Parental rights, schools, and rival moral visions

In the public schools, parents are losing more rights with more frequency these days.

The California school system has been in the news a lot in recent months for its change in curriculum to make it not only gay-friendly, but featured.

…California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law SB 48, which dictates that California schools adopt instructional materials in social science classes that emphasize “the role and contributions of … lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans” in history.

When considering the myriad ways such a law tramples on parental rights and academic legitimacy, it is hard to know where to begin. However, since the law will be celebrated by some as a triumph of inclusivity, perhaps it should be noted it solves no conceivable problem currently plaguing California.

Regarding inclusivity, California law already bans discrimination in instructional materials based on “race, sex, color, creed, handicap, national origin, or ancestry.” Not content with banning discrimination, earlier California legislators already mandated emphases on the contributions of both men and women as well as “Native Americans, African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, European Americans” and other ethnic and cultural groups in California textbooks and curriculum.

In other words, it is hard to imagine that historically significant lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans are not already being included.

Now, it’s news in New York. Robert George and Melissa Moschella address it in this piece as a New York Times op-ed.

IMAGINE you have a 10- or 11-year-old child, just entering a public middle school. How would you feel if, as part of a class ostensibly about the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, he and his classmates were given “risk cards” that graphically named a variety of solitary and mutual sex acts? Or if, in another lesson, he was encouraged to disregard what you told him about sex, and to rely instead on teachers and health clinic staff members?

That prospect would horrify most parents. But such lessons are part of a middle-school curriculum that Dennis M. Walcott, the New York City schools chancellor, has recommended for his system’s newly mandated sex-education classes. There is a parental “opt out,” but it is very limited, covering classes on contraception and birth control.

Observers can quarrel about the extent to which what is being mandated is an effect, or a contributing cause, of the sexualization of children in our society at younger ages. But no one can plausibly claim that teaching middle-schoolers about mutual masturbation is “neutral” between competing views of morality; the idea of “value free” sex education was exploded as a myth long ago. The effect of such lessons is as much to promote a certain sexual ideology among the young as it is to protect their health.

But beyond rival moral visions, the new policy raises a deeper issue: Should the government force parents — at least those not rich enough to afford private schooling — to send their children to classes that may contradict their moral and religious values on matters of intimacy and personal conduct?

Liberals and conservatives alike should say no. Such policies violate parents’ rights, whether they are Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist or of no religion at all. To see why, we need to think carefully about the parent-child relationship that gives rise to the duties that parental rights serve and protect.

This argument deserves serious engagement.

Parenting, especially in moral and religious matters, is very important and highly personal: while parents enlist others’ help in this task, the task is theirs. They are ultimately responsible for their children’s intellectual and moral maturity, so within broad limits they must be free to educate their children, especially on the deepest matters, as they judge best. This is why parental rights are so important: they provide a zone of sovereignty, a moral space to fulfill their obligations according to their consciences.

The right to parent is rather like the right to exercise one’s religion. Like parental duties, religious duties are serious and highly personal. This is why, absent the most serious reasons, it would be a grave violation of individual rights if the state prevented people from honoring what they regarded as their religious obligations. To subject children to indoctrination in deeply personal matters against their parents’ consciences is no less a violation than forcing Muslim parents to send their children to a Catholic Mass…

Unless a broader parental opt out is added, New York City’s new policies will continue to usurp parents’ just (and constitutionally recognized) authority. Turning a classroom into a mandatory catechism lesson for a contested ideology is a serious violation of parental rights, and citizens of every ideological hue should stand up and oppose it.

Let’s see who engages it most, and best.

Popular actor continues to draw the line

He plays a bad guy really well, but Neal McDonough just won’t do some things he believes are wrong.

Turns out McDonough stood up for his religious principles and was canned for it by ABC, though he’s moved on to the next thing anyway. Interesting story

…how he was suddenly replaced 3 days into the filming on the ABC series Scoundrels in a move officially explained as a casting change. But, in fact, McDonough was sacked because of his refusal to do some heated love scenes because he’s a family man and a Catholic, and he’s always made it clear that he won’t do sex scenes. And ABC knew that. Well, a lot of people who applauded Neal wanted to know what he’ll be doing next. Of course, he’s co-starring in Marvel’s Captain America movie currently shooting in London. But now I hear McDonough has co-created and will executive produce and star in VIGILANTE PRIEST, a one hour drama for Starz which is fast-tracking the project.

We’ll see where that one goes…

But McDonough has a history of standing by his principles, a frequent test in the entertainment industry.

Because he also didn’t get into action with Nicolette Sheridan on the network’s Desperate Housewives when he played her psycho husband during Season 5. And he also didn’t do love scenes with his on-air girlfriend in his previous series, NBC’s Boomtown, or that network’s Medical Investigation. “It has cost him jobs, but the man is sticking to his principles,” a source explained to me. You can’t help but admire McDonough for sticking to his beliefs, even if he’s poised to lose as much as $1 million in paydays for Scoundrels

It kind of bombed anyway.

There are some interesting comments posted on this piece. Like this reminder:

Patrick Mcgoohan was originally offered the role of James Bond but it went against his religious beliefs to play someone so sexually bankrupt that he turned it down and made The Prisoner himself. Retrospect is a good way to judge whether you were true to yourself. When asked if he regretted his decision to not play 007, he smiled and said, “Never.”

That witness to values obviously lives on.

And then there’s the poster who reminds “all you pro-choicers out there” that this is…after all…McDonough’s choice.

UPDATE: STARZ is not exactly fast-tracking Vigilante Priest. They are looking at it as a potential future show, along with many others, which may or may not happen. Look for McDonough to appear, however, in other films and/or series. Strong character.