Via The Anchoress comes this report of a decision from the always wacky Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court Wednesday dismissed a lawsuit by parents who were outraged that a school district had surveyed their elementary school-age children about sex.
The three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the parents’ claim that they have the exclusive right to tell their children about sex.
I’d say that this is surprising but given the history of the 9th Circuit its really par for the course. Before the fall of Communism, children were indoctrinated in Communist propaganda and their parents had no say in what was being taught. How is the effect of the 9th Circuit’s decision any different ?
And just so we’re clear on what was at issue here:
Among other things, the students were asked how often they thought about sex.
Parents whose students took the survey signed consent forms. But the forms never mentioned sex would be a topic.
These were elementary school students, kids no older than 10. I’m no prude, I don’t consider myself a “social conservative”, and I’ve never used phrases like “undermining the American family”, but that is exactly what this decision is all about. It takes away from parents the right to control the way their children are raised and places it in the hands of “experts” from the state. For that reason alone, it is completely outrageous. I would not blame any parent faced with a situation like this from withdrawing their children from the public school system.
That is not an option for everyone, though, so I can only hope that the parents appeal this, and that the Supreme Court reverses what could be a very bad precedent.
Here is a link to a PDF of the entire opinion. (H/T: Flopping Aces)
Confirm Them has more on this assinine decision, including a sample of the questions that the children were being asked to answer.
Update: For several reasons, I have reconsidered my opinion of this decision. I now believe that the decision, while bad from a policy point of view, was correct legally. My explanation for this change of mind can be found here.
