In a ruling that surprises me a little bit, a Federal Court has ruled that Germans who have fled to the US because they dared to raise and educate their own children will be granted full political asylum. They have even gone so far as to say that Germany is violating basic human rights:
“We can’t expect every country to follow our constitution,” said Judge Burman. “The world might be a better place if it did. However, the rights being violated here are basic human rights that no country has a right to violate.”
Burman added, “Homeschoolers are a particular social group that the German government is trying to suppress. This family has a well-founded fear of persecution…therefore, they are eligible for asylum…and the court will grant asylum.”
In his ruling, Burman said that the scariest thing about this case was the motivation of the government. He noted it appeared that rather than being concerned about the welfare of the children, the government was trying to stamp out parallel societies—something the judge called “odd” and just plain “silly.” In his order the judge expressed concern that while Germany is a democratic country and is an ally, he noted that this particular policy of persecuting homeschoolers is “repellent to everything we believe as Americans.”
I don’t know how long the US will be a place of refuge. US law already breaks the fundamental principles at stake in this case: that the first responsibility for child-rearing is with the parents. Current US law which requires compulsory education goes beyond merely stealing from people to pay for education, but it unequivocally states that children are wards of the state first and parents second. This is a dangerous precedent and fundamentally in opposition to Christian principles.
But for now, one judge has stood up for justice. Let’s pray that the courts might be willing to look at our own record of injustice towards home-educators next.
You may also be interested in:
Thank you for posting this article. It’s hard to keep track of this case as it is no where in the mainstream media. I have been keeping track of what Germany and the UK have been doing to the homeschooling community over the last couple of years and it is completely outrageous. Of course I have also watched a scary scenario play out in this country where whenever a law pertaining to anti-homeschooling is implemented in the UK, somewhere in the US a state or county adopts those same rules or laws.
We already have been labeled terrorists in this country, if this continues, those German families seeking asylum here just might have to start looking to move to yet another country along with the rest of us who want to homeschool our own children.
It is really nuts, Homeschooling Mom.
I am also shocked as to the fact that no mainstream media outlets seem to be reporting this yet. Living in the UK, and I can say that I am pretty amazed what homeschooling parents will put up with. The government is getting new powers to inspect homes on a regular basis, looking for abuse and mistreatment by children’s own parents without any report, indication or accusation of guilt. Homeschooling parents in the UK are assumed guilty of abuse unless they prove to the government that they are innocent.
What a dangerous precedent!
Homeschooling laws are one reason why I doubt I will ever leave Texas. Here, the only rule is we have to teach the children a curriculum consisting of: reading, spelling, grammar, math, and good citizenship.
The best part? The state doesn’t have the authority to review our curriculum. All we do is tell them we’re teaching a kids a complete curriculum, and legally the government must take us at our word. We don’t have to have a certified teacher, we don’t have to submit our curriculum for review, we don’t have to register as a private school, and we don’t have to do standardized testing.
That doesn’t stop some school districts from harassing homeschoolers, but the law is decidedly in favor of homeschoolers.
Jew, I can see a lot of reasons to move to Texas – and the homeschooling laws are among them. I am definitely going to be looking for jobs in Texas in the next couple of years.
To play a bit of Devil’s Advocate, though, I want to argue that the German law and rulings against homeschooling do have some merit. I think the difference is that most Americans think individually while the European mindset still thinks in terms of societal impact (hence the 2006 ECHR upholding the German ruling on the grounds of creating parallel societies of different convictions). In other words, they didn’t outright ban homeschooling but decided that religious convictions alone aren’t enough. I wouldn’t be surprised if this was equating to not paying taxes because of religious convictions — primarily because I think that is an apt comparison within the secularised societal mindset. In other words, the German government’s argument (which goes back to just after WW1 when the upper-class elite were the ones being home-schooled) centres on people learning to integrate into the wider German society and preventing insular enclaves from appearing.
Further, I have seen a decent amount of people who have ‘home schooled’ their children only to cause even more harm to the children. A relative of mine (I say this to obscure the identity) was home schooled through fourth grade (when his parents gave up on it and sent him to school), only for him to struggle with school for years until he caught on and caught up with his classmates. Why? Because his parents weren’t disciplined in home schooling him (i.e. they crammed weeks into a day, then did nothing for months); his parents expected him to teach himself (and it was later discovered he is dyslexic); and his parents weren’t the most knowledgeable when it came to his work (they didn’t know most of the material and didn’t read ahead to at least seem knowledgeable, so they cut out sections they didn’t understand). In my mind, that kind of home schooling should not be allowed. Regulations should be in place to prevent that kind of schooling (and, to be fair, I think it should be applied equally to public schools as I’ve seen similar situations there as well). To be honest, I would want to compare a home school to a public school the same way I’d compare a private business to a public one (such as a nursery, day care, beauty salon, etc) in that the the in-home version is regulated just like the public one. If one is doing things properly, one shouldn’t be afraid of inspections. Again, to be fair, the regulating agency shouldn’t be making regulations to root out the in-home version. I think the UK regulations look good on paper to move between the two poles of absolute right and absolute ban.
Chris for every anecdote of mistreatment, poor education and even abuse by parents there are cases of the same by certified state professionals and teachers.
But really this is absolutely not the point. The question is absolutely fundamental – who has the greater claim of responsibility for children: parents or the demos?
Did you miss this?
And, as you say, that is not exactly the point. However, I do not jump to an exclusive-or. The parents do have a responsibility, but communities* also has a responsibility to ensure parents fulfill their responsibilities. If a parent is abusing her child, she gets some kind of response from the greater community. If a parent is being negligent in a child’s education — for whatever reason even religious convictions — she should also get a response from the greater community. If the community decides that the best way to do that is to have unannounced visits (which I think may be a bit extreme), then the community has that right provided it doesn’t violate human rights in enforcing that. The sad part, however, is that the majority of parents who do these ‘bad’ things perceive themselves as not being members of a local community; and I think that is largely a result of the way the US government was formed and codified (i.e. by focusing on individuals, the community has been erased from any kind of public eye), which is why Europe is different here (and also why the ECHR and Germany both spoke about parallel societies and integration into society rather than rights or privileges). We are individuals with individual rights but we also live in a community which has its own set of privileges (I won’t say rights here) and responsibilities. We acknowledge this every time we participate in any kind of organised political function, whether it be voting, protesting, going to court, pay taxes, use government services (e.g. police, fire), etc.
* NB: I am leaving this open for definition as I don’t want to limit it to the political community, government, a religious community, or a social group.
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don’t know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Alena
http://grantsforeducation.info
Thanks Chris – I did miss that. Sorry.
As for the rest, without getting into a dissertation-diverting (for both of us) whole big discussion on fundamentals, I would cite these problems quickly:
I had a feeling you might object to the “or” and I almost mentioned it, but didn’t because it might have led to this discussion (which can get long). However, since it has been brought up, I think the “dual” answer is not viable. One, even if they are “dual” then they cannot be equal, so one still must be designated “primarily responsible” and the other in a subordinate position. This is the way that non-compulsory state education looks like. The government claims responsibility, but it is “below” the parents. However, there is no way to articulate an “equal” position because a mandate for state schooling automatically puts the state in the primary position.
So, then if they are not equal, then we are back to the original “or.” We are back to two choices: the state or the parents?
Colin,
I’ve been skiving for two years, so what’s another day? (j/k)
However, I think you are reading my ‘dual’ answer too literally. I think it can work fine with one having the primary responsibility. However, both are problematic in their own right. If we say parents, then recent history seems to show that parents do not want that responsibility. Time and again, I have seen and heard of parents pushing the responsibility to properly educate their children to the school teacher, abdicating the role of primary educator completely. Take, for example, this survey from NPR where it says that those polled believe there is a strong lack of parental involvement nationwide (68% which is compared to only 43% when it comes to their own schools). So, I’d raise some issues if someone says that it is the parents’ responsibility because it seems to me that a sizable portion of parents don’t want that responsibility. To be fair, I also have concerns when that responsibility is the community’s (I’m being a bit more generic than just a particular government structure). That same survey also says that schools are doing a poor job in carrying out that responsibility.
So, it seems to me that neither the community nor the parents are good options. Because of this, I read your question as to who has the responsibility as a bit unfair. If the community is doing a respectable job (for our purposes, let’s assume that Germany was doing a good job in educating the children as the parent’s concern was along religious convictions not education quality) and the majority of parents have abdicated that role, then someone’s going to cry foul against the community whenever the minority (i.e. parents who want to home school their children and do so well) doesn’t get its way. If we ever see the reverse situation (i.e. where parents are doing a respectable job here and the community is doing a poor job) as a majority, someone will cry foul against the community yet again for wasting money. In other words, I think the position is unfalsifiable because, regardless of the situation, you can say something bad about the community while ignoring the parental responsibility. That is, I think many people in your position tend to be saying that the community has the responsibility and are using parental ‘rights’ as shills. There is, then, no choice between community and parents because it’s the community that gets the slap on the wrist, not the parents. Further, if the community slaps the parents on the wrist, people get sour and blame the community for being overbearing, repressive, or violating human rights.
An analogy here would be, say, child abuse. I believe we can all agree that it is the parents’ responsibility to prevent child abuse. If the community thinks a parent is abusing her children, it investigates it. So far, I don’t think anybody minds the community holding the parent accountable, right? Now, if the community agrees with the parent, everyone is happy; if it happens enough, parents might grumble that the community is being too nosy, which is fine. However, if the community disagrees with the parent, then the issue isn’t simply whose responsibility it is but rather who is going to prevent further issues. While the case in Germany wasn’t as terrible as child abuse, the plot lines were the same. It is only once the community disagreed with the parents and held them accountable that people reacted, however I’m arguing that that’s exactly what the community should have done: if it thinks parents aren’t keeping their responsibilities, one should hold them accountable. Accountability isn’t persecution.
Chris,
Fair response. I agree with (what I believe is) your assessment of the problem: the parents bear primary responsibility but sometimes they reneg on this responsibility.
Now, my solution to this is the same as it would be with anything: if someone doesn’t want a car, for example, (whether by stating this explicitly, or by default – he might claim it by fiat, but in fact, he has abandoned it somewhere, left it unlocked and has defaulted on responsibility for it) then others may chose to take responsibility for what has been given up. I would say the same with children – a parent, by abusing their children, is giving up their rights of caretaking that person. Therefore, an agency, orphanage or institution may take over care for the child.
Where this (may) differ from your position is that the parent, being predisposed by the physical reality of nature (they birthed) the child – have “first dibs” on the right to the child (including the right to educate and how to educate). A secondary caretaker may only take over if they can prove that the primary caretaker is not longer serving that role – in which case the stewardship of the child (not the child – as a child is not property) is in the common domain (and may now be acquired by another entity). But the burden of proof is with the secondary or subordinate caretaker. That is why I object to these laws – they put the burden of proof with the parents. This interposes the state, by legal construct, into the role of primary provider and the parent as a steward of state authority and virtues.
cchrisr stated:
I agree, as would the US court system. What is being criticized here is the position that parents would be prevented by the state from providing their child an equivalent education.
Specifically, the court determined that it was “permissible for parents who have jobs that require them to travel—such as circus performers and musicians—to homeschool, but homeschooling was prohibited for parents who wanted to for reasons of conscience”. In other words, the court isn’t acting to protect the children (in which case nobody would be allowed to home school), but to oppress a people group whose REASON for home schooling they dislike. If that reason is religious belief, this is a clear attack on religion. I would have no moral problem with home school instruction being held to a high academic standard (though practically this can be done abusively), but when the reason for a ban is to primarily to prevent religious expression the law is immoral.
Colin wrote:
Overall, I agree with the intent of your above comment. There IS a place for a user of force to step in and mandate a minimum standard of treatment for a child. That place is clear when physical abuse is taking place, or in case of clear neglect. I believe it is also reasonable to require a minimum level of education, with the expectation that it will prepare the child to become independent (if desired) when they reach a legal age. As I mentioned above in my response to cchrisr, the mechanism for how this requirement is made can be a problem. I fully agree though that to take children from their parents, the burden of proof of neglect is absolutely on the side of the taker rather than the parent.
Colin, I actually agree that parents have ‘first dibs’. On a more practical level, though, laws are (typically) broad strokes meant to get the most people. I think that because a majority of parents have given up their responsibility, the state has taken over as the first line for all people; and I think this is because it’s simpler, easier to regulate, etc. I accept that some people don’t like this (I’m a bit unsure myself), but that isn’t an argument against government control — rather it’s against the way the control is regulated.
Atanamis, I don’t think you read my responses fairly. The court is ‘protecting the children’ but from a community mindset. This ‘community mindset’, which I suggest is more common in Europe than in America, is wary of insular enclaves (and, to be honest, who can blame them considering their history?). This is why they argue that religious conviction isn’t enough to reject the compulsory education — and it’s not like there aren’t ‘private’ schools primarily funded by government money so that poorer students can afford attendance. As I said in my last post, there are more options than the all-or-nothing dichotomy this particular case suggests; and that’s what I believe was behind the ECHR’s decision against the parents. Religion has nothing to do with it, which is why the parents didn’t win their case.
Atanamis, if the parent is abusing their children then they are not technically removed by force. The parent has no claim on the raising of the children – he or she has forfeited that claim by virtue of the abuse. A person who trespasses on land and builds a house, which an owner has claimed as is using for farming corn, for example, is using force. A person who has just looked out his window and claimed unused land, however, cannot say someone is using force to “take his land” if he has never done anything with it or fenced it in in any way. If this man attacks someone building a house on that land – he is actually the one using force. So an abusive parent who resists someone attempting to care for their abused children, is in fact, the one using force. The “secondary caretaker” (for lack of better term) is actually just appropriating rights that are hitherto unhomesteaded.
I have problems with some of the wording here. A majority of parents have “given up” their responsibility? I find this problematic – I think most parents are educating their children and most send them to a school as an exercise of their right to care. I hardly think the masses of public school children are there because their parents are neglecting them. Moreover, if a parent attempting to change or adjust the way in which they were educating their child by, say, removing them for public school, then the state will not sit by idly and (depending on the country) will exercise some use of force against the parents.
cchrisr wrote:
The “community mindset” exists for the protection of the community, not for the protection of the child. There is no accusation in the home school cases that the parents are abusing or neglecting their child in any way. Instead, this is indeed an attack of “insular enclaves”, which is immoral if those enclaves are not causing harm. It might even make for a better, stronger community, but its still immoral. The US bill of rights wasn’t written as a special set of rules for Americans, but as fundamental human rights that should apply to everyone. Any nation that fails to adhere to them is not only acting outside US laws, but in violation of core moral beliefs we have. I would assume they have a different morality or they wouldn’t be violating these principles, but it doesn’t make those violations moral. That is what the US court found, namely that the German government is engaging in political suppression deserving of granting asylum to those being immorally oppressed.
Colin wrote:
Unless claim to the land or child have been explicitly dropped, it always requires force to gain possession of what is being claimed by someone else. In the case of the child, I would be very interested to learn how a child is removed from the home of someone who is abusing them without making use of physical force.
It is one thing to claim that there is legitimate and illegitimate use of force. It is another to claim that somehow when it is legitimate is magically ceases to be a use of force. Whether that force is a neighbor breaking in to rescue the child or a government sending in police officers, its still force being used to rescue someone being abused. Anyone has a moral right to engage force to protect someone who is being abused. In most modern communities, individuals choose to exercise that right through a commonly controlled police force.
Atanamis, of course “physical force” will have to be used. I should have been clearer to differentiate between “aggressive force” and the specific act of removing a child into custody. A caretaker might have to use “physical force” to remove a child, but in the philosophical sense, they are not using “aggressive force” because they are not actually aggressing against the rights of the parent – the parent has reneged on those rights.
Colin, to further clarify: in your usage “aggressive force” is equivalent in meaning to “morally illegitimate force”, correct? I believe I am not alone in using “force” to indicate any use of physical effort or threat of physical effort to impose one’s will on another person, which is where my confusion came from. An individual therefore would use “force” to fight off an attacker or regain their property, unless they do so entirely using negotiations that do not use, threaten, or imply physical power will be exerted to impose the result. The legitimacy of such use of force always comes down to whether someone has a moral right to apply that force in the given context.
Would you agree that government, as much as any other social grouping, has a moral right to intervene in cases of abuse or neglect of a child? As you indicated, the improper care of the child indicates an abandonment of ownership by the caregiver, which should allow any body willing to provide that care to assume custody. As we agreed earlier, the burden of proof to demonstrate lack of proper care should clearly be placed on the part of the body attempting to seize custody.
Atanamis, if the government actually cares for the child then (putting aside the whole can-o-worms about whether government connotates a legitimate collective group) then they have as legitimate a claim as anyone else. If the rights to raise a child enter the commons then it is first come first serve. Whoever can fill that need (the child also should have this opportunity – caring for himself would demonstrate his claim and ownership of this right to care) has the rights by simply doing it.
So, yes.
First, is not the child part of the community. Again, considering the history that Europe — particularly Germany — has had with ‘parallel communities’, the court’s ruling makes perfect sense.
Secondly, the court’s argument was that the parents were neglecting their children by removing them from the community, causing unnecessary harm and damage to the children when they grow up. The argument hinges on whether (1) religious convictions are sufficient grounds for (2) neglecting to teach children how to integrate with the wider community. I believe there has already been precedent in Germany that #2 is true (it is debatable, particularly for Americans) with regards to homeschooling. Because religion shouldn’t matter, #1 was judged to be true by default. In this article, the precedent here is implied:
We can discuss theory (and I’d agree with you), but that’s something very different from the situation. To be frank, the parents are breaking laws that are not harmful — and that context cannot be forgotten. One can be civilly disobedient, but that still has consequences until the law changes.
Do you realise how arrogant this sounds? The US is not the political hegemony of the world. The very nature of nation-states and their own laws is that the laws of one do not apply to another. To assume that if one nation doesn’t accept or obey the rules of another it must be violating some universal morality is ridiculous. At least offer good reasoning that such beliefs are universally necessary.