On Family and the "rights" of children

In the context of a debate currently taking place in Ireland over how homosexual "civil unions" should be recognized and what promised new legislation should say about the rights of children, two key phrases have emerged. The first is a quotation from the Irish Constitution, declaring that the state must "guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and [must] protect it from attack." The second comes from Professor Patricia Casey of University College Dublin, who argues that the Government "must ensure that its proposed referendum on children's rights does not give the state unnecessary powers of intervention at the expense of the family." She goes on to declare that "the family is generally the place in which the interests of children are best protected. Any undermining of this presumption, even if unintentional, would ultimately be harmful to children."*

These ideas stand in stark contrast to the recent ruling of the California courts that upholds a law in that state that homeschooling is illegal. In fact, one paragraph of that ruling reads: "A primary purpose of the educational system is to train schoolchildren in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare."** Though ostensibly the ruling is meant to prevent children from being under-schooled, nominally by guaranteeing their education comes at the hands of a licensed teacher, I argue that the place where children learn "good citizenship" and "patriotism" is in the home, where they (hopefully) observe their parents' and siblings' example of such virtues. Because our Constitution is written to protect individuals from undue state influence (or another way 'round: to protect individual freedom), it seems like a conflict of interest to have a state institution teach children loyalty and patriotism. I am reminded of tyranny and totalitarianism when I read that phrase of the ruling: Herodotus famously recounted the story of an ancient tyrant who, when asked how to secure his power from usurpation, took the questioner into a wheat field and cut off all the stalks who were taller than the average height. It's generally best for a State (as an entity) to maintain a monopoly on power; the best way to accomplish that is to prevent anyone from standing out. Schools that teach "loyalty and patriotism" smack a little bit of the "re-education" centers of totalitarian States whose primary purpose was to eliminate anti-government opinion. I don't think American schools are at all the same as this, but by designating them primarily as places to teach nationalist virtue seems to take a small first step down that road. On this issue I suggest that the schools teach Math, Science, Literature, and History; the individual families -- which are made up of normal citizens and not government employees -- should teach virtue.

There are also many practical reasons why this anti-homeschooling legislation is a bad idea. Dr. Roeback-Morse points out that home-schooled children in general score higher on state achievement tests, and that public schools are financed by the tax money of parents who home-school even though their children don't attend, thus augmenting the resources available for the children who do attend public schools. But since the State of California has such a difficult job meeting federal standards of education, pulling children from a situation where they generally learn more to put them in a public school where they will be an additional burden on the education system seems counterproductive.

It is hard not to look at this ruling and connect it with the steady collapse of the Family's place in our society. This is merely the latest in a series of legislation which claim to "protect the rights of children," but also prevent families from instilling their own values in their children through disciplining them, from protecting their children by taking them out of a violence-ridden public school system (such as exists in certain parts of the country), and from educating their children if they deem the public education inadequate (as might a parent with strong religious beliefs). All of these issues can be partially mitigated by sending a child to a private school, but many families - especially if they are large families - cannot afford to do this. And thus the ability of the family to influence its children is marginalized.

This, I think, is particularly dangerous. Psychological studies have shown that the greatest single influence in a child's moral and personal development is that of their parents -- it is certainly no accident that we mimic the expressions, perspectives, opinions, and values of our parents. So to remove us from that influence by law not only leaves perhaps a developmental hole to be "filled" by the influence of other children and teachers who have to spread their attention over large classes, but implicitly encourages parents themselves to "wash their hands" of parenting, since the State has presumably assumed so much of that responsibility. This is unacceptable, as the purpose of government should be to enable people to take care of themselves and their own responsibilities (like children), not to do that job for them. Public schools provide a very valuable service, since most parents aren't prepared to educate their children to the general standard, but teachers and supervisors (no matter how caring or hard-working) can never fully replace the influence of a parent, and public schooling should not even attempt it.

I'm sure at this point apologists of California's homeschooling will argue that bringing all children into the arms of the school system lessens the opportunity for child abuse. Yet I submit that children are just as vulnerable to abuse from teachers and other children as they are from parents, and said teachers and other children are far less likely than parents to actually care deeply about the moral development of any one child.

This question of education is as old as humanity itself. In his essay The Politics, Aristotle opens by discussing the Family, because he understands the foundation of any society is the family unit. Only the Family can provide the constant attention, care, and example a human child needs to properly develop. Biologically, family members (especially parents) are more likely to have affection for their children, and it is biologically more likely that family members' affection will extend to a deep concern of their child's moral growth and personal safety. Families, too, are tremendously invested in their society, since each member must provide through the society itself for the needs of every member. Family members depend on and contribute to their society and its economy by holding jobs, purchasing necessities, and patronizing churches and schools. All this means families are best suited to teach "patriotism and loyalty to state and country," because they teach by an example of their actions and (presumably) their gratitude; the sort of book-learning found in schools would make a poor substitute. Furthermore, teachers who at best are motivated by ideology and at worst are motivated by money simply cannot provide the same care or social conviction as the family. I do not mean to disparage teachers here; having met many I think there is probably no profession so well-meaning, so taken for granted, nor so over-worked as teaching children. Yet I reiterate that however caring a teacher can be, his or her students will most likely be best cared for and most influenced by their parents. As for other children, whose motivations are not easily classifiable and who are often quite cruel, can not be relied upon to teach anything positive--witness the common and timeless problem of schoolyard bullies.

I agree with California lawmakers that children must be properly educated. I disagree, however, that schools are the proper instrument for that goal. Not only are families more likely to protect and care for children as they need (through all the some 20 years it takes for a child to become a fully contributing adult), but they are in a better position to teach those skills which are most socially useful--morals, virtues, commitment, and love. I think our various governments in America (state and federal) would do more to combat the increasing violence and the decreasing quality of education among our nation's children by listening to the likes of Professor Casey and recognizing that "the family is generally the place in which the interests of children are best protected."

*This and the preceding quotation from "The Catholic World Report," April 2008, p. 43
**This quotation from the legislation is taken on faith from The OC Domer

On American contributions to the world

One of the misapprehensions I find most offensive among literate Americans (at least the ones who write and preach most visibly) is that we, as a nation, are becoming a new, unchecked imperial power, seemingly bent on making every other third world nation a subserviant model of ourselves while thumbing our collective nose at the wise nations of Europe. I have heard the Iraq war often cited as evidence of our arrogance and imperialism--how we could invade that country and visit the violence of our arms on them, when all we have accomplished is a half-baked attempt to force them to abandon their quaint beliefs in favor of our crass materialism? And these are the most mild of accusations against our country: the more far-fetched include that we entered the war for oil, even though there is no oil in Afghanistan and we have received nary a drop from Iraq; that George W. Bush started the war to "finish what his father started," which explains our liberation of Afghanistan not at all; and that our invasion of Islamic nations stems from fundamental racism.

I would submit that the tyranny of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein is worth eradicating. We zealously endorse freedom of religion and legal freedom as "inalienable rights;" how can we ignore that those rights were denied to the Afghanis and Iraqis under their previous regimes? In any case, the United States has not materially benefitted in the slightest from these conflicts--we have sacrificed the lives of nearly 5,000 of our best youth, we have spent billions of dollars, and we have been excoriated and repudiated by not only other nations, but our own citizens. And yet thus far we haven't given up, and we haven't given up trying to improve our work.That's worth something.

The following article from the blog Neptunus Lex has much more on America's role in the world both in terms of statistics and in terms of argument.

The United States, with 4.5% of the world’s population, pays 22% of the budget for the good works of our friends at the United Nations. It pays 27% of the peacekeeping budget - this is apart from operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The US economy is a significant engine of worldwide economic growth, contributing over the last 20 years to the emergence of new economies in the developing world which have lifted hundreds of millions of people from existential poverty.

During the Cold War, the US spent an average of 6.7% of its GDP on NATO - an organization designed to protect Western Europeans from collectivist tyranny. In their own defense, Europeans spent an average of 3.5% of their GDP. American sacrifices not only protected Western Europe, they set the conditions for the eventual liberation and liberalization of Eastern Europe. When Europe proved incapable - once again - of stopping a genocide on its doorstep, American combat power - once again - stepped in to stop the bloodshed.

US contributions in the intellectual sphere have led to the award thus far of 270 Nobel prizes. The next closest country to contribute to the advancement of the human race - the UK - had 101.

In recent years, the US government gave $15 billion in foreign aid. The American people, giving through private means, added another $34 billion to overseas causes. In absolute terms, we are both the most generous state and generous people in the world. Aid to Africa alone has more than trebled over the last decade.

Four hundred thousands of our sons gave their lives combating fascism and militarism in World War II. Thirty-six thousand died protecting South Koreans from the sere pleasures of Kim Il Sung’s socialist worker’s paradise. Another 55,000 died giving the Pacific Rim a chance to join the free world. Almost 4500 have given their last full measure of devotion liberating the Iraqi and Afghan people from those who would thrust one or another tyrannical boot to their necks.

No man is compelled to tip his hat to any other here. Individual rights are held in common, regardless of gender, race, creed or condition. We have built a society wherein a citizen’s prospects are limited only by his gifts and ambition. We argue among ourselves continuously, sometimes bitterly. But there are no Belfasts here, no Kosovos, no Mogadishus. Ordinary people live their lives in security and dignity - things we take for granted, but which are beacons of light to the world’s darkest corners.

None of which makes us perfect. But it does rather make this chart interesting [which ranks countries by how positively people view their influence in the world, adjudged by what percentage of people view each country's influence as "mainly positive," "mainly negative," or "I don't know"]:

It doesn’t really surprise me all that much that people have a positive view of Germany. They engineer and sell wonderful gear at a fair price and make an international habit of simultaneously being both inoffensive and apologetic. Much like second place Japan. Those gone looking for reasons to take offense really have to dig when it comes to Germany and Japan. At least since US troops came to visit and decided to stay, 60-odd years ago. And one might as well have a positive opinion of the EU. All of those busy little Belgian bureaucrats running around in their bunny-print jammies can’t help but engender positive feelings. France and Britain are loved for what they once were, while the BRIC countries are loved for what they might in time come to be.What surprises me, given our culture, history and contributions, is how many people the fact that 47% of our own citizens believe that the US is a “mainly negative” influence on the world. Not as contrasted against some Platonic ideal, but in direct competition with Russia, for one example. Landing us just ahead of North Korea and Pakistan. For heaven’s sake.