The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1906-01-24
Parental Rights and Duties.


s-=-=====------.------=--=---=-=-===---
Parental Rights and Duties.
One Of the best articles on compulsory
education that we have seen appeared
In recent issue OF the staunton Dis
patch. The Dispatch comedies that the
parent has rights, but does not believe
that there are many persons who will
affirm that he has the right to deprive
his child of the advantage of an educa-
ton.
Our contemporary also argues that
the community has some rights in the
matter. 1t says that the public school
system is the fruit of conviction that the
public interests suffer from general illit-
eracy to so great an extent that 1t is
public duty to provide the means and
facilities for educating every child in the
Commonwealth. That being the case, 1t
concludes that mo individual has tho
right to render fruitless and nugatory so
far as in him lies. this benehcent con-
viction and purpose of the Common
wealth"
Coming finally to speak of rights in
general, It says that we have many
rights or privileges that We never exer-
else. or that would really be harmful
to us II exercised. and that We might
be deprived of such rights without suf-
fering to any great extent.
That is certainly true with regard to
compulsory education. In educating the
child, the state, SO far from doing 1t an
injury. is comforting upon it the greatest
of blessings. How. then, is the parent
injured.
Again, as the state does not assume
TO itself the right to injure the child,
neither docs 1t coacede to tho parent any
such right. So far from It, the State
recognizes the right of the child to be
protected from cruelty or abuse. 1t even
goes SO far as to confer upon the public
board of health the right to require chill
dren to be vaccinated, whether or not
parents give their consent. How is 1t
such base usurpation. therefore. for tho
State to require that the child be edu-
Gated?
Continuing our Staunton contemporary
says that a man may arrogate to himself
rights with reference to his child, but
on close scrutiny there is grave ques-
ton whether his rights are not far out
weighed by his duties in a contest
between his right to require tho child to
remain away from school," 1t concludes,
.and his duty to give that child oil tho
benefits OF schooling possible, it seems
to us the right dwindes into insgnii-
cance."
The State recognizes that the right of
the parent over his child is qualified by
the obligation of duty. 1t recognizes the
right of the parent to control the child,
but 1t insists also that the parent must
do his duty by tho child as far as he
is able. It, therefore, requires that the
parent shall give his child support, and
IL he is able to do so, and fails to do so,
he is guilty of misdemeanor, and subjects
himself to the penalty and discipline Of
the law. But IN no case dOeS tho law
require the child to support its parents.
Does any decent man think it hardship
that he should be required by the State
to support his child? Why. then, such a
hardship that he should be required to
give his child an education. especially
when the State provides the means with
out any cost to himself?
Directors make great to do about
nothing. Compulsory attendance Is moth
ing more than requirement that the
parent shall do his duty by the child,
and there is no usurpaton about it any
more than there is in the statute re-
curing that parent shall support his
child. But, as we said in our remarks of
yesterday, the people of Virginia are
Jealous of their rights, and they have
the impression that it would be unwar-
ranted interference for the State to adopt
such a regulation, and in tho present
state of public sentiment 1t would not
do for the General Assembly to enact
@ universal compulsory law. Those who
believe in it must continue to work on
the public.
=-----==--==------------=-