Homeschooling and Pierce as Sword Rather than Shield
---
As often heretofore pointed out, rights guaranteed by the Constitution may not be abridged by legislation which has no reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the state. The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.
--Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925)
Some commentators, not unreasonably, are pointing out that the decision by a California intermediate appeals court finding that there is no "right to uncredentialed homeschooling" is actually based on long-standing precedent, including Pierce v. Society of Sisters, quoted and hyperlinked above.
One succinct example from QandO:
--Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925)
Some commentators, not unreasonably, are pointing out that the decision by a California intermediate appeals court finding that there is no "right to uncredentialed homeschooling" is actually based on long-standing precedent, including Pierce v. Society of Sisters, quoted and hyperlinked above.
One succinct example from QandO:
So, I'm not sure what all the uproar is about, at least in terms of the legal issues. The Supreme Court made this determination in 1925.The "uproar," as I explained in a comment at that blog, is as follows:
Are you suggesting that Supreme Court decisions are never wrong or outrageous?Again, the question, properly framed, is not whether states should have the power to ban homeschooling, but instead what authority states should have to prevent bad homeschooling, with "bad" determined on a case-by-case basis in the same way that the state intervenes in matters of child abuse or neglect.
And, incidentally, your reading of Pierce is itself wrong. It did not explicitly hold there is "no right to homeschool." It held that a state may "require that all children of proper age attend some school." The notion that (acceptable) homeschooling is not "some school" is a novel and controversial interpretation.
Given that Pierce is widely considered to be one of the first "substantive due process" cases, it is hardly surprising that libertarians are aghast at seeing it now used as a sword against parental autonomy. It would be akin to suggesting that Roe v. Wade authorized state laws requiring compulsory abortions.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Homeschooling and Pierce as Sword Rather than Shield
- California Court: No Right to Homeschool
- Teech the Childrun Goodly
- Canadian Bigot Parents Screech over Gay Teacher's Desk Photo
- Homeschooling is a Double-Edged Sword
- Evangelical "Curriculum Redaction" Jumps to Maryland
- More on Evangelical Madrassahs
- The Children's Jesus Camp Story
- Why Bigots Should be Libertarians
Posted by Kip on
8 March 2008
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.



