Seth, I posted the following comment on another site shortly after the 9th Circuit Court's decision was published reagarding sex education and parental rights.

As my parent, my first reaction was that the 9th Circuit's decision was ridiculous. And certainly, my sympathies are with the parents whose children were subjected to highly questionable behavior on the part of their school.

However, after reading the posting and discussion at The Volokh Conspiracy, a legal site I hold in high regard, I am inclined to agree that in this instance, the court got it right. Remember, "even a stopped watch is correct twice a day."

In particular, for those who advocate judicial restraint, the courts properly declined to invent a new Federal/Constitutional "right". Or to put it another way, the parents in this case were wrong to seek relief from the Federal court. In general, education has been jealously guarded as a state function, not a Federal function.

Rather, the appropriate venue of action is at the state level, either through the state courts or through the state legislature. Alternatively, the parents could also agitate to bring about change in their local school board, either though persuasion or through the ballot box.

Perhaps the lesson is to think twice and consider whether supporting a larger principle (judicial restraint, etc.) is more important in the long-run than getting a particular result. Do we really want to be in the position of Pyrrhus who reported said after one particularly costly battlefield victory that another such victory would leave him without an army? I think not.

C.T. --

Whew! The first thing I did on waking this cold, blue skied Chicago A.M. was read your very worthy comment and, being a link junkie, have since travelled from one site to the next(like a Harvard education compacted into one morning, LOL, those were excellent and absorbing posts and comment threads), taking some time to get through the thread at VC(I especially enjoyed the debate between Patterico and Raj at stcynic.

First, I have to say that I am a great advocate of states' rights and completely agree with you that the parents should have addressed the issue at the local level rather than making a "federal case" out of it. However, they live in(and the children involved go to school in) California, a profound liberal enclave in which the vast majority of residents apparently believe that anything they want to be law or policy must become the law of the land and as a result tend to take every niggling whim of theirs to the federal courts.

In about the 23rd comment in the VC thread, a commenter called Hey, in the first 2 of his 3 paragraphs, writes,

-- It does seem to most people that this suit was filed incorrectly. It very much looks like a civil case for fraud, based on the inaccuracy or lack of specificity of the survey's consent form. That this case was filed points to the general ignorance amongst the general public and lawyers of exactly what is in the constitution.

This ignorance tends to stem from "liberal" groups pursuing litigation as an alternative to legislation. That conservative groups and what appear to be justifiably angry parents use the same tactic, while understandable, is disappointing in terms of intellectual coherence as well as the degree that even conservative or libertarian groups have been "liberalized". --

And I believe he has it right. Having lived in San Francisco for many years and having weathered scores of debates on the issue of local vs federal authority and litigation vs legislation, I have found that "the natives" are more friendly with litigation. What they want must be The Law for the entire country.

Had I been the attorney for the plaintiffs, I would, out of sheer sense of responsibility, have recommended approaching the issue via local legislation rather than a lawsuit(unfortunately, all too many lawyers view the almighty greenback as the prime consideration in any instance), though as Hey pointed out, there may have been grounds for a local lawsuit for Fraud, as the consent form approach is somewhat nonsensical, because it does not allow for graphically sexual applications and, as was pointed out in another comment, those children with signed consent forms will communicate what they were exposed to with those who did not take the "survey."

Slightly OT, I consulted my own San Francisco based attorney on the issue when Kender first brought it to my attention in a telephone conversation(the day before the 9th Circuit heard the case), and she referred me to the signed consent issue, but that was as conversant as she was on the subject.

Radical Guy's comment,

-- Why do I have to establish my fundamental right to pull my kids out? Where, precisely, did the State even get the power to kidnap my kids every day for indoctrination?

Sure, I can go to private school or homeschool, but only if I pay my way or meet State-set criteria.

Would we allow an adult-education "draft" of even one-day-per-year to teach us CPR, or good manners, or how to do our taxes? What makes their power over kids any greater?

I understand the policy arguments about externalities and public goods and whatever, but I still fail to see where the State power ever legitimately began, even though it's been accepted by most for over a century.

I hope that decisions like this lead more people to question the whole darn system. --

was more in line with my own beliefs, those being essentially that, Constitutional interpretations notwithstanding, parents' relationships with their children in terms of such indoctrination-based areas as morality, religion, sexual topics and political opinion should be sacrosanct, not accessible by the state on an indoctrination level. What if you have your own timetable for talking about sex with your own children, for your own reasons, and the state upstages you at what you consider a premature time(like, say, six years too early)?

But returning to the main topic of my post and again referring to Radical Guy's comment, there is a wide gulf between educating children and indoctrinating them, and it would seem that, whether the case was heard in the wrong venue or not, the 9th Circuit's decision flatly denied parents the right to raise their children as they see fit by denying them the final say in an area that should be their pesonal domain.

I believe that the parents involved were probably motivated more by the fact that in the liberal California environment there was no way they could have achieved anything through legislation, and that their only other alternatives would have been to a)shell out money they might not be able to afford and enroll their children in expensive private schools or b)move out of state to a less intrusive educational environment.

These options should not have to be forced upon anybody.

Schools are for teaching children the three R's, as it were, and subjects such as History/Social Studies and Science, not for political, sexual and social indoctrination. The latter two are the parents' job and up until only recently were acknowledged as such.

The European Union's heath commision released some frightening, but not very surprising numbers, regarding childhood obesity today: More than 400,000 children become overweight each year in Europe (!). The numbers for North America is no better. The 2 leading causes of this epedemic is: poor eating habits combined with a lack of activity. No surprise there either. This is, of course, a very complex problem and not easy to solve. If you are interested, please visit (and leave me feedback if you wish) my recent blog regarding this:

http://roadrace1.blogspot.com/2005/12/more-on-new-lifestyle-of-youth.html

Mags
http://roadrace1.blogspot.com/

Maqs--

I went to your site(excellent, interesting blog and great post), but the Internet access where I'm staying at the moment{Comfort Inn, 15 E. Ohio, Chicago) sucks and the lengthy comment I attempted to leave was eradicated by the Comfort Inn's ISP. I will attempt again to reply when I am someplace where there is better access.

What I completely agreed with in your post was your laying the bulk of the blame for childhood obesity on the family. It is the parents' responsibility, not the government's nor the food provider's, to see that children are properly fed and encouraged to get the proper exercise. It is part of parenthood.

I don't believe that the state should do the parents' job in that regard, though the schools could assume part of that role by serving more nutritious lunches, eliminating snack and soda machines and, in gym class, encouraging physical competitiveness from an early age(before the kids have the opportunity to become hooked on the X-Box).

When I grew up in the 1960s, before a child became too anchored in a sedentary home activity, there was a parental order: "Go out and play."

It worked very well.

Seth,

You are spot on. The change has to happen at home, from an early age. No doubt about it. Putting the blame on the government is simply too easy and wrong.

Mags

Mags --

Agreed.

Unfortunately, at least speaking for the U.S., the left quadrant of our political make-up continuously attempts, with all too much success, to take authority away from parents and cede what should be parental authority to governmental auspices.

That's one of the reasons that conservatives are pushing for a voucher system wherein the tax allocations for a public school education would go to financing a child's education in the private school of the parents' choice.

It makes no sense what-so-ever to think that any government can govern and control what should happen in the homes of it's citizens. Childhood obesity is, like it or not, a product of poor parenting-hood. Of course, this sounds harsh and nobody likes to hear that, it's much simpler to put the blame on soicety and look for the government to solve the problem, but that will never work.

Mags
http://roadrace1.blogspot.com/

Agreed.

Unfortunatlely, that is the goal of American liberals.

They believe that their way is the only way and seek to make their way "the law." This is why every issue they have that most people disagree with ends up in court, where they attempt to legislate by setting legal precedents.

Taking parental responsibility away from parents and transferring it to the government would give the state more control over what is indoctrinated into those young minds, and in the final analysis, that is what the left wants.