Time: Tue Jul 15 22:19:45 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA05270 for [address in tool bar]; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 22:18:06 -0700 (MST) by usr03.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA01700; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 22:15:32 -0700 (MST) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 22:15:08 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: The most pernicious battle is for the minds of children. (fwd) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit <snip> > >>A MOST EXCELLENT REPORT WORTHY OF EVERY WORD, >>AND ONE OF THE MOST VALUABLE YOU WILL EVER READ. >>Good and dutiful serfs must be trained early by the state. >> >>>Whose Children? >>> >>>by William Norman Grigg >>> >>America’s parents are battling for the right to raise their kids >> >>Those who educate are more to be honored than those who bear the children. >> >>The latter give them only life; the former teach them the art of living. >>> >>— Carolyn Warner, former Superintendent >> of Public Instruction in Arizona >> >> >>Each child belongs to the state. >> >>— William H. Seawell, professor >>of education at the University of Virginia >> >>>Who are the primary stewards of children—parents, or state-appointed >>>bureaucrats? Are parents, as John Locke wrote, >>>instruments in God’s "great design" with "an obligation to nourish, >>>preserve, and bring up their offspring"? Or are they merely >>>temporary custodians of the state’s children, expected to provide >>>lodging and meals during those brief periods when the >>>children are not under the state’s direct supervision? Is the public >>>education system intended to supplement the efforts of >>>parents to educate their children, or to supplant the parents >>>altogether? These questions were examined last fall in Colorado, >>>and the answers are relevant to anyone who wants to understand the >>>character and purposes of America’s public education >>>system. >>> >>>Preserving Parental Rights >>> >>>In 1996, citing concerns about the state’s growing usurpation of >>>parental authority, a coalition of conservative groups placed a >>>proposed Parental Rights Amendment (PRA) on the Colorado ballot. Had the >>>measure passed, that state’s constitution would >>>have included specific recognition of the fact that parents have the >>>primary responsibility "to direct and control the upbringing, >>>education, values and discipline of their children," and pro-family >>>activists in other states would have been emboldened to >>>enshrine that principle in their own state constitutions. Of course, >>>this prospect horrified partisans of the principle of parens >>>patriae ("fatherhood of the state"), and in short order a >>>counter-coalition of left-wing activists assembled to defeat the >>>measure. >>> >>>The anti-PRA lobby, which drew heavily from teachers’ unions, left-wing >>>pressure groups, and hard-core homosexual activists, >>>called itself "Protect Our Children" — a name reflecting the assumption >>>that the state must protect its children from their >>>parents. One major component of the anti-PRA coalition, the left-wing >>>group that calls itself "People for the American Way," >>>condemned the proposed measure as an "attack on the freedom to learn" >>>and protested that if PRAs were to pass in Colorado >>>and elsewhere "communities would [be] paralyzed under the threat of >>>lawsuits about virtually all the services and programs they >>>provide" — a revealing objection, as it assumes that education requires >>>the envelopment of schoolchildren in a web of >>>state-provided services. Amid great acrimony, the Colorado PRA was >>>defeated. >>> >>>But Colorado is not the only state to wrestle with a PRA. Last January >>>the Virginia Senate rejected a proposed PRA. The >>>measure’s opponents, according to the Newport News Daily Press, >>>described it as a threat to "the health, safety and welfare >>>of children." How would recognizing parental authority imperil children? >>>According to Democratic State Senator Joseph V. >>>Gartlan Jr., who opposed the measure, recognizing the primacy of >>>parental authority to direct the upbringing and education of >>>children would "throw into a tailspin society’s reasonable efforts to >>>protect against abuse and neglect." This objection illustrates >>>another tacit assumption at work in our public education system: >>>Although parents are not the primary stewards of children, >>>they are the primary threat to children. >>> >>>The rejection of a PRA by the Kansas state legislature in 1994 was in >>>large measure a vindication of the idea that parents are a >>>threat to their children. The significance of the PRA’s defeat in Kansas >>>was not lost on Jim McDavitt, director of the Kansas >>>Education Watch network. "With the defeat of the Parental Rights >>>Amendment … every parent in Kansas was told by over >>>half the legislators that they are not the primary decision makers in >>>the lives of their children," McDavitt observed. "They are, >>>however, as a group at large, considered capable and likely of criminal >>>child abuse." >>> >>>During debate over the Kansas PRA, State Representative Denise Everhart >>>declared, "I have a thousand stories of child abuse >>>that I will recite on the House floor one at a time if I have to in >>>order to keep this amendment from passing." A similar tack was >>>taken by State Representative Rochell Chronister, who told her >>>colleagues that "every time I see this amendment, I cannot help >>>but think of those children that were burned alive by David Koresh in >>>Waco, Texas." Taking their cues from this dishonest >>>description of the Waco outrage, PRA opponents christened the measure >>>the "David Koresh amendment." >>> >>>Abuse by the State >>> >>>Waco actually illustrates the dangers of entrusting the state with the >>>role of protecting children. In that incident, the federal >>>government sought to rescue children from alleged parental abuse by >>>attacking their home with automatic weapons, tanks, and >>>poison gas. But the Waco tragedy is not the only incident in which the >>>state has abused children in the name of "protecting" >>>them. >>> >>>On March 19, 1996 at the J.T. Lambert Intermediate School in East >>>Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, 59 eleven-year-old girls were >>>herded into the school nurse’s office, told to remove their clothes, and >>>forced to undergo a genital examination. Many of the >>>children began crying, only to be berated for acting like "babies." Some >>>of them tried to escape. School authorities explained >>>after the fact that the children were inspected for abnormalities or >>>symptoms of venereal disease and that parents had been >>>given an opportunity to exempt their children from the exam. However, >>>several of the traumatized girls had been examined over >>>the explicit objections of their parents. >>> >>>Katie Tucker, the mother of an 11-year-old girl who was forcibly >>>examined, told the press: "The girls were scared. They were >>>crying and trying to run out of the door, but one of the nurses was >>>blocking the door so they couldn’t leave. My daughter told >>>the other nurse that ‘My mother wouldn’t like this. I want to call her.’ >>>And they said, ‘No.’ And my daughter said, ‘I don’t >>>want this test done.’ And the nurse said, ‘Too bad.’" >>> >>>Dr. Ramlah Vahanvaty, who performed the exams, responded to parental >>>criticism by dismissing it as a product of "ignorance." >>>"Even a parent doesn’t have the right to say what’s appropriate for a >>>physician to do," Dr. Vahanvaty declared, insisting that >>>the forcible violation of 11-year-old girls was "in the best interest of >>>the children." >>> >>>Once again we are brought back to the central point of contention: Is >>>the task of defining "the best interests" of children to be >>>assigned to the state and its agents, or to the parents? This matter is >>>not addressed in the U.S. Constitution — for reasons that >>>are misunderstood by many. As Dr. Allan Carlson of the Rockford >>>Institute observes, "The Founders understood the family to >>>be the social unit that reconciled liberty with order, that kept the >>>individual’s interests in balance with the interests of community >>>and posterity." For this reason, Carlson writes, "family issues are >>>avoided in the U.S. Constitution because they were >>>irrelevant"; the federal government was given no jurisdiction over >>>family life. The Founders understood and sustained Locke’s >>>view that God "made parents instruments in His great design" and had >>>"laid on the children a perpetual obligation of honouring >>>their parents.... From this obligation no state … can absolve children." >>> >>>"Village" Children >>> >>>To the extent that government at any level had any role in family >>>policy, it was to be a local responsibility. In contemporary >>>America, however, "family policy" is defined by the central government, >>>and the public school system is the primary means >>>through which federal intervention in the home is facilitated. After >>>all, as Hillary Rodham Clinton maintains, "It takes a village to >>>raise a child" — "village" in this instance referring to the state. >>> >>>"In every country, government must be a partner in the effort on behalf >>>of children," Mrs. Clinton declared in a June 6th address >>>to the Second World Congress on Family Law and the Rights of Children >>>and Youth in San Francisco. "Government can help >>>ensure that children have a healthy start in life, a solid education, >>>and skills they need to compete in a global economy." It is also >>>government’s task, according to Mrs. Clinton, to "give parents the tools >>>they need to be good parents" — and, presumably, it >>>is government’s job to decide whether parents are doing an adequate job >>>of raising the state’s children. >>> >>>The implicit assumption in Mrs. Clinton’s speech — namely, that the role >>>of parents is to act as administrative agents for the >>>state within the home — was made more explicit in remarks offered by >>>Attorney General Janet Reno to the same gathering. >>>According to Reno, the task of raising children involves nothing less >>>than "reweaving the fabric of community around the >>>youngsters who are at risk," a category which apparently includes all >>>American children. "The first place we need to start is at >>>home," Reno declared. "We know the risk factors for violence, and, even >>>more importantly, we know what types of support, >>>services, and sanctions children, youth, and families need to develop >>>safely, without violence." >>> >>>Reno continued: "We are working together to give them a chance for a >>>strong and tolerant future by doing everything we can to >>>promote parenting skills, to provide proper preventive medical care in >>>the early years, to provide them safe, constructive child >>>care in the formative years, to provide them with the afternoon and >>>evening programs that can make a difference, giving them >>>the education they need to really become productive members of society." >>>In Reno’s litany of "support, services, and >>>sanctions," where could parents possibly fit in? >>> >>>But the Clinton Administration and its allies are not content merely to >>>provide children with "afternoon and evening programs" >>>and "safe, constructive child care." Throughout the country, school >>>districts are developing "wrap-around support services" that >>>begin with home visits from social workers — often before the child is >>>born. Such programs as "Success by Six" in Minnesota, >>>"Parents as Teachers" in Missouri, and "Open Doors" in Hawaii focus on >>>getting agents of government into the home as early as >>>possible and keeping them there during the pre-school years. "I cannot >>>say enough in support of home visits," Mrs. Clinton >>>enthused in her ghost-written opus It Takes a Village. The >>>Administration’s Goals 2000 education program provides federal >>>subsidies for such state-level initiatives as a means of ensuring that >>>all children arrive at the doorstep of government schools >>>"ready to learn" — meaning that they have become habituated to the >>>state’s guiding influence in their lives. >>> >>>But the Clintonites have even greater ambitions for the state’s role in >>>the lives of "its" children and the Administration’s 1995 >>>budget offered a revealing glimpse of its fundamentally totalitarian >>>mind-set. In a preface to a section dealing with "Family >>>Preservation and Support Funds" — which contained increases in federal >>>funding for Head Start, child immunizations, and >>>other "investments" — can be found the following remarkable >>>pronouncement: >>> >>>As early as the fourth century B.C., the philosopher Plato stressed the >>>importance … of investing in children from an early age. >>>In The Republic, he discusses the type of poetry youth should learn, >>>physical exercise they should undertake and diets they >>>should follow.... He observes, "… the first step, as you know, is always >>>what matters most, particularly when we are dealing >>>with those who are young and tender. That is the time when they are >>>taking shape and when any impression we choose to >>>make leaves a permanent mark." >>> >>>President Clinton once recalled that his mentor, the late Georgetown >>>history professor Caroll Quigley, taught him that Plato >>>"was a fascist" — and yet the Administration’s preferred template for >>>education and social policy is Plato’s totalitarian >>>Republic. Tragically, as we shall see, this is entirely in keeping with >>>the origins and purposes of America’s statist education >>>system. >>> >>>Fascist Philosophy >>> >>>"Throughout history, rulers and court intellectuals have aspired to use >>>the educational system to shape their nations," writes >>>Sheldon Richman in his book Separating School and State. "The model was >>>set out by Plato in The Republic and was >>>constructed most faithfully in Soviet Russia, Fascist Italy, and Nazi >>>Germany.... One can see how irresistible a vehicle the >>>schools would be to any social engineer. They represent a unique >>>opportunity to mold future citizens early in life, to instill in >>>them the proper reverence for the ruling culture, and to prepare them to >>>be obedient and obeisant taxpayers and soldiers." >>> >>>Plato’s model for his own utopian Republic was ancient Sparta, in which >>>children were taken from their parents during infancy >>>and molded into soldiers for the militaristic Spartan society. Thus, >>>Plato’s utopian blueprint specified that "no parent is to know >>>his own child, nor any child his parent," and the society was to be >>>based upon a "community of property and a community of >>>families." >>> >>>The Platonic model was embraced by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, one of the >>>intellectual architects of the French Revolution. >>>Rousseau taught that the state was "the common mother of all her >>>citizens," and he maintained that "instead of saying that civil >>>society is derived from parental authority, we ought to say rather that >>>the latter derives from the former" — in other words, that >>>parents received a limited child-rearing mandate from the state. This >>>totalitarian concept was embraced by the leaders of >>>revolutionary France. Bertrand Barere, a member of the revolutionary >>>Committee on Public Safety, instructed his colleagues >>>that "children belong to the general family, to the Republic, before >>>belonging to private families." >>> >>>Prussia also adopted Plato’s totalitarian model of government education. >>>According to Richman, "Europe’s first national system >>>of education was set up by King Frederick William I of Prussia in 1717. >>>His son, Frederick the Great, following in his father’s >>>footsteps, said, ‘The prince is to the nation he governs what the head >>>is to the man; it is his duty to see, think, and act for the >>>whole community.’" This principle was insinuated into every aspect of >>>the Prussian school system. Following Prussia’s defeat at >>>the hands of Napoleon in 1806, Frederick William III tightened the grip >>>of the Prussian system even further. Notes Richman: >>>"He instituted certification of teachers and abolished semi-religious >>>private schools.... Children aged 7 to 14 years had to attend >>>school. Parents could be fined or have their children taken away if the >>>children did not attend. Private schools could exist only >>>as long as they kept to the standards of the government’s schools." >>> >>>When a unified German nation was created, it was the Prussian model of >>>education that prevailed. German philosopher Johann >>>Fichte defined the German education ethic by explaining that schools >>>"must fashion the person, and fashion him in such a way >>>that he simply cannot will otherwise than what you wish him to will." In >>>1917, German educational theorist Franz de Hovre >>>observed: "The prime fundamental of German education is that it is based >>>on a national principle.... [It is] education to the >>>State, education for the State, education by the State. The Volksschule >>>is a direct result of a national principle aimed at national >>>unity. The State is the supreme end in view." Just a few years later, >>>the Nazi (National Socialist) Party seized control of >>>Germany’s centralized educational system — with tragic results for that >>>nation and the world. >>> >>>Importing Parens Patriae >>> >>>But it should not be assumed that the Germans were uniquely enamored of >>>centralized statist education. Award-winning teacher >>>and educational commentator John Taylor Gatto writes, "A small number of >>>very passionate American ideological leaders >>>visited Prussia in the first half of the 19th century; fell in love with >>>the order, obedience, and efficiency of its education system; >>>and campaigned relentlessly thereafter to bring the Prussian vision to >>>these shores." This admiration for the Prussian system was >>>not based on its ability to impart knowledge or to develop intellectual >>>skills; rather, it was that system’s success in creating >>>"obedient and subordinate graduates, properly respectful of arbitrary >>>orders." >>> >>>Sheldon Richman notes that American public school advocates "imported >>>three major ideas from Prussia. The first was that the >>>purpose of state schooling was not intellectual training but the >>>conditioning of children ‘to obedience, subordination, and >>>collective life.’... Second, whole ideas were broken into fragmented >>>‘subjects’ and school days were divided into fixed periods >>>‘so that self-motivation to learn would be muted by ceaseless >>>interruptions.’ Third, the state was posited as the true parent >>>of children." (Emphasis added.) >>> >>>But the "parenthood" of the state ultimately rests upon coercion — >>>something that was clearly understood by advocates of the >>>"Prussianization" of American education. Calvin Stowe, author of the >>>19th-century tract The Prussian System of Public >>>Instruction and Its Applicability to the United States, wrote: "A man >>>has no more right to endanger the state by throwing >>>upon it a family of ignorant and vicious children than he has to give >>>admission to the spies of an invading army. If he is unable to >>>educate his children, the state should assist him — if unwilling, it >>>should compel him." >>> >>>Some state courts eagerly embraced both the Prussian educational >>>philosophy and the associated notion that the state is the >>>true parent of American children. In 1839, the Pennsylvania Supreme >>>Court, invoking the concept of parens patriae, ruled that >>>the state was entitled to seize children from parents found to be >>>"unequal to" or "unworthy of the task" of educating their >>>children. By the end of the 19th century, the "Prussianization" of U.S. >>>education was well underway, and the doctrine of parens >>>patriae had become firmly embedded in America’s legal culture. In 1882, >>>the Illinois Supreme Court asserted: "It is the >>>unquestioned right and imperative duty of every enlightened government, >>>in its character of parens patriae, to protect and >>>provide for the comfort and well-being of its citizens.... The >>>performance of this duty is justly regarded as one of the most >>>important governmental functions, and all constitutional limitations >>>must be so understood and construed so as not to interfere >>>with its proper and legitimate exercise." A 1901 decision by the Indiana >>>Supreme Court extended this principle backward into >>>the nursery, holding that the state is the principal steward over >>>children even in infancy — thus embracing, in principle, Plato’s >>>original totalitarian design. >>> >>>"By the early twentieth century," observes educational historian Joel >>>Spring, "the school in fact had expanded its functions into >>>areas not dreamed of in the early part of the previous century.... The >>>school [became] a central social agency in urban America. >>>The one theme that ran through all these new school programs was the >>>desire to maintain discipline and order in urban life. >>>Within this framework, the school became a major agency for social >>>control." >>> >>>Elitist Designs >>> >>>"Social control" was the stated objective of the General Education Board >>>(GEB), a private institution created by John D. >>>Rockefeller in 1902 that developed and promoted various radical schemes >>>to reconfigure American society through the statist >>>school system. "In our dreams, we have limitless resources, and the >>>people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding >>>hand," wrote GEB Chairman Frederick Gates. "The present educational >>>conventions fade from our minds; and, unhampered by >>>tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive >>>rural folk." >>> >>>As the resources of the Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford, and other >>>foundations became available to underwrite their designs, >>>subversives and collectivists within the school system became brazen >>>about their intentions. In 1932, George S. Counts, a >>>Fabian Socialist who taught at Columbia University Teachers College, >>>instructed his followers that "teachers should deliberately >>>reach for power and then make the most of their conquest" by seeking to >>>"influence the social attitudes, ideals and behavior of >>>the coming generation." Counts contended that America had entered "a new >>>age where ignorance must be replaced by >>>knowledge, competition by cooperation, trust in Providence by careful >>>planning, and private capitalism by some form of >>>socialized economy." >>> >>>The "knowledge" the educrats had in mind, of course, was not the moral >>>and intellectual wisdom needed to live responsibly in a >>>free society, but the propaganda required to win blind obedience to the >>>arbitrary dictates of an all-powerful state. Students, in >>>fact, would be conditioned to view the state (not the family) as the >>>most important of all loyalties and institutions and >>>(eventually) to love Big Brother. The state would equip its students >>>with enough "knowledge" to perform certain tasks in the >>>interests of the state, but not enough to think independently or to >>>yearn for freedom. As we shall see in subsequent articles in >>>this issue, the "dumbing down" of an entire generation of American youth >>>has been a tragic result of this insidious program. >>> >>>Socialists of a more militant variety were also making big plans for >>>America’s educational system. In his 1932 book Toward >>>Soviet America, William Z. Foster, head of the Communist Party, USA, >>>declared, "Among the elementary measures the >>>American Soviet government will adopt to further the cultural revolution >>>are the following: the schools, colleges, and universities >>>will be coordinated and grouped under the National Department of >>>Education and its state and local branches. The studies will >>>be revolutionized, being cleansed of religious, patriotic, and other >>>features of the bourgeoisie ideology. The students will be >>>taught on the basis of Marxian dialectical materialism, >>>internationalism, and the general ethics of the new socialist society." >>> >>>It is not difficult to recognize the fulfillment of many of Foster’s >>>ambitions in our contemporary public education: A national >>>Department of Education does set the policy for school systems across >>>the country; biblical religious content has been purged >>>out of public schools and replaced in many instances with the neo-pagan >>>nostrums of earth worship; in the name of >>>"multicultural" education, patriotic depictions of American history have >>>been jettisoned, and once-renowned figures from >>>Columbus to George Washington are subjects of ritualized execration; and >>>children are constantly marinated in notions of >>>"world citizenship" and "collectivism." Even as children in >>>government-run schools are taught subservience to the state, they are >>>encouraged to develop hostility toward other traditional sources of >>>authority, such as the moral teachings of their parents. >>> >>>Glue of Coercion >>> >>>Some might object that the proliferating pathologies that characterize >>>contemporary government schools — drug abuse, sexual >>>promiscuity and teen pregnancy, violence, and other misbehavior — >>>effectively rebut the idea that the school system is intended >>>to "maintain discipline and order." But this misses the point: The >>>government school system has succeeded brilliantly in creating >>>a society that can only be held together by state coercion, in the form >>>of police power. >>> >>>"For 140 years this nation has tried to impose objectives downward from >>>a lofty command center made up of ‘experts,’ a >>>central elite of social engineers," John Taylor Gatto told the New York >>>State Senate in 1991 after being named that state’s >>>Teacher of the Year. "It hasn’t worked. It won’t work.... It doesn’t >>>work because its fundamental premises are mechanical, >>>anti-human, and hostile to family life. Lives can be controlled by >>>machine education but they will always fight back with >>>weapons of social pathology: drugs, violence, self-destruction, >>>indifference, and the symptoms I see in the children I teach." >>> >>>Gatto pointed out that in the name of fostering collective order, the >>>statist school system is destroying community: "[I]t >>>destroys communities by relegating the training of children to the hands >>>of certified experts — and by doing so it ensures our >>>children cannot grow up fully human" — becoming instead mindless >>>automatons programmed by the state’s change agents. >>>Rather than instilling in youngsters an appreciation for individual >>>liberty, the system has brought to life "the ancient pharaonic >>>dream of Egypt: compulsory subordination for all.... Schools teach >>>exactly what they are intended to teach and they do it well: >>>how to be a good Egyptian and remain in your place in the pyramid." >>> >>>"The future of education, and of America as a free society, depends on >>>the liberation of the American family from the grip of the >>>public school," contends Sheldon Richman. "Regardless of motives, the >>>people who foisted state education on us have >>>committed a grave offense.... Using a variety of strategies, we must >>>reclaim the right to raise our children and to help them >>>educate themselves. In a fundamental sense, that is the American way." >>>There is no more important task, Richman concludes, >>>than to build "a wall of separation … between school and state" and >>>restore a system of "family-based learning" in which >>>children can develop their God-given abilities as free individuals. >>> >>>"It is a great triumph of compulsory government monopoly mass-schooling >>>that among even the best of my fellow teachers, and >>>among even the best of my students’ parents, only a small number can >>>imagine a different way to do things," laments John >>>Taylor Gatto. To restore sanity to American education, to rescue the >>>increasingly embattled family, and to preserve and >>>perpetuate individual freedom, "a different way to do things" must be >>>found — and soon. > <snip> ======================================================================== Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. ======================================================================== [This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail