A loyal reader writes, in response to this post,
These are interesting points, but I don’t think Yoder stands for the proposition that “the children of Amish communities can be taken out of neglectful or insular orthodox communities and educated by the state to at least some degree.” Yoder acknowledged that the state may mandate some formal education up to age 14, but given Pierce it can’t mandate public education, or, I’d say, out-of-the-community education. If the Amish want to set up private schools solely for community members, then they can avoid the public schools altogether, so long as the private schools follow some minimum curriculum requirements. Or am I missing something?
I think perhaps my wording sounded more extreme than the point I was trying to make. It’s true that Pierce says the state can’t mandate that kids go to public schools, but that isn’t the point: the point is the “minimum curriculum requirements.” So what Yoder says is that the state may, to at least some degree, protect children from parents who believe (for religious reasons) in depriving children of access to knowledge. Pierce doesn’t undo that—all Pierce says it that parents have discretion in choosing how they provide their children with the educational basics that the state requires. But Pierce does not say that parents have unlimited discretion to raise their children under the First Amendment or under any constitutional provision (let alone a natural right). Both Yoder and Pierce say that children can be taken out of neglectful or insular orthodox communities—or any other community—that fails to provide children with the “minimum curriculum requirements” established by the state. In fact, in a sense, Pierce does say that kids can be required to undergo public education, just not public schooling. Since the minimum educational requirements are determined by the state, and not by the parents, those standards set out a certain “public education” which a parent must provide, in some way or other. A parent who fails to do so can lose custody.
I think we all would agree on this reading of Yoder and Pierce, not to mention common sense. The reason I thought it relevant was to dispute a point which might be construed from Prof. Bernstein’s language. (I may have misinterpreted him.) He expressed concern about the contention that the inherent abusiveness of the FLDS culture is good reason that children ought to be removed from it—this inherent abusiveness being demonstrated by the fact that the FLDS keeps children ignorant, brainwashes them into early marriage, leaves them without social or cultural contacts, and so forth. The problem with this contention, he said is that it “at least, would place Amish and some of the more insular ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities in jeopardy.” My point was that I don’t think that’s a strong argument against the contention. The fact that some communities claim that God wants them to abuse or neglect children is just not a good reason for allowing them to do so, and the state is and ought to be more concerned with ensuring that children’s rights are protected than with whatever excuses parents give—mystical or otherwise—for violating those rights or for neglecting those children. I see both Yoder and Pierce (and other cases) as consistent with my view.
That is not, of course, to say that parents have no right to teach their religion to their children or to raise their children in the religious environment they prefer. Within broad boundaries, parents do have that right. But Yoder shows, and I think rightly, that there are limits to that right.
Comments policy