I have not yet read this entire article, but it seemed like some good reading for the weekend for those of you so inclined. (You can download it via the link provided at that site.)
I’ll preface this with a definition, from the Free Online Dictionary:
lib·er·ala. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
For decades political theorists have worried and argued about what steps a liberal society must take to protect children being raised in illiberal communities. They have focused their attention on the extent to which a liberal society must permit or condemn such practices as plygamy, clitoridectomy, and child marriage. Virtually absent from the debate has been any discussion of the extent to which a liberal society should condone or constrain homeschooling, particularly as practiced by religious fundamentalist families explicitly seeking to shield their children from liberal values of sex equality, gender role fluidity and critical rationality.
This appears to be the root of the author’s concern. Parallel societies springing up from religious fundamentalist teachings. From what she writes later, the liberal value of “sex equality” deals directly with the teaching that women should submit to their husbands in marriage. I think what is meant by “gender role fluidity” is clear. And I’ll make the assumption that “critical rationality” refers directly to evolution, but I don’t think that is brought up in the paper. Only a certain minimum education that the state is mandated to ensure which includes not only basic skills, but certain liberal values. And this is central to her argument (emphasis mine):
It [the argument about the constitutionally mandated minimum that states must require of homeschools] highlights the distinctness of parents and children and emphasizes that parental control over children’s basic education flows from the state (rather than vice versa). States delegate power over children’s basic education to parents, and the delegation itself is necessarily subject to constitutional constraints.
This is what I don’t really understand. I’m all for a “liberal” society, at least in theory. I live peacefully in a society with atheists, homosexuals, Muslims, pagans and liberals. I don’t agree with them. In conversation, I may even tell them that. But I am not about to try to exert any political force against them or what they teach their children as truth. What ideas exactly is a “liberal” society open to, if conservatism is so taboo as to necessitate state oversight of the relationship between parent and child to ensure its extinction?
But more central to the argument, and more concerning to me is the idea that the parent’s ability to homeschool is delegated by the state. What happened to “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America?”
We the people gave the power to the state which governs by our consent. That is the most fundamental assertion of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and yet somehow out of that we assert that the parent does not have the right to educate the child, but is only delegated a portion of the state’s authority?
I am not saying that parents have the right to not educate their child, but some minimal standard of due process should be necessary to bring the state into my home to oversee what I am doing. And “Christian” shouldn’t be enough.
Related Tags: homeschooling, education, illiberal education
Principled Discovery is a place to stop and discuss news and information related to faith, family and particularly education. Pour yourself a cup of tea and join the conversation! 
The author of this paper says a significant “constitutional question” is raised by state abdication of control over homeschooling…
Regarding the Public function doctrine - her argument here is very troubling. She treats a parent as a state actor because they are exercising “monopolistic control” over their children’s education, a domain belonging to the state (so she says), thus bringing the homeschooling parent under constitutional constraints. Scaaarry. Homeschooling parents have “taken over the state’s public function” she insists. As you mentioned, Dana, show me where the right to educate your child originally rested with the state. That right originates with the parent, Period. The State has taken it, or was given it.
Like you, I’m not so worried about basic minimum education requirements. Except that why isn’t the author taking the public schools to task, then, because the public schools are not providing a basic minimum education in many cases; many more cases, in fact, than you could ever begin to pin on homeschoolers.
But the incredibly worrisome part, if anyone takes this paper seriously, is the bit about the Equal Protection Clause prohibiting what she calls sexist education - “most notably that women should be subordinate to men in marriage.” Using the Equal Protection Clause to prevent a homeschooling parent from teaching their children about biblical issues??? What a stretch. The Equal Protection Clause, part of the 14th Amendment, limits only the powers of government bodies, not private parties (the ones being protected).
Constitutional law is not meant to affect private individuals. This paper goes to incredible, twisted lengths to pervert individual actions of homeschooling parents into “state” actions to trap and bind them by laws never meant for them.
The problem is the author of this paper is not a liberal (regardless of how she defines herself). It’s frustrating for liberals like myself when there are so many conservatives running around calling themselves liberals. What all the nanny-statists don’t get is that trying to force others to adopt your way of thinking defines you as a conservative. Because they look at the ideas they are pushing and see that they conflict with what the ideas those who have already declared themselves (properly) as conservatives are pushing, they assume they must be liberal, but the very fact that they are trying to force those ideals on others makes them conservatives.
I agree with the ideals cited in the excerpted portion of the article: sex equality (the idea that neither men nor women are inherently inferior or superior to one another), gender role fluidity (the idea that a man doesn’t have to be the sole source of financial income for the family and doesn’t have to drink bear and belch all the time to be a man and a woman doesn’t have to sit at home barefoot and pregnant knitting doilies all the time to be a woman) and critical rationality (the idea that we should think for ourselves versus blindly following everything we’re told), but I for one would never attempt to force another to believe those things. Now I’d be happy to explain why I believe those things to anybody who cares to know, but it’s fundamental to my core that (so long as they are not hurting others) everyone should have the right to do, think, and believe as they wish.
Dolphin,
My only disagreement is really in your definition of conservative. While many do attempt to force their ideals on others, that isn’t what makes someone conservative. Conservatism is generally about holding to more traditional values.
I really like this essay by Russell Kirk and it defines pretty well what I believe and why I consider myself conservative rather than libertarian.
As far as the author’s concerns she raises, I don’t substantially disagree. She continually points out the extreme. And there aren’t very many of us who support those views of women, etc. (hence the term extreme).
What I substantially disagree with is the notion that the parent is somehow acting on the state’s behalf. That is so backwards to our founding political philosophy it is insane.
You can find anyone with a degree to say about anything you want, and I don’t know how seriously this paper will be taken. But our society is moving steadily in that direction, so I doubt it will be long. Right now, this sort of state control is only theorized, but that is where it begins.
It is also very much in line with CEDAW, which we signed but never ratified. And while that is another document which on its own does not necessarily raise too many concerns, the way it is being applied is disconcerting to me.
(And I don’t believe that we have a “right” to childcare, health care, etc. in the sense that society is obligated to pay for it. I have a very different definition of what a right is.
Very interesting discussion and thoughts. Thanks for sharing the article!
I’m still only about a third of the way through, but what puzzles me is the examples she raises. As far as I know (and tell me if I’m wrong) the more conservative a family is (i.e. illiberal) the more likely they are to make sure that their children, sons and daughters alike, get a basic education. You need to read and do some math to use recipes to feed your family and sew all those clothes from patterns nowadays. Not to mention that I’m quite sure the bible hasn’t yet been dumbed down like the instructions that come with medicines. Let’s get real now, the homeschoolers who make statements like these: “To be perfectly honest, I snowboard
a lot” and “I make pretty much all the decisions about what to study. I wasn’t interested in math or composition, so I didn’t really do it. I liked to dance” are not the ones with “illiberal” parents that she is so concerned about.
This is a great post, Dana, and a great blog! I, too, find Ms. Yuracko’s paper disturbing. You have done an excellent job of pinpointing precisely the constitutional issue surrounding her efforts to restrict homeschooling - that the powers of the state exist only because the people have granted those powers to it.
I wonder, though, whether the people of the United States today are willing to give up their freedoms for the sake of creating the “tolerant,” “free” society they think they want. Far too many people in America are easily led wherever the national media wants them to go. They believe what they see on television or read in the paper, without stopping to consider whether those things are true or what the ultimate consequences of those beliefs will be. The state can have only the powers granted it by the people, but if the people grant it power to restrict their freedom, then it has that power until the people as a whole rise up to stop it.
I have bookmarked your site and added it to my blogroll. Thanks so much for your clear, perceptive post.
Scatty,
Her perceptions seem based in stereotypes more than anything. I know people like that exist…but have we shut down the public schools for their proven failure to consistently deliver a basic education? Newark, NJ is currently graduating 30% of its students…at a cost of $1.3 million per student if you count the money spent on dropouts as wasted!
As to the rest…laws exist in most states which allow a family to be reported. Is that common? No, but neither are these extreme cases. And what happens when the state fails children? Nothing. Well, actually we throw more money at it and extend the hours students are forced to sit in a situation that doesn’t work, take away recess, stop letting them talk at lunch and pile on more homework.
Marcy,
Thanks for stopping by! I appreciate your comments and liked what I saw of your blog! It was just a quick peek, but I’ll be back next week after the insanity of this article I’m working on is through!
I am not saying that parents have the right to not educate their child, but some minimal standard of due process should be necessary to bring the state into my home to oversee what I am doing.
Compelling interest? Whatever that could mean in this day and age in a court of law.
Just as an example, Wikipedia has this entry concerning the 1st Amendment: In Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), the Court ruled that a law that “unduly burdens the practice of religion” without a compelling interest, even though it might be “neutral on its face,” would be unconstitutional.
If families are unduly burdened jumping through hoops that “public actors” (government;as I understand the terminology used in this paper), then their hooks won’t hold in court. Theoretically, of course.
Sorry to catch this so late. Glad you wrote something up.
I’ve just skimmed the article & will read it in-depth later. What I’d like to ask Prof. Yuracko is where in the Constitution does it say that the government has the authority to regulate its citizens’ thoughts? That’s really what she’s advocating!
The First Amendment specifically protects the freedom of speech and also the freedom of worship. However much she may disagree with a family holding a strict patriarchal view of Christianity, the government has no right to interfere in their beliefs.
I found the whole discussion of abortion in the paper to be odd. It didn’t seem to have any relevance except in revealing the political bias of the author!
In South Africa, homeschooling parents are compelled by law to register. However, the requirements are very stiff, among others requiring homeschoolers to adhere to the state curriculum. In the education law, the education authority has to make sure that all obstacles to registration are removed before they can prosecute a family. As the requirements of the education authorities for registered families present a huge stumbling block, this process is regarded by South African homeschooling families as illegal and most families don’t register with the authorities.