More family destruction by the 9th Circus court...

I found this story on CNS News first, and also read the Court's Decision, here.

According to the 9th Circuit Court:

We agree, and hold that there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children, either independent of their right to direct the upbringing and education of their children or encompassed by it. We also hold that parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the informationto which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students.

The 9th Circus court bases its opinion on several other faulty opinions, one such being the Meyer v Nebraska, the other being the Pierce v Society of Sisters.

This 9th Circus summarizes those two cases, stating:

If all parents had a fundamental constitutional right to dictate individually what the schools teach their children, the schools would be forced to cater a curriculum for each student whose parents had genuine moral disagreements
with the school’s choice of subject matter.

This is faulty because a school could avoid moral disagreements by sticking to basic subject matter such as reading, math, hard science, and factual history.

The "court" continues:

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.

Actually, since the schools are paid for by the people via taxes, the taxpayers DO in fact possess absolute legal right to determine an acceptable curriculum. In fact, the people hired to admininstrate the schools do so at the sole wishes of those who pay their salaries and are subject to the goals of those who pay the bills.

Neither Meyer nor Pierce provides support for the view that parents have a right to prevent a school from providing any kind of information sexual or otherwise to its students.

Again, this statement presumes that government school administrators exist independently of those who pay them instead of operating at the behest of the taxpayers. Taxpayers do so in order to hire people to work on the behalf of the taxpayers. When those people hired by the taxpayer cease to operate according to the wishes of those who employ them, they are in violation of the terms of their employment.

Perhaps the Sixth Circuit said it best when it explained, While parents may have a fundamental right to decide whether to send their child to a public school, they do not have a fundamental right generally to direct how a public school teaches their child. Whether it is the school curriculum, the hours of the school day, school discipline, the timing and content of examinations, the individuals hired to teach at the school, the extracurricular activities offered at the school or, as here, a dress code, these issues of public education are generally ‘committed to the control of state and local authorities.’

Again, these "judges" have forgotten that all Americans have taxes withheld or confiscated in order to pay for these schools. If public schools were entirely tuition based, I would concur with their conclusion.

Brown and Blau compel the conclusion that what Meyer-Pierce establishes is the right of parents to be free from state interference with their choice of the educational forum itself, a choice that ordinarily determines the type of education one’s child will receive. The School District’s design and administration of the survey in no way interfered with that right. Indeed, it was only because the parents had selected the school they did that their children were asked the questions to which the parents objected.

Wrong again. A parent cannot possibly know what may occur at a school at the time the parent decides to enroll his child at that school. How can a parent be expected to consent to some future act which has not yet been conceived?

Because we hold that the School District’s administration of the survey did not violate a fundamental right,...

How about the fundamental right of parents to be told the truth about what goes on in school? If parents cannot trust what they are told by government officials, the whole system would soon collapse, and rightly so. A government that lies to its people cannot be permitted to exist without alteration.

First, neither education itself nor the legitimate functions of a public school are limited to the curriculum. Such a view construes too narrowly the aims of education and fails to recognize the unique role that it plays in American society.

Here is a clear demonstration of how the left views school as a tool for social engineering. Schools aren't limited to teaching math and reading, but also assume the burdens of indoctrinating children with proper social views such as the wonders and beauty of government dependency.

Quoting Brown v Board of Education:

Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society.

Karl Marx would be proud to know that his philosophy has been adopted in America. How is compulsory school education consistent with individual liberty? The Brown excerpt goes on to state that denial of an OPPORTUNITY of education is wrong, yet it contends that school attendance ought be required.

Protecting the mental health of children falls well within the state’s broad interest in education.

In other words, molding the minds of children into accepting the notion of the nanny-state is a proper function of government. Not only is indoctrination acceptable, it is compulsory!

Ultimately, this case demonstrates all that is wrong with government schools. Government schools are run by people who think they are above answering to those parents and taxpayers who are forced to pay their salaries. This scenario can be resolved by going straight back to the famous words once written by Thomas Jefferson.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

A school board which procures for itself a power to indoctrinate children as it sees fit, regardless the wishes of those who employ the board members, is destructive to the people and must be totally abolished.

I find it rather ironic that the same group of leftists who demand freedom from government intervention when it comes to abortion declare absolute government authority when it comes to sex education. How can one person conclude that government may determine what a child must learn but not how that child ought to behave?

The bottom line is that the author(s) of the consent form deliberately misrepresented the nature of the survey to be administered.

Why would they find that necessary if their intent was honest and virtuous? The answer, clearly, is that their motive was not honest or noble, as holds true of the leftist agenda nearly all the time.

Those on the left often go to great lengths to hide or distort their true agendas because they know that otherwise, the people would quickly and comprehensively reject them.