top of page
Search
Writer's pictureThe University of Wisconsin Pre-Law Journal
Dec 4, 20235 min read

The Harm of the Parental Rights Movement


Writer: Amanda Peterson

Editor: Simran Khanuja

November 8, 2023


The idea of parents having control over their children’s education is not a new phenomenon. The Parental Rights Movement has been pernicious from its origins and continues to negatively affect public education.


The Parental Rights movement has a history of Supreme Court cases supporting it under the same precedent as cases currently being overturned. Beginning formally in 1923, Meyer v. Nebraska granted parents the right to control their child’s upbringing how they deem best fit (“Meyer v. State of Nebraska,” n.d.). This idea of Parental Rights was upheld in 1925 with the decision in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, which stated that students could not be forced to go to public school (“Pierce v. Society of Sisters,” n.d.). Almost fifty years later, Wisconsin v. Yoder decided the Amish could withhold their children from education past the eighth grade (“Wisconsin v. Yoder,” n.d.). Hand in hand with these court cases, federal legislation such as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) issued the parent a right to a student’s records and a role in the education plan if their child was disabled (Foran, 2022). Cases such as these set a longstanding precedent in upholding Parental Rights over children. It is particularly interesting because there is no mention of Parental Rights in the Constitution, but rather it is considered a fundamental liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. In the context of present times, it is intriguing to see legislation passed in support of the Parental Rights Movement considering this reasoning. Until Dobbs v. Women’s Health Organization, abortion was protected by the same standards of precedence and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Yet with a culture of increased censorship and a conservative Supreme Court, it seems unlikely for a Parental Rights case to result in a similar outcome at this time.


Despite what would seem like reasoning the Supreme Court may overturn, the Parental Rights Movement arguably has more support than ever despite its negative outcomes. There are several prominent organizations focused on Parental Rights such as Moms for Liberty, the Parental Rights Foundation, and No Left Turn in Education. These organizations, other Parental Rights activists, and the Republican Party have been instrumental in passing legislation conforming to Parental Rights principles. The Parent’s Bill of Rights Act (H.R. 5 (118)), which has been passed in a few states already, was created “to ensure the rights of parents are honored and protected in the Nation’s public schools” (Quilantan, 2022). These rights include, but are not limited to, knowing the curriculum taught in schools, visibility of a school’s budget, and the right to be heard. Another example of a Parental Rights bill being passed in the legislature is Florida’s "Parental Rights in Education" bill (HB 1557), also known as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill. This bill omits discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity in the classroom in kindergarten through third grade, as well as forbidding discussion deemed not developmentally appropriate past that age (Diaz, 2022). As demonstrated, Parental Rights legislature is only increasing, to the point that a Parental Rights Amendment is now being pushed. This legislation being propelled by Parental Rights activists is extremely broad and erases minority identities. While these bills are disguised as a parent’s right to have an opinion on their child, it is actually harmful to education and society.


Parental Rights omits education referencing the LGBTQ+ community under the image of safeguarding children. Instead of a past push to remove kids from public schools, as seen in Wisconsin v. Yoder, parents are now modifying the curriculum to how they deem fit. According to the Trevor Project, “LGBTQ young people in Texas seeking support have grown over 150% when compared to the same time period in 2020” (Sparks, 2023). In the Southern states where more Parental Rights bills are being passed, guidelines such as eliminating even a mention of sexuality are present. When students’ identities are erased in class by the barring of learning and discussing different types of people, children's lives are adversely impacted. For people who identify as LGBTQ+, these laws remove safe spaces at school and make their existence a political concern. These laws also promote abstinence-only education which prohibits young LGBTQ+ people from learning about their own sexuality and how to be safe. In addition, some abstinence-only education can ban Gender and Sexuality Alliances on campus because they discuss sexuality, possibly eliminating one of the only places a student may feel accepted. While it may feel like this genre of Parental Rights legislation is protecting children from learning crude information too early, it is damaging an already oppressed community.


Another hot-button topic Parental Rights groups focus on is removing Critical Race Theory (CRT) in classrooms under false assumptions of the definition of CRT. The idea is often perpetuated that curricula incorporating CRT is indoctrination or taking time out of the day from other traditional subjects. In reality, CRT includes implementing ideas such as understanding that racism exists and is embedded within society. In 2022, there were thirty-six states that had passed anti-CRT legislation or were in the process of consideration (Terry, 2022). In addition to preventing students from learning truths about different identities, the banning of Critical Race Theory is affecting teachers as well. If teachers are caught breaking the rules outlined in legislation, state funds can be taken away from the school. According to TIME, “A UCLA study found school districts that are quickly diversifying tend to get more queries from parents about how they’re teaching race and sexuality than school districts that have seen minimal change in the white student population” (Waxman, 2022). The current American teaching population is mostly white women and schools attempting to diversify are being penalized. This harms the students as well, who are not able to see themselves reflected in their faculty. In an already underpaid and overworked profession, the anti-CRT movement is making it difficult to teach, as well as creating an environment where teachers must tiptoe around topics or cannot show their full identities. It is clear that the Parental Right Movement influences all people involved in education for the worse.


The Parental Rights Movement seems reasonable and beneficial on the outside; however, it is often a disguise for bigotry. Instead of protecting children, Parental Rights legislation is hiding different identities and experiences. This evolves future generations into ignorant majorities and further oppressed minorities.

 

References

Diaz, J. (2022, March 28). Florida’s Governor Signs Controversial Law Opponents Dubbed

Foran, S. R. (2022). Parents’ Rights or Parents’ Wrongs?: The Political Weaponization of


Meyer v. State of Nebraska. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved November 8, 2023, from


Pierce v. Society of Sisters. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved November 8, 2023, from


Quilantan, B. (2022, March 24). House Republicans Pass Broad Education Measure on


Sparks, K. (2023, September 22). New Data Illuminates Mental Health Concerns Among

Terry, R. (2022, March 8). Critical Race Theory Opens up New Opportunities for Student


Waxman, O. B. (2022, June 30). Anti-’Critical Race Theory’ Laws are Affecting Teachers.

Time.

Wisconsin v. Yoder. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved November 8, 2023, from





10 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Comments

bottom of page