Constitutional rights are only as good as the cultural context in which they are interpreted and applied. All rights are ultimately subject to a balancing test, weighing the value of the right against competing state interests. At the root of these balancing tests is a void, a bare value judgment based on the prevailing "wisdom" in elite circles at any given time. In an age when worship of God has been replaced by worship of the state, it's no surprise that the state's interests tend to weigh heavily on Lady Justice's scales.
Based on my brief research, the main challenge to Tennessee’s compulsory education regime came in the early ‘90s in Crites v. Smith, 826 S.W.2d 459 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991). At the time, the homeschooling statute, T.C.A. § 49-6-3050(b), required homeschooling parents to possess a baccalaureate degree. Parents without a degree could request an exemption from the department of education, but this was an illusory procedure as the commissioner categorically denied all exemption requests.
A group of parents sued, asserting that the routine denial of exemption requests (but not the statutory regime itself) was arbitrary, capricious, and unconstitutional. The majority decision made short work of this argument, holding that the state’s “compelling interest in the proper schooling of all children” gives it “the power to compel attendance upon duly established public schools or their equivalent.” The commissioner's exemption denials turned on application of the word "equivalent." Because the parents were not adequately educated, they were, in his view, incapable of providing an education "equivalent" to that provided in public schools. According to the majority, the state's “compelling interest” in ensuring education "equivalent" to that provided in public schools trumps the parents’ rights to the free exercise of religion and to educate their children.
The majority concluded its analysis with this doozy:
“The power in the government to prescribe educational standards and the right of parents to exercise religion and educate their children are not necessarily inconsistent, and neither should be used as a weapon to impair or destroy the other. Both the power and the right are fully capable of coexisting, and they should be permitted to do so.”
So, in short, parents have the right to educate their children, so long as their ideas of what constitutes a “proper” education are not inconsistent with those of the state. When there is conflict between the two, each becomes a destructive "weapon" against the other. And we can't have that, so the parents, but not the state, must be disarmed, because... reasons...
The dissenting opinion would have found the commissioner’s actions unconstitutional unless and until the department implemented clear guidelines for evaluating exemption requests. But the dissent placed even greater emphasis on the state's compelling interest, framing the issue as a balancing test between the fundamental right of parents to teach their children, described as "among the most fundamental rights secured by the federal and state constitutions," and the compelling state interest in controlling education, described as a "prime object of American government."
The dissent throws in yet another doozy in describing the weightiness of the state's compelling interest, asserting education in accord with state standards "awakens children to our society's cultural values and prepares them to be active citizens and to live whatever life style they choose." The dissent goes on:
"In the face of the State's compelling interest in education, parents have neither the right to educate their children unfettered by reasonable governmental regulation nor the right to replace the State's educational requirements with their own idiosyncratic views of what knowledge a child needs."
So that's the state of parental rights in Tennessee. Parents have a very important, highly regarded, fundamental right to educate their children... as long as they exercise that right in a manner that is "proper" and "adequate," and not "idiosyncratic" or "unfettered by reasonable governmental regulation."
Who decides what words like "proper" and "idiosyncratic" mean? The courts. What philosophy underpins their value judgments on issues so important as the education of human beings? Not a lot more than deference to the state. What underpins the state's judgment on these issues? A combination of prevailing cultural trends and statist hubris, often backed by bogus "studies" and "expert" opinions.
I've been considering starting a newsletter here. Any interest out there in reading a deep dive into the legal history of the State's interest in education versus parental rights?
Great. I’ve begun work on my first article, tracking the history and evolution of the parens patriae doctrine, which gives the government authority to decide what is “good” for a child’s welfare and education.
Unfortunately, the bureaucratic class running the country today wouldn’t know good from a hole in the ground. The overarching theme of the newsletter will be a critical reexamination of the subjective value judgments that lie at the root of many legal doctrines, while at the same time elucidating a vision of the good society more in line with traditional wisdom. I will also be attempting to apply that traditional wisdom to uniquely contemporary issues.
Time to finally take the plunge after lurking in the Substack comments for the last four plus years…
Constitutional rights are only as good as the cultural context in which they are interpreted and applied. All rights are ultimately subject to a balancing test, weighing the value of the right against competing state interests. At the root of these balancing tests is a void, a bare value judgment based on the prevailing "wisdom" in elite circles at any given time. In an age when worship of God has been replaced by worship of the state, it's no surprise that the state's interests tend to weigh heavily on Lady Justice's scales.
Based on my brief research, the main challenge to Tennessee’s compulsory education regime came in the early ‘90s in Crites v. Smith, 826 S.W.2d 459 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991). At the time, the homeschooling statute, T.C.A. § 49-6-3050(b), required homeschooling parents to possess a baccalaureate degree. Parents without a degree could request an exemption from the department of education, but this was an illusory procedure as the commissioner categorically denied all exemption requests.
A group of parents sued, asserting that the routine denial of exemption requests (but not the statutory regime itself) was arbitrary, capricious, and unconstitutional. The majority decision made short work of this argument, holding that the state’s “compelling interest in the proper schooling of all children” gives it “the power to compel attendance upon duly established public schools or their equivalent.” The commissioner's exemption denials turned on application of the word "equivalent." Because the parents were not adequately educated, they were, in his view, incapable of providing an education "equivalent" to that provided in public schools. According to the majority, the state's “compelling interest” in ensuring education "equivalent" to that provided in public schools trumps the parents’ rights to the free exercise of religion and to educate their children.
The majority concluded its analysis with this doozy:
“The power in the government to prescribe educational standards and the right of parents to exercise religion and educate their children are not necessarily inconsistent, and neither should be used as a weapon to impair or destroy the other. Both the power and the right are fully capable of coexisting, and they should be permitted to do so.”
So, in short, parents have the right to educate their children, so long as their ideas of what constitutes a “proper” education are not inconsistent with those of the state. When there is conflict between the two, each becomes a destructive "weapon" against the other. And we can't have that, so the parents, but not the state, must be disarmed, because... reasons...
The dissenting opinion would have found the commissioner’s actions unconstitutional unless and until the department implemented clear guidelines for evaluating exemption requests. But the dissent placed even greater emphasis on the state's compelling interest, framing the issue as a balancing test between the fundamental right of parents to teach their children, described as "among the most fundamental rights secured by the federal and state constitutions," and the compelling state interest in controlling education, described as a "prime object of American government."
The dissent throws in yet another doozy in describing the weightiness of the state's compelling interest, asserting education in accord with state standards "awakens children to our society's cultural values and prepares them to be active citizens and to live whatever life style they choose." The dissent goes on:
"In the face of the State's compelling interest in education, parents have neither the right to educate their children unfettered by reasonable governmental regulation nor the right to replace the State's educational requirements with their own idiosyncratic views of what knowledge a child needs."
So that's the state of parental rights in Tennessee. Parents have a very important, highly regarded, fundamental right to educate their children... as long as they exercise that right in a manner that is "proper" and "adequate," and not "idiosyncratic" or "unfettered by reasonable governmental regulation."
Who decides what words like "proper" and "idiosyncratic" mean? The courts. What philosophy underpins their value judgments on issues so important as the education of human beings? Not a lot more than deference to the state. What underpins the state's judgment on these issues? A combination of prevailing cultural trends and statist hubris, often backed by bogus "studies" and "expert" opinions.
I've been considering starting a newsletter here. Any interest out there in reading a deep dive into the legal history of the State's interest in education versus parental rights?
Bless you for digging farther than I had time to do! This is so important and yes, I have interest! We all should!!!
Great. I’ve begun work on my first article, tracking the history and evolution of the parens patriae doctrine, which gives the government authority to decide what is “good” for a child’s welfare and education.
Unfortunately, the bureaucratic class running the country today wouldn’t know good from a hole in the ground. The overarching theme of the newsletter will be a critical reexamination of the subjective value judgments that lie at the root of many legal doctrines, while at the same time elucidating a vision of the good society more in line with traditional wisdom. I will also be attempting to apply that traditional wisdom to uniquely contemporary issues.
Time to finally take the plunge after lurking in the Substack comments for the last four plus years…
Can't wait to read it! B