“No state or national government shall enact or enforce any law that deprives parents of their basic right to direct their children’s education and upbringing.”
It is time to make the proposed constitutional amendments as part of the U.S. Constitution. Although the notion that parents have presumed power over their children’s education is deeply rooted in our country’s history and traditions, this right is not clearly stipulated in the constitution. This should change.
A century ago, Supreme Court Announce”[t]The child is not just a product of the state; those who nurture him and guide his destiny have the right, coupled with noble duties, to recognize him and prepare him for additional duties. “Although this sentence is true, these rights are not purchased in the constitutional text. On the contrary, they are an aspect of the untrustworthy “substantial due process” interpretation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, where the courts, and It is not the people, to decide which rights are “basic” and are enough to be worthy of judicial protection. Without any solid textual basis, the court’s decision area in this doctrine produces unstable and insecure “freedom”.
exist Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), the Supreme Court overturned the nativist state law that prohibited parents and teachers from teaching children foreign languages after the First World War. The court held that the Fifth Amendment’s right to not be deprived of “freedom” without due legal procedures should be understood as protecting the substantive right of parents to “guide their children.”Two years later, in Pierce v. Sisterhood, The Supreme Court rejected a law in Oregon that requires children to receive education in public schools rather than private schools.Refer to its previous holdings Meyer, The Supreme Court declared that the state has no right to “regulate its children by forcing them to only accept the guidance of public teachers. Children are not just a product of the state.”
Recently, in Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) The Supreme Court protected the rights of Amish’s parents to expel their children from public schools after the age of 16.according to Yodel Court, earlier decision Meyer with pierce The “parents’ right to provide equal education in the private system” has been established, and the state must not “unreasonably interfere”[] Parents are interested in guiding the upbringing of their children, including their education in church-run schools. “Finally, in Troxel v. Granville (2000), the Supreme Court rejected a law in Washington State that allowed any third party to apply to the state court for child visits if the parent objected.Based on majority opinion Troxel, “Parents’ interests in the care, guardianship, and control of their children–perhaps the oldest fundamental free interest recognized by this court.”
Ed Jones/AFP via Getty Images
Although these cases agree with the constitutional right of parents to direct their children’s education and upbringing, the basic cases Meyer with pierce Rely on the constitutional interpretation method that the Supreme Court has long abandoned.As Justice Antonin Scalia said Troxel, this Meyer with pierce The decision was made in “an era when there was a lot of substantive due process but was later denied.”
“[T]Unquoted theory of parental rights,” Scalia concludes therefore Troxel, “Small have opinions [precedential] Follow precedent protect. “In fact, the court split Troxel And it failed to produce a majority opinion explaining the nature of parental rights or determining whether they should receive the same strong judicial protection as other “fundamental” rights.
However, strong judicial protection of parental rights is more urgent than ever. In the past few years, it has become increasingly obvious that the interests of government-led educational institutions are not always consistent with the interests of parents, and sometimes even far from the interests of parents.The widespread closure of public schools during the pandemic and the required “virtual” courses have convinced thousands of parents Looking for alternatives Teaching provided by government schools. Whether it is through private education, homeschooling, or simply raising vigilance towards local public schools, we have all seen a sharp increase in parents’ interest in and participation in their children’s education.
The current increase in parental participation in the education of their children will trigger strong opposition from government actors that invest in controlling children’s education.To be a candidate for governor of Virginia at the time Terry McAuliffe He recently announced that he does not believe that “parents should tell the school what they should teach”, which echoes the government’s once told Catholic and German parents that their role in children’s education is a matter of government permission, not the government’s voice. Constitutional rights.
Government officials in power inevitably want to control the education and socialization of other people’s children, whether it is a desire to impose a temporary ideology or a desire to suppress dissent. Once this temptation is indulged, one must face the opposite constitutional text.
The approval of the above-mentioned amendments will once and for all remove any doubts about the constitutional status of parents to guide their children’s education and custody rights. The amendment will not change the current law, but will prevent the current law from being abandoned or watered down. Most importantly, it will be safe as a constitutional right adopted by the people themselves.
Kurt Lash is E. Claiborne Robins Distinguished Law Professor at the University of Richmond. He and his wife have three children. They both go to public schools and occasionally go to homeschool.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author.
