An Unjustified Partisan Attack On Parents Does Not Become A Scholarly Writing Merely Because You Have "Professor" In Front Of Your Name and "Ph.D." After it

Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.

Sorry I haven’t posted much, been working on a couple articles requiring substantial research. However, between yesterday and today I came across several things that are so outrageous I just had to write about them.

First up is an Opinion piece in the Washington Post by Jack Schneider, a self- proclaimed “scholar of education history and policy” who’s also an associate professor of education at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell. Since he has a Ph.D. he is an expert who knows stuff…alas, in this instance not the right stuff.

The Washington Post is behind a paywall, so I linked to the HeraldNet which also ran his piece. The jest of Schneider’s claim seems to be that conservatives are firing up parents to destroy public education as a means to ensure they stay in power. Yes, I too am saddened to find that Wally and Josey are no longer the champions of conspiracy theories. Schneider writes:

But this play is much bigger than education. For years, the Republican Party has understood that the demographic tide is against it. Knowing that every vote matters, the GOP has increasingly relied on a strategy of voter suppression. Simultaneously, Republicans have worked to ensure that their base turns out in force by stoking white racial grievance. The recent firestorm over critical race theory is a perfect case in point. Never mind that this concept from legal scholarship isn’t actually taught in K-12 schools or that it isn’t what most protesters believe it to be. Republicans gain an electoral advantage by convincing their base that white children are being taught to hate themselves, their families and their country. Whether this supposed attack on the American way of life is being coordinated by Black Lives Matter activists, Marxist educators or antifa operatives, the point, as Hofstadter observed, is to generate an enemy “‘thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable.’” (emphasis mine)

Those, like Schneider, who claim critical race theory (CRT) is not taught in K-12 are playing a dishonest game of semantics. In the strictest sense, and as initially developed, teaching of CRT was limited to graduate and law schools. However, the common definition has been expanded beyond its original meaning and is most certainly being taught in K-12 public and private schools. Reason Magazine reports the National Education Association (NEA) adopted New Business Item 39 stating “It is reasonable and appropriate for curriculum to be informed by academic frameworks for understanding and interpreting the impact of the past on current society, including critical race theory.” (emphasis mine). Reason further reports that the NEA “[c]onsistent with its defense of CRT, the NEA will also provide a study “‘that critiques empire, white supremacy, anti-Blackness, anti-Indigeneity, racism, patriarchy, cisheteropatriarchy, capitalism, ableism, anthropocentrism, and other forms of power and oppression at the intersections of our society.’" The implication is that these critiques are aspects of critical race theory, which in a weird way makes this an example of the activist left basically accepting the activist right's new working definition of CRT as "all of the various cultural insanities." (emphasis mine)

Other evidence that CRT is being taught in school:

• Broward County School Board includes CRT resources on its website, sharing that it is “in the courage of our young people to seek truth and justice in our country and take on our most pressing duties such as reforming our criminal justice system and changing the mindsets of bias, racism, and oppression.” The site concludes that “change is never easy, but always necessary.”

• Critical Race Training Indoctrination lists private schools who have adopted all or portions of CRT

• MacIver Institute (Wisconsin). “We found that Critical Race Theory (CRT) – or one of the many other names for CRT, like Culturally Responsive Teaching (CRT), equity, antiracism, woke, implicit bias, white privilege – is being taught in many school districts all across the state and is quickly on its way to fundamentally changing K12 education in Wisconsin.”

• Daily Caller: “We Checked, And They’re Right; CRT Is Not Being Taught In Schools (Technically)…It’s true, elementary school children are not learning the same topics taught in law schools. But K-12 students across the nation are being taught that America and its institutions are inherently racist, merit-based systems perpetuate inequity and white people must deconstruct their “whiteness” and “white privilege.”

• From Larry O’connor of WMAL radio: regarding CRT in K-12 schools in Virginia “Social Studies Teachers Collaborate with Colleagues Statewide to Create Anti-Racist, Culturally-Responsive Curriculum.”

I could cite many more examples, but I think my point is made. Simply put, CRT is being taught in both public and private primary and secondary schools. Further, contrary to Schneider’s statements, parents are fully aware of what is being taught under the banner of CRT, and therefore no need for them to “generate an enemy “‘thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable.’” That enemy exists and only a partisan hack would claim otherwise.

In order to support his argument that parents are being mobilized to destroy public education to somehow increase Republican voters, Schneider first attacks parental rights.

Given this frenzy, one might reasonably conclude that radicals are out to curtail the established rights that Americans have over the educational sphere. Yet what’s actually radical here is the assertion of parental powers that have never previously existed. This is not to say that parents should have no influence over how their children are taught. But common law and case law in the United States have long supported the idea that education should prepare young people to think for themselves, even if that runs counter to the wishes of parents. In the words of legal scholar Jeff Shulman, “This effort may well divide child from parent, not because socialist educators want to indoctrinate children, but because learning to think for oneself is what children do.” (emphasis mine).

Schneider links to Wadleigh v. Newhall (136 F. 941, N.D.Cal. 1905) to support his sweeping statement that “common law and case law in the United States have long supported the idea that education should prepare young people to think for themselves, even if that runs counter to the wishes of parents.” That is simply incorrect, at least for K-12.

Wadleigh involved the right of the state to terminate parental rights and appoint a guardian. It did not even allude to, let alone hold that “education should prepare young people to think for themselves, even if that runs counter to the wishes of parents.”¹ Additionally, this case was decided by the District Court of Northern California and is binding only on the Northern District of California…assuming it is still good law after 116 years. Schneider also omitted to cite a few relevant Supreme Court cases in this section of his argument holding parents have a right to decide their children’s education:

• Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)(state cannot prohibit parents from teaching their children German);

• Pierce v. Soc’y of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925)(overturned an Oregon law requiring children to attend public schools as “an unreasonable interference with the liberty of the parents and guardians to direct the upbringing of the children.”);

• Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)(Wisconsin law requiring children attend public or private school until 16 violated the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause when parents remove a child from school for religious reasons.);

• Washington v. Glucksburg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997) the Supreme Court held parental rights include directing the education of their children “ we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the “‘liberty’” specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes…to direct the education and upbringing of one's children.” (citations omitted).

Schneider also missed, or ignored, the most recent parental rights and education case, Brach v Newsom, a 9th Circuit case decided July 23, 2021.² This case held that Governor Newsom’s order closing private schools was invalid because the “forced closure of their private schools implicated a right that has long been considered fundamental under the applicable caselaw—the right of parents to control their children’s education and to choose their children’s educational forum.”

Schneider does cite these cases, except Glucksburg and Brach later for the proposition that the Supreme Court has recognized state’s have the authority to regulate education. He is correct - to a point. The right to regulate education is limited and subordinate to parental rights recognized by the Supreme Court. Requiring ‘core courses’ such as math, languages, reading etc., as well as requiring children to attend school until a certain age is certainly within the states’ authority...as long as those requirements do not run afoul of recognized parental rights.

What’s more confusing is Schneider argues that states have the authority to regulate education. He then turns around and argues, or at least implies, that parents should not be allowed to elect state officials who will regulate education in a manner parents support. His reason for this anti-democratic position seems to be that these radical parents are out to destroy public education at the urging of the GOP. His argument is absurd. First, it assumes parents are either stupid or willing to subjugate their children’s welfare to the whims of the Republican party. Both assumptions are not only wrong but also offensive. Second, as Schneider pointed out, the states have regulatory authority (within limits) over their educational systems. What he failed to mention is in a democratic society people are free to elect representatives who will enact laws and regulations the citizens want enacted. That is exactly what parents are attempting to accomplish.

When stripped of its rhetoric, Schneider is simply opposing well established law regarding parental rights and the rights of parents to elect officials who will enact educational laws they support and he opposes. His opposition to both are based on ideological grounds, he just lacks the intellectual honesty to state that openly. So instead he attempts to disguise his ideological argument and attacks on parents as scholarly work grounded in law. This intellectual dishonesty does more to undermine our educational system than his mythical attack by radical parents could ever do.

Schneider also ignores the proverbial ‘elephant in the room,’ well two elephants actually - private schools and home schooling. Parents in all 50 states and the District of Columbia are free to pull their kids from public school and send them to a private school of their choice (if they can afford it) or if they desire, to home school them.³ This is an explicit admission that parents do in fact control the education of their children, even if they cannot rally a majority to elect officials who will implement the curriculum they desire.

Schneider does address homeschooling…in a drive-by-shooting sort of way by briefly mentioning states regulate home schooling, and he is correct, but again only to a point. Most states require a core curriculum but do not impose many more regulations. Though there are some that impose substantial regulations. However, all states I reviewed require only what would be considered ‘core classes’ - reading, grammar, math, civics, physical education, etc. Other regulations are administrative.⁴ By definition, having this option allows parents to direct their children’s education, a “fundamental right” recognized by the Supreme Court. In any event, no one is arguing states cannot regulate education within limits, the arguments are (1) do parental rights extend to directing the education of their children; and (2) do parents have the right to elect officials who will impose educational regulations they support. The answer to both is of course they do.

Schneider also declares:

When do the interests of parents and children diverge? Generally, it occurs when a parent’s desire to inculcate a particular worldview denies the child exposure to other ideas and values that an independent young person might wish to embrace or at least entertain.

This statement is nothing more than the droppings of a four legged male bovine. First “inculcate” is a sinister sounding word that merely means “to impress (something) upon the mind of another by frequent instruction or repetition; instill.” You know, like what teachers do everyday whether the subject is math, verb conjugation, chemistry, or CRT.

Second, Schneider assumes parents want to impose on their children “a particular worldview” that will prevent the child from being exposed to “ideas and values that an independent young person might wish to embrace or at least entertain.” Three problems with this statement. First, how does he know parents want to impose “a particular world view” on their children? It is a huge and illogical jump to conclude this from the fact that parents do not want CRT taught to their children.

Second, he fails to define ‘young person.” Does he mean 10 and younger? Middle and high school students? Regardless of his definition, students under 18 are not “independent.” Even a 17 year old senior in high school is not legally an adult. Of course as children get older parents start treating them as ‘young adults’ and allowing them more independence, but they are still not adults, and parents still have both the obligation and right (within very broad limits) to determine what education they receive. If a person below the age of 18 wishes to make educational decisions for themselves, then they may of course petition the court for emancipation.

Third, Schneider’s position rests on the assumption that teachers and ‘experts,’ such as himself, are best suited to determine what “ideas and values…an independent young person might wish to embrace or at least entertain.” In other words he implicitly argues that ‘experts’ will not only know what ideas and values students want to embrace or entertain, but also which ideas and values the student should “embrace or at least entertain.” By definition Schneider’s position requires that the judgement of experts in these matters must supersede that of the parents. This is nothing more than an argument that parents must surrender their parental rights to the state, which is pretty much the position of every totalitarian regime since Sparta.

The opposite side of the same coin to Schneider’s argument is: there are “independent young” people who are not interested in exploring ideas and values Schneider and other ‘experts’ believe important. If he was truly a champion for the interests of '“independent young” people he would be advocating that controversial courses be taught as electives so children not interested would not have to take them, and those that were interested could…with parental consent. His failure to advocate for elective courses leads me to the logical conclusion that he could care less about “ideas and values” students “might wish to embrace or at least entertain.” Instead he wants schools to “inculcate” children with ideas and values he embraces, regardless of the ideas and values the parents embrace.

What Schneider is actually arguing is parents should shut up and let the state “inculcate” their kids in whatever ideas and values ‘experts’ deem important. This desire by ‘experts’ to disregard parental rights and impose the school curriculum of their choice through state power is nothing more than authoritarianism poorly disguised as scholarly work.

Given the track record of many ‘educators’ and most ‘experts’ I think parents are more than justified in demanding they control not only what subjects the schools teach but also how the subjects are taught. But hey, I’m not a self important “scholar of education history and policy” who has a Ph.D. from Stanford. Just a parent and former Naval Aviator with a JD from Notre Dame, so what do I know?

* Subtitle is a quote from Dr. Martin Luther King.

1. The Judge in Wadleigh v. Newhall did note in passing the obligations parents have to their children, one of which, among many, is that parents have to ensure their children receive at least a basic education. The court went on to note that failure to provide any of these obligations were grounds to terminate parental custody under California law. There was no dicta, much less a holding that supports Schneider’s claims.

2. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii, and Guam. Therefore, this ruling is binding on all federal courts, and because it involves a federal constitutional issue, on all state courts in these states.

.

3. Very Well Family ranks states by the degree of regulations they have on homeschooling. 27 states have lenient or low regulations, 19 have moderate regulations and only 5 are highly regulated.

States with lenient regulations: Alaska, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Oklahoma, and Texas;

States with low regulation: California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, Arkansas, Wisconsin, Kentucky, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Delaware;

States with moderate regulation: Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Louisiana, Florida, Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Maine, Maryland, and Washington D.C.

States with high regulation: Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont

4. For example Texas, a low regulation state requires Math, Reading, Spelling and grammar, and A course in good citizenship. New York, a state rated as having a high degree of regulations require the following courses for grades 9-12: Mathematics (2 credits) English (4 credits); Social studies, including American history, participation in government, and economics (4 credits); Science (2 credits); Art or music (1 credit); Health (½ credit); Physical education (2 credits); Electives (3 credits).