, a now former school board member in Marion, Iowa, posted on Facebook: “The purpose of a public ed is to not teach kids what the parents want. It is to teach them what society needs them to know. The client is not the parent, but the community.”
In 2022, state Rep. Lee Snodgrass, D-Wis., tweeted: “If parents want to ‘have a say’ in their child’s education, they should home school or pay for private school tuition out of their family budget.”
Faced with declining educational achievement and rising social agendas, many families are leaving public schools and others are demanding school choice in the form of vouchers.
At the same time, there is growing support for a Parents Bill of Rights. The Trump administration can work with Congress to condition federal funding on schools’ respect for parental rights, even if the courts do not protect such rights.
In the meantime, Foote should be appealed to the Supreme Court, which can reinforce the constitutional protection afforded to parents.
A century ago, the nation’s highest court ruled in Pierce v. Society of Sisters that “the child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.”
In its 2000 Troxel v. Granville decision, the court recognized “the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.”
There is no greater natural right than the right to control the upbringing of our children. This right was not granted to us by the grace of the state. It rests with us as human beings. It is part of a panoply of natural rights embraced by the framers − a commitment made nearly 250 years ago in our Declaration of Independence.
Progressives’ shock over the results of the last election could prove a prelude to what is coming if they continue down this road. There is no more powerful identity than that of a parent. When you mess with our children, all other issues instantly become trivial. It is not just partisan. It is primal.
Many politicians are terrified of defying the far-left teachers unions. They and these “experts” have no inkling of what is coming.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
This is a test
I am here???
Well crap, I can’t get my Irish Poem to post???
Tells Out Of School???
An Irish Poem by Squeeky Fromm
There once were some judges in Mass,
Whose heads were stuck clear up their a$$!
The judicial b-words
Ruled, “Snitches get stitches!”
More or less, as they floundered en masse!
I guess wordpress does not like the B-word, even if you put an exclamation point there instead of the “i”.
I loved your Poem Squeeky, and I love how you spell your name now too…Can we get married 💖
Jonathan: Lawyers are familiar with the Latin phrase “in loco parentis”. It means “in place of a parent”. In the school setting it means teachers and administrators take on some of the parent’s responsibilities in raising and educating each child. It’s an awesome responsibility and schools treat it seriously. Through much of our history children were viewed by parents as “property”, forced to work on the farms or in factories to help the family with expenses. Children had no rights that parents or society were bound to respect. Then in the early part of the last century our views changed. Under child labor laws children could no longer be exploited for their labor power. The public school system was developed to give each child the right to a public education. Children were no longer considered “property” but given most the same rights as adult citizens under our Constitution–like the right to privacy.
Now comes the so-called “parental rights” movement that wants to turnback the clock. It’s part of the “culture wars” in which the right thinks parents should be able dictate to schools what subjects should be taught to children. For them no more “woke” ideology in which students are exposed to how racism actual works or that anything about the LGBTQ+ community–especially trans gender issues. For the right these issues should never to a subject for classroom discussion. So books covering these topics are banned and laws are instituted to prevent any subjects of interest to students. It’s the “Handmaid’s Tale” in spades where right-wing groups want to dictate school curriculu
So now comes the Ludlow school case in which the parents alleged their 11 year old came out to a teacher as “genderqueer”. Teachers and administrators made the parents aware of the their child’s preferred gender identity. But the parents claim the school’s policies violated their due process rights as parents under the Constitution. The 1st Circuit three-judge panel indicated “Ludlows’s Protocol is one of non-disclosure, instructing teachers not to inform parents about their child’s expressions of gender without the student’s consent” (at p. 10 of the decision). The court pointed out that the school’s Protocol complied with state law and regulations re gender identity. Then the Court stated: ” A cognizable parental rights claim under the Due Process Clause,…generally requires restraining conduct by the government, not mere non-disclosure of information” (at p. 38) The Court also pointed that the parent’s due process rights were not violated because “the Protocol plausibly creates a space for students to express their identity without worrying about parental backlash”.
But you seem to think the rights of parents are “primal” and a schools’ acceptance of a student’s preferred gender identity and refusal to disclose that information at the student’s request is “Orwellian” and an infringement of parental rights because “We are the experts of that child” and “we have a Phd in our kids,…”. Sorry to break the news but parents frequently have no idea what is going on in the heads of their kids. That’s why kids are willing to come out to teachers because they, and not the parents, are actually the ones with the Phds and understand better than anyone the problems for kids who are “genderqueer”. You need a lot of catching up, Jonathan!
“Lawyers are familiar with the Latin phrase “in loco parentis”. It means “in place of a parent”. In the school setting it means teachers and administrators take on some of the parent’s responsibilities in raising and educating each child. It’s an awesome responsibility and schools treat it seriously.”
– Comrade General Secretary Dumba– McInliar
_____________________________________________________
The “school” is charged with one mission, which is not to nurture and raise children but to provide a strong basic education to students.
What public schools do is propagandize and indoctrinate American children in not freedom but collectivism, a fundamental object of the Communist Manifesto.
Public school have become direct and mortal enemies of the American Thesis: Freedom and Self-Reliance, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, Americans, and America.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Give me just one generation of youth, and I’ll transform the whole world.”
– Vladimir Lenin
#74. Child molesters need a signed form. The form is signed by the molester and child. They both agree not to tell the child’s parents.
In Loco Parentis is not legally the same as removing the parents.
Schools have LIMITED in loco parenti powers while a student is in school.
those powers do NOT allow for over-riding the expressed wishes of a parent.
They do not allow depriving parents of information about their children.
The powers are temporary and deal with emergencies.
Where the actual parents are available – the school can not substitute.
Further it has nothing to do with educating or raising the child, it has to do with dealing with emergencies and sometimes discipline.
The schools role in educating a child is a delegated power from the parent,
The school has responsibility for educating a child – because it has essentially been contracted to do so.
The parent can revoke that power anytime.
Laws often require that a child is educated – but they do not specify that must be done by a specific school – public or otherwise.
Schools have ZERO power in raising a child – and in loco parentis has little to do with that task.
Your spouting idiocy – a baby sitter is in loco parentis when the parents are not present.
Do you think that allows the baby sitter to make life altering choices for the child without notifying parents in a non-emergency situation ?
Do you think Babysitters can substitute their judgement about how to raise a child for the parents ?
As an example if a parent prohibits corporal punishment of their child, can the baby sitter ignore that ?
And there is nowhere in this country where children have the same rights as adults.
There are myriads of supreme court cases regarding the rights of kids or students.
Those rights are a small subset of those of adults, and children have no right or privacy with respect to their parents.
There is no “so-called” parental rights movement – it is just the law.
No one is trying to turn back the clock. Just stop left wing idiots from this reality defying nonsense that kids are tiny adults with all the same rights. They are NOT.
Yes, this is part of the “culture wars” – this is the part where the left went WAY TOO FAR.
Parents DO have the right to dictate what kids are taught. It has NEVER been otherwise.
Aside from the parents ability to elect or remove school boards.
They also have the power to take their children to other schools.
In most of the country, they can homeschool, they can also cyber charter or charter – using the same public funds that would have been used in a traditional public school. In some states – and many european countries parents can use the public school funds for their child to send them to the private school of their choice.
Whether you like it or not Parents have the ABSOLUTE right to preclude left wing nuts from indoctrinating their children.
All that is at debate here is whether the local public school can deny parents the knowledge that they are engaged in educating a child in ways that the parents do not approve.
You rant that kids are not the parents property – they are also NOT the states or the local schools property either.
And NO – You or some purple haired 20 something with a Ed 101 degree that has never had to raise an actual child of their own has neither the expertise, nor the power to decide over a parents objections or concerns what a child is taught about racism, sexuality. gender or any of the rest of your left wing nonsense.
No Schools are not a venue by which the left can undermine the values of parents and indoctrinate children who are not equipped to grasp the lunacy of the indoctrination.
This is also a way the left is subverting their own failure to reproduce.
In the US the birth rate for conservatives is more than 50% higher than progressives. The lefts solution is to indoctrinate children to convert them to left wing nuts – since they are not producing left wing nuts on their own.
Frankly only an idiot thinks that lectures to students on “how racism works” are approiate for public schools.
Unless you beleive that racism is innate – in which case it is futile for schools to try to deal with it.
Then teaching regarding racism has no place in public schools. If racism is not innate – then students will automatically be less racist than their ancestors.
With respect to other aspects idiotic left wing ideolgoy – the situation is even worse.
Sex education in schools has been an abject FAILURE – What exactly has it accomplished ?
Sexual activity in teens rose as schools engaged in sex education – teen pregnancies rose, and the spread of venereal diseases rose.
The more recent spread of LGBTQ+ nonsense has had almost the opposite effect. Young adults are no longer having sex, marrying, forming families and having children – but they are having epidemic levels of anxiety and depression.
You can be certain that any ideology whose consequences are as crappy and destructive as the Woke left ideology is not just garbage – but it is rotten at its foundations.
Regardless there is no legitimate power for schools to engage in sex education, or indoctrinate kids regarding racism or Woke ideology.
These are NOT fit topics for a classroom, and tattoed nose ringed twenty somethings who have not had sex themselves should not be teaching anything about sex to children.
No books are not banned. Go to amazon – you can get whatever you want.
But we do not allow Hustler in school libraries.
The texts in a school library shoudl serve the curiculum, and the curriculum should be focused on the core skils – that have been in massive decline as the left has F#$Ked over our schools – the 3R’s
In what world do you think that Left wing nuts – who themselves can not manage arrithmatic, or reading and writing, should be dictating the curriculum that is taught to other peoples kids ?
No the curiculum is NOT being captured by the right, but it IS owned by PARENTS.
You are FREE to teach YOUR kid whatever you wish. You are NOT free to FORCE FEED your woke nonsense to someone else’s kids.
#74. Take on responsibilities of the parents? I’d say professional distance at all times.
Most of us do NOT believe that some 11yr old came out as GenderQueer in Ludlow – outside of left wing nut indoctrination camps – what 11yr old even knows what “genderqueer” is ? What 11yr old boy needs to know what GenderQueer is ?
In fact in the real world – there is no such thing. One of the problems with the left is that is keeps manufacturing things like identities and genders.
No two Humans are alike – we do not have the same finger prints – must we have a new set of pronouns because my finger prints do not match yours.
All teenagers are screwed up by changes in hormones. No 11 year old is in a position to have a clue about their identity. 11yr old males are not into actual puberty. All teens have “special problems” with their emerging sexuality – this is a natural consequence of aging hormones.
It is one of the reasons that we generally do not consider people adults until 18-21 and most of us are still not really adults by 21.
Parents frequently do have no idea what is going on in the heads of their children.
But they DO have one major advantage over 20 something Ed 101 majors and so called experts – which I doubt Ludlow has any of.
When I attended public school – the Nurse was only part time and served multiple schools.
If Ludlow has a teenage sexuality expert – their budget should be cut they are wasting money.
Regardless parents have a major advantage over so called left wing nut “experts”.
Parents have “skin in the game” – these are THEIR children. In the case of your 11yr old – they have 11yrs experience with them – something NO ONE else has. Further they are likely to have to deal with the fallout from their decisions regarding their kids for decades.
If Ludlow F#$Ks up a kid – the “experts” will be gone next year, the kid will move on. No one is suing the school – that is near impossible.
If Woke idiots at a school district experimenting on kids F$%K up their mistakes move on they graduate.
Most parents are stuck with whatever they have done to their kids for life.
Further – I know this is hard for you – but most parents LOVE their kids. They make mistakes, they screw up, but they still love their kids.
You are not honestly going to tell me that some 20 something green haired Ed major whose acne has not cleared actually loves any of their students in the way parents do.
Grow up Dennis – you are a complete moron.
Once again you are fact free and on the wrong side of an important issue.
#74. What 11 year old boy , John Say? An 11 year old boy who has been molested physically and mentally by MSM and half of every person he’s met in his limited number of years.
John Say,
Great comment. I can recall being a teen, thinking I had the world figured out. Then when I was out on my own, I discovered what cash flow meant and the real world came crashing down on me.
You say the schools conduct complied with State law – OK
Then state law violated parents rights.
You can not work arround a rights violation by layers of bureaucracy.
“You can not work arround a rights violation by layers of bureaucracy.”
That should be true but the left has done a pretty good job of doing so until now.
Dennis – Child labor laws DO NOT apply to parents.
TODAY Farmers can have their 6yr olds (or younger if they can figure out how to get them to do a worthwhile task). collect eggs.
The Amish do it all the time.
When I was 5 I was emptying Trash cans in My father’s office – I was paid a nickel for the small ones and a dime for the large ones.
I worked for the family business from the age of 5 until just about 50.
There are no child labor laws that apply to parents.
The Tragedy of Yarden Silveira
He is believed to have committed suicide after suffering severe complications from gender-transition surgery.
https://www.city-journal.org/article/yarden-silveira-death-transgender-surgery-complications?skip=1
Considering how poorly public schools perform their one key duty, educating children, it is no surprise that they fail horrifically when they attempt to treat mental illness.
But the courts??? What happened to sanity in the courts? Law schools?
#74. I’m convinced it’s a form of torture. How else could parents be so successfully tortured except by torturing their children.
It’s insanity and the outrage is appropriate. Parents can flee. There is irreparable damage.
As to vouchers, only a portion of ADA can be claimed. Think of a bar stocked with all kinds of drinks. The portion of the stock you imbibe is small in comparison to the bar itself and stock. The bar is shared with others who’ll come for drinks even in 6 months.
It’s not the best analogy but a really intelligent person here can explain that idea.
Kids when they are young often do stupid things. When I was in the Army I knew a few West Point grads who were going into Ranger School at Fort Benning. When they were updating their personal background forms a few of them changed their religion to “Druid” thus requiring their dog tags to be changed to reflect their new religion as “Druid.” Could it be an 11 year old is kind of gaming the school system? Wouldn’t surprise me.
Does Representative Sarah McBride (D, DE) menstruate?
When writing articles like this, perhaps you should profoundly think about this fact: Children spend more time with their teachers than with their parents. Additionally time spent with teachers is intensive as they are a close audience. When I was a child, in Cuba, we were frequently told to consider teachers as our second parents. Reason why, the focus of our enemies has been to take control of our educational system… first the successful take over of our universities, whose graduates then have gone on to populate colleges, elementary and high schools, as teachers. This has been going on for decades as a purposeful strategy by the soviets and other enemies of this country. In case you have already read, read again the Griffin interview with former KGB operative Bezmenov on the Soviet’s plan to gradually subvert the U.S. social and political system – and please overlook the campaign by the left to personally discredit both Griffin and Bezmenov. Bezmenov 1984 predictions, regardless of the motive, have proven to be on the mark and accurate. To overturn what has been done to our educational system, across the board, is exactly what Bezmenov said – it will take at least 3 generations of overcome the damage done, if we are lucky enough to develop a plan to do so. I know you are extremely busy, but if you can, I will appreciate to hear from you.
School officials are not experts in mental health issues. A licensed psychologist or psychiatrist would be an expert. I doubt a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist would provide mental health services to a minor without the consent of a parent having custody or in extraordinary circumstances prescribed by law.
Excellent and quite moving opinion piece. I kept thinking through most of it: This is a fundamental right of parents. Finally the magic words appeared.
From “The New Republic”:
“A new CNN/SSRS poll shows a majority of Americans don’t trust the way President Trump is handling the economy—lower than any point during his first term.
Fifty-six percent of Americans disapprove of his economic actions, while 52 percent disapprove of how he’s handled the federal budget, and 61 percent of Americans disapprove of the tariffs specifically. The findings come as the stock market plummets further while Trump levies tariffs on allies in China, Canada, Mexico, and the European Union.
Fifty-three percent of Americans also have an unfavorable view of Elon Musk, who has been by Trump’s side carrying out his mass cuts and purges of the federal government. About 62 percent said that Musk had neither the experience nor the judgment to “make changes to the way the government works.” And 62 percent also believe that the DOGE cuts “will go too far and important federal government programs will be shut down.”
Trump has yet to respond to the poll.”
Transparency my ass.
Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency has repeatedly posted error-filled data that inflated its success at saving taxpayer money. But after a series of news reports called out those mistakes, the group changed its tactics.
It began making its new mistakes harder to find, leaving its already secretive activities even less transparent than before.
Today it’s kids in school. Tomorrow, will it be Doggie Day Care???
The author, Chloe Diamond-Lenow (pictured), is an assistant professor of women’s and gender studies at SUNY Oneonta, and uses the pronouns “she/they,” according to her bio on the public university website.
Basically, the professor’s argument seems to boil down to this: Dogs provide a positive relational experience for many LGBTQ people. However, the government also uses dogs and robo-dogs, or cyborgs, to commit unjust violence against marginalized people. Therefore, the relationships between dogs and humans are complex.
According to the abstract, the paper offers a “queer lesbian feminist analysis” of “lesbian-queer-trans-canine relationalities” and “the interconnected queer becomings of people, nature, animals, and machines amidst ecologies of love and violence in the 2020s.”
“The entanglements of violence and love in these queer dog relationalities provide insights into the complexities of queer and lesbian feminist worldbuilding. Lesbian and queer feminist cyborg politics can help theorize the potentials and challenges of these interspecies entanglements,” Diamond-Lenow writes.
This article offers a queer lesbian feminist analysis attuned to lesbian-queer-trans-canine relationalities. Specifically, the article places queer and lesbian ecofeminism in conversation with Donna Haraway’s work on the cyborg and companion species to theorize the interconnected queer becomings of people, nature, animals, and machines amidst ecologies of love and violence in the 2020s. It takes two key case studies as the focus for analysis: first, the state instrumentalization of dogs and robot dogs for racialized and imperial violence, and second, quotidian queer and lesbian-dog relationalities and becomings. In the first, the article traces how dogs are weaponized as tools of state violence and proposes a queer lesbian feminist critique of white supremacy and militarization that can also extend to a critique of the violence committed through and toward the dogs. In the second, the article analyzes how, within lesbian, non-binary, and trans-dog intimacies, dogs help articulate queer gender, sexuality, and kinship formations, and as such, queer worlds for gender, sexual, and kin becomings. The entanglements of violence and love in these queer dog relationalities provide insights into the complexities of queer and lesbian feminist worldbuilding. Lesbian and queer feminist cyborg politics can help theorize the potentials and challenges of these interspecies entanglements.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/suny-prof-explores-queer-canine-lesbian-feminist-cyborg-politics
It’s a per curiam opinion by a three-judge panel (all women, as it turns out). Two Biden appointees and one Obama appointees. None wanted to sign their names to it.
I wonder if the case will be en-banc’ed?
Why is it that I can understand the Constitution but I can’t understand you?
Are you smarter than the Constitution or is the Constitution smarter than you?
#74. A very sweet recount by Professor Turley and fatherhood.
Natural rights might be thought of as instincts, instinctual behaviors. Yes, offspring, reproduction, the next generation of the species, is in fact the meaning of life, essence of life.
Examining all life on earth from the least to greatest all have reproduction in common. It’s the very meaning of be fruitful and multiply. That phrase above all others set survival of the species as the purpose.
In this dystopia of course the very meaning of life is misunderstood, twisted and brought into illness.
Breaking news as reported by the Bee:
– Trump secures peace deal where Putin gets Ukraine during the week, while Zelensky gets weekends and two weeks in the summer
– Enough is Enough: Supreme Court rules First Amendment does not apply to Meghan Markle
– Checkmate: Trump hits Canada with tariff of double-infinity plus one
– Liberals defeat Nazis by painting swastikas everywhere and torching immigrant businesses (Tesla)
– Ireland capsizes after arrival of Rosie O’Donnell
– Layoffs delayed as Department of Education unable to calculate what 50% of employees would be
– ISIS claims responsibility for Meghan Markle Netflix show
– Portland police: we wish there was some kind of organized, armed force that could fight back against Antifa
– Meghan Markle announces new Netflix show that features her dealing with negative fallout from her Netflix show
– Trump demands investigation into whoever nominated Amy Coney Barrett
– Disgruntled churchgoers hold up paddles saying “Sermon too long,” “That’s heresy,” and the like
– “Ladies and Gentlemen, we got him,” RFK, Jr. announces as Seal Team Six has neutralized the Kool-Aid man
– Modern-day Rosa Parks refuses to leave tip at takeout counter
– Laid-off IRS agent gets new job checking receipts at Costco exit
– Man builds time machine just to go back to when he had never heard of Andrew Tate
OldManFromKansas-
OMG. I hurt from laughing so hard. I especially loved the Dept of Education and Rosa Parks
This debate should not exist. Parents have rights over their children. Reasonable parents make better decisions for their children than detached ideologues. The state’s role is to protect rights, not to overrule those of individuals or parents. If the state overrules parental rights, it treats children as property rather than persons and undermines rights instead of protecting them.
As I said before, I bought a book, None Dare Call it Treason, 25th Anniversary Edition (1992) by John Stormer. While not 100% accurate, there are some great source materials in it to explain how America got to this point. In Education, there was a guy named George Counts, who wrote a little book back in 1932, Dare The School Build A New Social Order, which, if not the source of the problems, at least provides a good glimpse into the thinking of the Educational Institution. This is a long post, with a link to a pdf copy of the book. It is a short read. Counts starts off with this:
And when the word indoctrination is coupled with education there
is scarcely one among us possessing the hardihood to refuse to be horrified. This feeling is
so widespread that even Mr. Lunacharsky,
Commissar of Education in the Russian Republic until 1929, assured me on one occasion
that the Soviet educational leaders do not believe in the indoctrination of children in the
ideas and principles of communism. When I
asked him whether their children become good
communists while attending the schools, he
replied that the great majority do. On seeking
from him an explanation of this remarkable
phenomenon he said that Soviet teachers
merely tell their children the truth about human history.
5. There is the fallacy that the school should
be impartial in its emphases, that no bias should
be given instruction. We have already observed how the individual is inevitably molded
by the culture into which he is born. In the
case of the school a similar process operates
and presumably is subject to a degree of conscious direction. My thesis is that complete
impartiality is utterly impossible, that the
school must shape attitudes, develop tastes,
and even impose ideas. It is obvious that the
whole of creation cannot be brought into the
school. This means that some selection must
be made of teachers, curricula, architecture,
methods of teaching. And in the making of
the selection the dice must always be weighted
in favor of this or that. Here is a fundamental
truth that cannot be brushed aside as irrelevant
or unimportant; it constitutes the very essence of the matter under discussion. Nor can
the reality be concealed beneath agreeable
phrases. Professor Dewey states in his Democracy and Education that the school should
provide a purified environment for the child.
With this view I would certainly agree; probably no person reared in our society would
favor the study of pornography in the schools.
I am sure, however, that this means stacking
the cards in favor of the particular systems of
19
value which we may happen to possess. It is
one of the truisms of the anthropologist that
there are no maxims of purity on which all
peoples would agree. Other vigorous opponents of imposition unblushingly advocate the
“cultivation of democratic sentiments” in children or the promotion of child growth in the
direction of “a better and richer life.” The first
represents definite acquiescence in imposition;
the second, if it does not mean the same thing,
means nothing. I believe firmly that democratic sentiments should be cultivated and that
a better and richer life should be the outcome
of education, but in neither case would I place
responsibility on either God or the order of
nature. I would merely contend that as educators we must make many choices involving
the development of attitudes in boys and girls
and that we should not be afraid to acknowledge the faith that is in us or mayhap the forces
that compel us.
6. There is the fallacy that the great object
of education is to produce the college professor, that is, the individual who adopts an
agnostic attitude towards every important social issue, who can balance the pros against
the cons with the skill of a juggler, who sees
all sides of every question and never commits
himself to any, who delays action until all the
20
facts are in, who knows that all the facts will
never come in, who consequently holds his
judgment in a state of indefinite suspension, and who before the approach of middle age
sees his powers of action atrophy and his social sympathies decay. With Peer Gynt he can
exclaim:
Ay, think of it—wish it done—will it to boot,—
But do it—/ No, that’s past my understanding!
This type of mind also talks about waiting
until the solutions of social problems are
found, when as a matter of fact there are no
solutions in any definite and final sense. For
any complex social problem worthy of the
name there are probably tens and even scores,
if not hundreds, of “solutions,” depending
upon the premises from which one works. The
meeting of a social situation involves the
making of decisions and the working out of adjustments.
Also it involves the selection and rejection of values. If we wait for a solution to
appear like the bursting of the sun through the
clouds or the resolving of the elements in an
algebraic equation, we shall wait in vain. Although college professors, if not too numerous,
perform a valuable social function, society requires great numbers of persons who, while
21
capable of gathering and digesting facts, are
at the same time able to think in terms of life,
make decisions, and act. From such persons
will come our real social leaders.
7. There is the closely related fallacy that
education is primarily intellectualistic in its
processes and goals. Quite as important is that
ideal factor in culture which gives meaning,
direction, and significance to life. I refer to
the element of faith or purpose which lifts
man out of himself and above the level of his
more narrow personal interests. Here, in my
judgment, is one of the great lacks in our
schools and in our intellectual class today. We
are able to contemplate the universe and find
that all is vanity. Nothing really stirs us, unless it be that the bath water is cold, the toast
burnt, or the elevator not running; or that perchance we miss the first section of a revolving
door. Possibly this is the fundamental reason
why we are so fearful of molding the child.
We are moved by no great faiths; we are
touched by no great passions. We can view a
world order rushing rapidly towards collapse
with no more concern than the outcome of a
horse race; we can see injustice, crime and
misery in their most terrible forms all about us
and, if we are not directly affected, register the emotions of a scientist studying white rats
22
in a laboratory. And in the name of freedom,
objectivity, and the open mind, we would
transmit this general attitude of futility to our
children. In my opinion this is a confession of
complete moral and spiritual bankruptcy. We
cannot, by talk about the interests of children
and the sacredness of personality, evade the
responsibility of bringing to the younger generation a vision which will call forth their active loyalties and challenge them to creative
and arduous labors. A generation without
such a vision is destined, like ours, to a life of
absorption in self, inferiority complexes, and
frustration. The genuinely free man is not the
person who spends the day contemplating his
own navel, but rather the one who loses himself in a great cause or glorious adventure.
[All this eventually culminates in, this]
If democracy is to survive, it must seek a
new economic foundation. Our traditional
democracy rested upon small-scale production
in both agriculture and industry and a rather
general diffusion of the rights of property in
capital and natural resources. The driving
force at the root of this condition, as we have
seen, was the frontier and free land. With the
closing of the frontier, the exhaustion of free
land, the growth of population, and the coming of large scale production, the basis of
ownership was transformed. If property rights
are to be diffused in industrial society, natural
resources and all important forms of capital
45
will have to be collectively owned. Obviously
every citizen cannot hold title to a mine, a factory, a railroad, a department store, or even a
thoroughly mechanized farm. This clearly
means that, if democracy is to survive in the
United States, it must abandon its individualistic affiliations in the sphere of economics.
What precise form a democratic society will
take in the age of science and the machine,
we cannot know with any assurance today.
We must, however, insist on two things: first,
that technology be released from the fetters
and the domination of every type of special
privilege; and, second, that the resulting system of production and distribution be made
to serve directly the masses of the people.
Within these limits, as I see it, our democratic
tradition must of necessity evolve arid gradually assume an essentially collectivistic pattern. The only conceivable alternative is the
abandonment of the last vestige of democracy
and the frank adoption of some modern form
of feudalism.
The objection is of course raised at once
that a planned, coordinated, and socialized
economy, managed in the interests of the people, would involve severe restrictions on personal freedom. Undoubtedly in such an economy the individual would not be permitted
to do many things that he has customarily
done in the past. He would not be permitted
to carve a fortune out of the natural resources
of the nation, to organize a business purely for
the purpose of making money, to build a new
factory or railroad whenever and wherever
he pleased, to throw the economic system out
of gear for the protection of his own private
interests, to amass or to attempt to amass
great riches by the corruption of the political
life, the control of the organs of opinion, the
manipulation of the financial machinery, the
purchase of brains and knowledge, or the exploitation of ignorance, frailty, and misfortune. In exchange for such privileges as these,
which only the few could ever enjoy, we would
secure the complete and uninterrupted functioning of the productive system and thus lay
the foundations for a measure of freedom for
the many that mankind has never known in
the past. Freedom without a secure economic
foundation is only a word: in our society it
may be freedom to beg, steal, or starve. The
right to vote, if it cannot be made to insure
the right to work, is but an empty bauble. Indeed it may be less than a bauble: it may serve
to drug and dull the senses of the masses. Today only the members of the plutocracy are
really free, and even in their case freedom is
rather precarious. If all of us could be assured
of material security and abundance, we would
be released from economic worries and our
energies liberated to grapple with the central
problems of cultural advance.
Under existing conditions, however, no
champion of the democratic way of life can
view the future with equanimity. If democracy is to be achieved in the industrial age,
powerful classes must be persuaded to sur50
render their privileges, and institutions deeply
rooted in popular prejudice will have to be
radically modified or abolished. And according to the historical record, this process has
commonly been attended by bitter struggle
and even bloodshed. Ruling classes never surrender their privileges voluntarily. Rather do
they cling to what they have been accustomed
to regard as their rights, even though the
heavens fall. Men customarily defend their property, however it may have been acquired,
as tenaciously as the proverbial mother defends her young. There is little evidence from
the pages of American history to support us
in the hope that we may adjust our difficulties
through the method of sweetness and light.
Since the settlement of the first colonists along
the Atlantic seaboard we have practiced and
become inured to violence. This is peculiarly
true wherever and whenever property rights,
actual or potential, have been involved. Consider the pitiless extermination of the Indian
tribes and the internecine strife over the issue
of human slavery. Consider the long reign of
violence in industry, from the days of the
Molly Maguires in the seventies down to the
strikes in the mining regions of Kentucky today. Also let those, whose memories reach
back a dozen years, recall the ruthlessness with which the privileged classes put down every
expression of economic or political dissent
during the period immediately following the
World War. When property is threatened,
constitutional guarantees are but scraps of
paper and even the courts and the churches,
with occasional exceptions, rush to the support of privilege and vested interest
The fact that other
groups refuse to deal boldly and realistically
with the present situation does not justify the
teachers of the country in their customary
53
policy of hesitation and equivocation. The
times are literally crying for a new vision of
American destiny. The teaching profession,
or at least its progressive elements, should
eagerly grasp the opportunity which the fates
have placed in their hands.
Such a vision of what America might become in the industrial age I would introduce
into our schools as the supreme imposition, but
one to which our children are entitled—a
priceless legacy which it should be the first
concern of our profession to fashion and bequeath. The objection will of course be raised
that this is asking teachers to assume unprecedented social responsibilities. But we live in
difficult and dangerous times—times when
precedents lose their significance. If we are
content to remain where all is safe and quiet
and serene, we shall dedicate ourselves, as
teachers have commonly done in the past, to
a role of futility, if not of positive social reaction. Neutrality with respect to the great
issues that agitate society, while perhaps theoretically possible, is practically tantamount to
giving support to the forces of conservatism.
As Justice Holmes has candidly said in his
essay on Natural Law, “we all, whether we
know it or not, are fighting to make the kind
of world that we should like.” If neutrality is
impossible even in the dispensation of justice,
whose emblem is the blindfolded goddess, how
is it to be achieved in education? To ask the
question is to answer it.
https://brittlebooks.library.illinois.edu/brittlebooks_closed/Books2008-02/counge0001darsch/counge0001darsch.pdf
Please do not post an intractable treatise as your magnum opus like this again.
Magnum Opus? No, it is just excerpts from a 1932 Book. Who else besides me is going to read the book at the link?
The shared understanding between parents and public schools about each’s roles began to break down with the breakdown of the post-war nuclear family. Things like sending children to school unfed, and exposing children to shrill arguments and domestic-violence, parental alcoholism and drug addiction, neglect of the child’s physical health and social development — the schools took on more responsibility than they should have — further weakening the expectation of family providership.
The mental health of children primarily is a parental responsibility. The school has a more limited role, seeing to it that bullying and violent attacks are deterred through school policies — protecting students from traumas, especially ongoing ones at the hands of fellow students or staff members.
While I generally endorse JT’s ideas about free speech in “The Indispensable Right”, one area he ignores is parental rights to protect their children from undesirable influences — a form of censorship in the minds of social media platforms, porn site operators, and foreign propagandists. If parents have a natural right to exert control over the content and values their child is exposed to, then that implies limits on the free speech of all other adults to influence said child. JT owes us some clear thinking on this conflict.
Beware of lining up behind a “limitless” notion of free speech — this argument cuts both ways, and can be used in court by woke educators to assert a right to influence youngsters unimpeded by parental approval. Children are not adults, and it is a major mistake to hand over their upbringing up to “the public square”.
“Beware of lining up behind a “limitless” notion of free speech — this argument cuts both ways, and can be used in court by woke educators to assert a right to influence youngsters unimpeded by parental approval.”
It seems like the worse problems begin with conflating freedom of expression with freedom of speech.
Don’t overthink it, which is to obfuscate for sinister purposes—the very modus operandi of the insane and sickly drunkard, Karl Marx.
Seems reasonable to me:
– Parents hold dominion over their children while parents are subject to valid laws against bodily injury, abuse, neglect, abandonment, etc.
– Schools must inform parents when students exhibit symptoms of physical and mental illness.
– Children may sue for emancipation.