From: robertl@luciano.Stanford.EDU (Robert Lodenkamper)
Subject: Re: Children
Organization: Stanford University
Date: 30 Jul 92 19:37:06

In article <1992Jul31.000923.8387@reed.edu> nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar) writes:

   In article <1992Jul28.173859.2862@spdcc.com> joe@spdcc.com (Joseph Francis) writes:
   >An interesting problem in the United States is that parents believe
   >that it is their right and privilege (hey RY, check out the spelling,
   >dude!) to be the sole determinant of the their child's values. Why?

   [...]

   One of the worst things a parent can do is to teach their child to
   hate. But it is the parent's right in America to teach their children
   to hate; both themselves and other people. [...]

   And in America, it is considered the parent's right not to teach their
   children about other things. No education about pregnancy, they
   demand: it might encourage their darlings to do the nasty. And don't
   tell them that a condom can save their life, or a clean needle.

   Why is this a right? In my mind, children are a public resource. I'm
   going to have to live with the kids that people around my raise -
   don't I have the right to help teach them to be decent human
   beings?

   The government already mandates some of this - kids are required to be
   taught history, math, reading. Why not teach them about respect for
   other people?

   I know why. It's controversial. 

Indeed it is.  And, to a certain extent, it should be.  The right of
parents to bring up their children as they see fit is conflicting with
the more ill-defined but equally important right of citizens to
enforce certain educational standards conducive to civilization.

I do not presume to define "conducive to civilization" here since
there are probably 70,000 different definitions floating around in
this forum alone.  I will say that I think public education should
address at least the points you brought up, Nelson.

Few cases of conflicting rights are easy to resolve.  Letting the
parents do what they will with no restrictions is unacceptable, as is
annihilating the concept of family a la "Brave New World."

As amusing as it might be to explicitly add "destruction of the
institution of family" to the agenda, as our enemies accuse us of
doing, I don't really think there is any reason to believe the state
could do a better job by itself.

Note that the real ethical problems posed by public education have
little to do with the public policy "debate" on this issue, which is
mired in the ethical nonissues of maintaining separation of church and
state, and the "yuk" kneejerk response to anything approaching sex
education.

   >Why should a parent have the right to deny basic information to a
   >child about such things? 

   Indeed. I think this issue is particularly important to lesbians and
   gays.
 
It is.  It is also important for anyone whose morality (esp. sexual
morality) differs harmlessly from that of the majority, which is a
much larger class of people than gays and lesbians.  Bisexuals,
transsexuals, leatherpeople, and some recreational drug users are
certainly included, and there are most likely others as well.

I'm not defending the status quo.  I'm merely pointing out that there
are real ethical problems to be faced if one is proposing to
explicitly introduce moral indoctrination into the public schools.
(There are also a whole set of political problems as well, but they
are familiar from other contexts)

I also feel that school reform is one of the most revolutionary items
on the agenda, and for that reason needs to be dealt with carefully.

- Bob