Being the parent of a school-aged kid, I tend to be sensitive to court rulings and the schools. But while I see possible negative issues arising from this, I also think it forestalls some potentially huge problems.
The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes most of New England, handed down an important and very controversial ruling this past Thursday (see full text here), siding with the school district in a case involving the question of whether parents have a right to have schools not teach things that are contrary to their religious faith.
In the case of Parker et al vs. Hurley et al, two sets of parents of elementary school children in public schools in Lexington, Mass., filed suit against the school district over their use of books that portrayed gay couples and families. The parents, who believe that homosexuality and gay marriage are morally wrong, argued that they should be given prior notice and the right to exempt their children from any material that they consider contrary to their religious views. The district court dismissed the case; the appeals court upheld that dismissal last week.
In the Lexington School District, kindergarten students are given a picture book called “Who’s In a Family?”, which depicts a range of different types of families, including single-parent families, extended families, interracial families and, to the distress of the plaintiffs, a family with two fathers and another with two mothers. The parents of a student in that class, the Parkers, complained several times to the school but got no satisfaction.
The second family, the Wirthlins, had a child in second grade whose teacher read a book to her class called “King and King.” The book tells the story of a prince who is ordered by his mother to get married. The prince rejects several princesses before finally deciding to marry another prince. Those parents likewise complained but the school refused to allow them to exempt their child from such materials and they filed suit as well. This case decided both suits.
The court basically said that (a) there’s nothing stopping parents from teaching their kids in whatever religious beliefs they want, and (b) no coersion was taking place (the kids weren’t being forced to chant “Gay is Good!” or anything), so there was no grounds for the cases.
The potential problems if a contrary decision had been reached — or if the Supreme Court (which both families say they will appeal to) overturns the decision — are obvious.
The number of subjects from which a parent could assert a right to shield their children for religious reasons is almost limitless. Could a racist parent successfully assert the same right against the kindergarten book from this case because it depicted an interracial family? Could a Jewish or Muslim parent demand that the school not use any material that depicts the eating of pigs or shellfish?
The implications for science teaching are obvious and far-reaching. There are large groups of parents who object to evolution because of their religious views, but that is hardly the only scientific theory taught in schools that is rejected by one religious group or another. Young earth creationists also reject the Big Bang. Geocentrists reject the heliocentrism of Galileo and Copernicus. The Christian Science church rejects the germ theory of disease. Scientologists reject all psychology and psychiatry.
If the courts uphold a right to be exempted from any public school teaching that is contrary to their religious beliefs, all of these situations and many more become fodder for future court cases, and it is difficult to imagine a principled basis on which to reject any of those claims once that precedent is set.
Obviously I would have a problem if Katherine’s text books included items that I found morally reprehensible (e.g., if they had racist material, or showed how it’s okay that some people sacrifice puppies to Sutech). But, remarkably enough, I don’t think I’d hop into a law suit. I’d offer my objections (to the teacher, the administration, and the school board), I’d ask for some sort of accommodation, and, failing everything else, I’d tell Katherine how I felt about it and how I thought the materials were not right.
But, then, I don’t insist that everyone agree with me, or that things I find offensive are, per se, unacceptable for everyone else.
As a side note — I do wonder how this ruling might affect already-existing opt-out programs, e.g., requiring parental consent before sex ed.
(via Les)