"Hey, Christians, Leave Your Kids Alone" -Reply

[rwg at MCLL.COM]

If Professor Duncan (summarizing Professor Gilles) has correctly stated
Professor Dwyer's views / agenda, isn't that agenda clearly foreclosed
by Society of Sisters and Meyer?  Or is the argument, using today's sub.
due proc. jargon, that the fundamental right recognized in Pierce, that
Prof. Dwyer would obliterate, is ouweighed by a compelling state interest.
 (In . . . .?).  Am I missing something?

>>> RDUNCAN at SMTP (richard duncan) {rduncan at UNLINFO.UNL.EDU}
12/08/98 12:44pm >>>
Steve Gilles has written a wonderful response to Prof. Dwyer's book,
in which Dwyer argues that the Constitution *requires* states to
intervene to protect children from the harmful practices of
traditionalist religious schools (and traditionalist religious
parents). Gilles' article--with the wonderful title, inspired by Pink
Floyd, "Hey, Christians, Leave Your Kids Alone"--is currently being
circulated to law reviews. Steve is not currently participating in
ReligionLaw, but I have a copy of a draft of his article and (not
unsurprisingly) it is first-rate and very persuasive.

I would like to change the subject of this thread from immunization
laws to Prof. Dwyer's arguments against religious schools. To quote
from Gilles' article, Dwyer argues that "religious schools should be
forbidden to employ uncertified teachers, to use corporal punishment,
to teach that premarital sex is categorically wrong, to espouse
traditional gender roles or other 'sexist teaching,' to teach secular
subjects from a religious perspective, to condemn persons of other
faiths, and to teach children that they will be 'saved' only if they
conform to unreasonable religious standards of conduct. Dwyer
recognizes that these proposals would 'so radically alter' the nature
of religious schools 'as to make them unrecognizable.'" But that is a
price Dwyer is willing to pay to protect the right of all children
(his and mine) to receive a good secular education.

So enough with vaccinations already! Let's talk about Dwyer's real
agenda--state control over the hearts and minds of all children (in
pursuit of their best secular interests, of course)! Does the Equal
Protection Clause *require* state educational regulations to apply to
all public, private and parochial schools? In other words, does it
violate the Equal Protection Clause for the state to regulate the
curriculum of public schools but not private religious schools? Does
this "harm" children who attend private schools by withholding
protection that is extended to children attending public schools? Must
the state require, for example, safe sex programs mandated in public
schools to be taught at private and parochial schools? If the state
mandates a safe sex curriculum but exempts private religious schools,
does this violate the EC and the Equal Protection Clause rights of
children whose parents enroll them in parochial schools? If the state
requires public schools to teach a feminist perspective of gender
roles and family, does it violate the EC and the EPC to exempt private
religious schools from this requirement? Exactly what does Dwyer mean
when he says that *all* children are entitled to a good *secular*
education? Exactly what kinds of ideas taught at parochial schools
does he believe are forbidden by the Constitution?
--
                   ----------
             Rick Duncan (rduncan at unlinfo.unl.edu)

"If God had been indifferent to you he'd have made someone else."
                       --Father Ralph Wright