Crossposted from Constitutionally Right

In a shocking and brazen act of governmental abuse of parental rights, Deerfield High School (DHS) in Deerfield, Illinois, has required fourteen-year-old freshmen to attend a “Straight Gay Alliance Network” (GSA) panel discussion led by “gay” and “lesbian” upperclassmen during a “freshman advisory” class which secretively featured inappropriate discussions of a sexual nature in promotion of high-risk homosexual behaviors.
Not only has DHS required that its young and impressionable freshmen be exposed to radical homosexual propaganda, the school has further required that students sign a “confidentiality agreement” promising not to tell anyone – including their own parents – about the discussion. Source

The second paragraph in the above refferenced article would be almost laughable, if it wasn’t so scary. Stories like this give parents a reason to question the validity of the public school system which their taxes pay for, and offers yet another excuse as to why the Department of Education should be abolished.

Before delving into the topic at hand, I think it is important to explain why I find the second paragraph to be almost laughable. It is because here we have a public school system, whose sole function is to educate our nations youth, asking minors to sign confidentiality agreements! Was the school not aware that minors cannot enter into a legal contract without parental consent?

Moving on now to the real issue, this is just another case of liberals forcing their agenda on impressionable young minds. Gone are the days when school children learned Math, English, Science, and History. Our current education system is more concerned the future of our Country receives “sensitivity training” than American History courses.

There is currently a lawsuit pending in Massachusetts regarding the curriculum of Eastbrook Elementary School. The State, along with the ACLU, the Human Rights Campaign, the Massachusetts Teachers Association, and Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders are arguing a State interest in teaching homosexuality. The lawsuit stems from David Parker’s disagreement with a book given to his 5 year old son as part of “diversity training”.

The issue now is in the process of now being resolved in a courtroom with attorney’s representing the school district filing a motion to dismiss. Their basis for the dismissal is teachers at Eastbrook Elementary School have a “legitimate state interest” in teaching the homosexual lifestyle, and parents have no input into those decisions.

I am not sure any parent, even one who agrees the homosexual lifestyle should be taught in public school to children as young as 5, would agree that parents should have no input into the decisions which affect their child’s education.

Not to long ago in San Francisco, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled “We agree, and hold that there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children, either independent of their right to direct the upbringing and education of their children or encompassed by it. We also hold that parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students. ”

It is no wonder that most American families support school voucher programs, allowing them to pull their children from public schools. It is also no wonder why the ACLU adamantly opposes them.

The State argues it must “fight discrimination”, which does sound like a noble enough cause, however when you look at all of the different groups who may fall victim to discrimination or prejudice, it is clear the State does not take the same “diversity training” approach with all groups. The question that should arise from this court case is not wether or not homosexuality is moral and therefore OK to be taught to in schools. The question should be wether the State has a right to impose its own ideology of a family on children.

 


   

“Is it a right or a duty in society to take care of their infant members in opposition to the will of the parent? How far does this right and duty extend? –to guard the life of the infant, his property, his instruction, his morals? The Roman father was supreme in all these: we draw a line, but where? –public sentiment does not seem to have traced it precisely… It is better to tolerate the rare instance of a parent refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the common feelings and ideas by the forcible asportation and education of the infant against the will of the father.” -Thomas Jefferson – Note to Elementary School Act, 1817

Be Sociable, Share!