Creeping Fascism: Are We Servants of the State?

I admit it. Late May and early June is usually a time of the year in which I actually avoid deep thinking, prefering to celebrate the end of the semester by reading thrillers and working in my yard. And still the world of homeschooling turns, even though I am preoccupied with watching the sunset and sunrise from my little piece of paradise.

So today, I finally feel compelled to discuss some issues that have been developed on other blogs and tie together some ideas that have been rumbling around in my head for a while--even as I watched wonderful sunrises and sunsets from my front porch.

In Connecticut, their version of Child Protective Services (DFS) has been enlisted by certain school districts to force parents who wish to homeschool their children to keep the kids in school. Judy Aron over at Consent of the Governed has blogged extensively about what is happening there. I am linking to her first recent post on the issue here, but you should look also at today's post, as well as one about the press conference, which can be viewed here. It is well worth viewing.

There is no question that the school districts that have reported these parents to DFS for "education neglect" have abused their power. What is very interesting is that in the cases discussed during the press conference (linked above), the parents were removing their children as a last resort after reasonable attempts to work with the schools to get their children a public education. In these cases, another issue stands out--the children had health problems that should have resulted in some form of an individual educational plan--either an IEP (under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) or a 504 Plan (under Americans with Disabilities Act). The IDEA in particular mandates that the schools must work as a team with parents/family in order to provide a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) to a child with a disability. In the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA, Congress found that " strengthening the role and responsibility of parents and ensuring that families of such children have meaningful opportunities to participate in the education of their children at school and at home" can make "the education of children with disabilities...more effective." (IDEA 2004 601.c5B). It is also stated in the law that all members of an IEP team must agree to educational interventions. And yet, in the Connecticut cases, parents were dictated to, bullied and threatened with loss of their children if they did not comply with unilateral plans put forth by the school districts involved.

These abuses most likely have a number of causes, including money--because school districts get federal money for each child with disabilities educated under IDEA, and they can use this money in their general funds--that is they do not have to show that the money goes specifically for special education. Although this is a loophole that taxpayers ought to be concerned about, I believe there is a more insidious idea being promulgated here. This is the idea that the state has a kind of ownership of the child and merely contracts to the parents the duties of raising the child as a servant of the state. This is not an American value. Neither is it a democratic ideal; it is, rather, a fascist concept. The Constitution of the United States clearly demonstrates that a government governs at the pleasure of the citzenry. Government is the servant of the citizen, not the master. Citizens are not the servants of the state, rather they direct their government to do certain, constitutionally defined jobs in order to protect their liberties and live their lives.

The abuse of power represented by the actions of the Connecticut school districts and the DFS--which apparently is allowed to ignore certain basic constitutional rights of the accused--appears to stem from the idea that a petty bureaucrat or school official knows better than we do what is best for ourselves and our children. That these people are often more poorly educated and have less information than the parents they are harrassing would be laughable if they did not have so much power to disrupt lives and waste public resources doing so.

Another example of this "creeping fascism," has been making the rounds of the homeschooling blogosphere recently. I found out about it at this post on Corn and Oil. (By the way, Susan, I hail from your part of the world and went to school with your state congressman, Bill Brady. Don't know why, but I have been unable to comment on your blog because the registration never goes through). In a forthcoming article for California Law Review, professor Kim Yuracko of Northwestern University, essentially argues that the state has the constitutional power to dictate the ideas that parents teach their children in the course of homeschooling them. The article is called Illiberal Education which can be accessed by clicking on the link. Home Education Magazine has posted the abstract, commentary and links to other analysis here.

Although acknowledging that homeschooling is a "diverse" phenomenon, Yuracko incorrectly states that it is controlled by fundamentalist Christians who want to isolate their children from "secular influences and liberal values" (Yuracko, 2007, abstract). How, well, illiberal of Yuracko. The paper is poorly written and has numerous factual errors with regard to the diversity and philosophy of homeschooling. It also uses numerous logical fallacies in the pursuit of the argument. It is the central point, however, that demonstrates another example of fascistic thinking that I want to address.

Yuracko argues that education is essentially a "public function" that states delegate to parents and that parental power over their children's education is therefore limited. This law professor has it exactly backwards. The state may have an "interest" in the education of future citizens, but by sending their children to public schools, parents are delegating their responsibility to educate their children to the state. Not the other way 'round. Our children are not servants of the state. In a Constitutional Republic, such as the United States, the state is our servant.

In reading the entire article, it is clear that Yuracko would like to have the power of the state to limit the freedom of certain classes of parents (namely fundamentalist Christians) to pass their own beliefs and values on to their children. Rather, Yuracko would like force her own values on all of us. This would be a violation of our liberties under the United States Constitution. It also smacks of an incredible amount of elitist chutzpah on the part of a law professor.

It should be clear to anyone who has taken more than a cursory look at my blog that I am not a fundamentalist Christian. In fact, I strongly disagree with many of their ideas and beliefs. I am not a political conservative, either. Rather, I'd like to see the words "conservative" and "liberal" banned from polite discourse so that citizens could talk to each other on the level of issues rather than shout at each other from ideological positions. I do, however, remember the words of Martin Niemoller:

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
(New England Holocaust Memorial Version)

Either the rights of citizens belong to all of us, or they will belong to no one.
Disagreement is protected and even encouraged in our American values. Supression is not.

Maybe someone like Yuracko is afraid of homeschooling and homeschoolers precisely because most of us have made a choice to teach our children their rights as citizens of the United States.

And, no, I don't do the Pledge of Allegiance with my son in our homeschool. Rather, every day we stand before the flag of the United States and recite the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States:

"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." (From Findlaw).

My son is not a servant of the state. He does not owe allegiance to a specific government, office, or person. He owes allegiance to an idea. The idea that "governments are instituted among (human beings) at the consent of the governed." The idea that the government exists to serve the citizens. If he chooses to run for office or serve in the military as an officer--and himself becomes a servant of the citizens, then he will take an oath of fealty. Not to a government, flag, office or person. Rather, he will take an oath to "protect and defend the constitution of the United States." To protect and defend an idea. The idea of liberty.