Censorship and Parental Rights
Posted on February 21, 2007
Even extreme libertarians usually concede that it is proper on many occasions for parents to make decisions for their children. And, although both Hitler’s Germany and modern Germany seem to believe that there are NO parental rights except what the government allows, I think most Americans would believe that parental responsibility for children comes first and should only very rarely be surrendered to anybody else, including to the government.
And it is a long-standing legal doctrine that school teachers act in loco parentis — i.e. they act in the place of the parents. So, in theory, teachers cannot do or teach anything that the parents disapprove of. Leftists are continually doing their best to undermine that doctrine, however, — usually by propagandizing for what many would see as various forms of debauched sexual behaviour.
But at the basis of such controversies is the fundamental judgment that children and adults are in a different situation as far as censorship is concerned. Where censorship of what adults can see and hear might be totally undesirable, keeping some of the same things away from children is a parent’s prerogative. The parent is entitled to introduce certain matters to his/her children in his/her own way and at his/her own time.
Exactly that issue is involved in the current controversy about a childrens’ book being rejected because it contains the word “scrotum” on page 1. That touches on the parents’ right to introduce sex-related matters to their own children in their own way and in their own time.
Fortunately, many schools and school libraries have indeed acted in loco parentis and have declined to purchase or use the book. They have respected the rights of parents in the matter.
Leftists, however, in their usual way have rejected any notion of such rights and called the refusals “censorship”. It is indeed censorship but the issue is whether parents have the right to censor what their children read — and that is a right that many parents value and which conservatives tend to see as fundamental to a parental role.
The Leftist refusal to distinguish parental censorship from other forms of censorship is of course typical of the simplistic, “black-and-white” way they think about most things but it might at least be regarded as a respectworthy viewpoint if they applied it consistently. No-one will be surprised that they do not, however.
Take the still ongoing controversy about the teacher, David Paszkiewicz, who expressed various Christian beliefs in his New Jersey classroom. The ACLU and other Leftists definitely want THAT censored! Christian teaching in class must be censored but teachings about sex must not!
(For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Page. Email me (John Ray) here.)
» Filed Under ACLU
Trackback URL
Comments
6 Responses to “Censorship and Parental Rights”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
Well, the issue is less simplistic as you are characterizing it,
certainly. The issue is not so much whether a parent has a right
to censor what his/her child is exposed to–clearly they do, up
to a point. But ONLY their child. The issue is that the parental
censorship proposed impinges on what other parents wish to expose
their child to. Not everyone agrees that “scrotum” is an
inappropriate word for their children to learn, yet these nervous
nellies would remove the book in question with no consideration
of other parents’ views. THAT is the issue in contention.
I disagree, Gary. I don’t know for certain that this has not changed, but when I was in elementary school only 15 years ago, we were allowed to choose and read any book in the school library. Our teacher would take us to the library weekly, we picked out any book we liked, and we checked it out. Most of the point of an elementary school library is that all the books are appropriate for elementary schoolers.
If that is still the case, then simply having the book in the library exposes children to its content without their parents’ permission. Unless we are going to keep it locked up and only give it out with parental consent. However, if the book is NOT in the library, any parent who chooses for their child to read it can go to any bookstore and buy it, order it online, or probably even get it from a regular public library that does not cater especially to elementary aged children. Since my children do not attend school, that’s how I get ALL their books. Shocking, isn’t it?
When I was in elementary school around 13 years ago, there was a small section of the library (about 25%) that was for 4th and 5th graders only.
Man, today it’s scrotum, tomorrow it’s going to be vas deferens. You mark my words! Vas Deferens!
If that is still the case, then simply having the book in the library exposes children to its content without their parents’ permission. Unless we are going to keep it locked up and only give it out with parental consent.
Michelle, why wouldn’t that be an appropriate compromise? Those
of you who are so worried that your kids might be exposed to
something you find objectionable (”scrotum?” give me a break!)can
go in and scour the school library and designate what you don’t
want your child “exposed” to, which the school librarian would
subsequently prevent your child from checking out. Or, as Sam
Jones suggests–simply segregate books according to age-
appropriateness. By the way, when DO you think your child is old
enough to learn what a scrotum is and does? 21?
Aye Caramba…Omg