ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1997, Roanoke Times
DATE: Sunday, January 19, 1997 TAG: 9701210016
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: 2 EDITION: METRO GENERAL ASSEMBLY
A PROPOSED amendment to the Virginia Constitution is touted as a means to promote parents' involvement and responsibility in their children's lives. A fine idea, except that's not the true purpose.
The innocuous-sounding amendment - ``The right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right'' - is, in fact, part of a nationwide campaign by religious groups, right-wing ideologues and others to impose their agenda on public schools and other public institutions.
If adopted, the amendment's real-life consequences could wreak havoc in education and in welfare, health and safety programs for children. The General Assembly, which wisely defeated a similar measure last year, should waste no time defeating it again.
How could this simple reaffirmation of parents' rights pose a danger? Well, consider ...
By constitutionally specifying the right of parents to direct the education of their children, parents - maybe even one parent - might be able to force local school boards to create a special curriculum to promote particular cultural and religious values. The dubiously named Institute for Justice makes no secret of how it hopes the amendment would be used: to sue for tax-supported vouchers for private schools when public schools fail, as they inevitably would, to meet every parent's curriculum demands.
And imagine the administrative nightmare if schools were required to get parents' permission before students could be exposed to the teaching of any information. Conceivably, a parent could veto the discussion, at least in front of his or her child, of political philosophy in a history class, forbid the mention of evolution in a biology class, censure the reading of ``Huckleberry Finn'' in an English-lit class. Classrooms might need revolving doors for students being excused during segments of lessons; or separate, alternative classes might have to be funded.
In the child-safety arena, the amendment could undermine efforts to prevent child abuse or neglect. The threat of lawsuits could deter reports of suspected abuse; investigations could be impeded. The amendment could also be used to overturn laws involving such matters as child labor and childhood immunization against disease.
That many parents support the concept of parental primacy in children's upbringing is understandable. They feel that ``government'' - including schools that distribute condoms to students and legislatures that permit abortions for minors without parental consent - has overstepped its bounds into family matters, and is weakening the family structure and family values. The parents are saying ``hands off our kids.''
Parents in fact do have the prime role in bringing up kids, and need to insist on retaining it. But formal parental-rights amendments, pushed in this and other states, are so overly broad in their potential application that they could end up hurting children. Virginia legislators shouldn't be fooled, or pressured, into approving the thing.
LENGTH: Medium: 57 linesby CNB