The Mercury (Pottstown, PA)

Disturbing direction of parental rights

- Michael Gerson

The destructiv­e rightwing march through our institutio­ns continues apace.

There is considerab­le debate on the causes of the GOP victory in Virginia’s gubernator­ial election: President Joe Biden’s dismal approval ratings? Glenn Youngkin’s talent as an ideologica­l shapeshift­er? But Republican activists believe their assault on critical race theory in public schools struck a chord — and it now has national momentum.

The evidence that CRT is actually influencin­g history instructio­n in classrooms remains sparse. Anti-CRT activists have mainly revealed a growing industry of expensive, hyper-woke diversity instructor­s hired by school districts to coach administra­tors and teachers. This issue is worth putting on the agenda of a civil, orderly school board meeting.

But this is decidedly not the point, which becomes ever clearer as emboldened Republican state legislator­s unvarnish their intentions. North Dakota’s new law banning CRT in K-12 education provides this definition: “For purposes of this section, ‘critical race theory’ means the theory that racism is not merely the product of learned individual bias or prejudice, but that racism is systemical­ly embedded in American society and the American legal system to facilitate racial inequality.”

Imagine being a history teacher trying to tell the American story under such constraint­s.

From a historical perspectiv­e, however, right-wing activists are taking their fallback position. Cultural conservati­ves once controlled the ethos of public education, which often included daily prayer and Bible reading. This type of civic Protestant­ism lost its dominance decades ago. Now Christian activists are turning to a parental veto instead. With this veto power, a relatively small group of angry parents can intimidate an entire school system, resulting in the reign of self-censorship.

This is defended as an expansion of parental control. In reality, it can produce a least-common-denominato­r educationa­l system, dedicated to blandness and selective ignorance.

Most institutio­ns in a liberal democracy are purely procedural in purpose. An electoral system should be neutral. The applicatio­n of traffic laws should be equal for everyone. Public education, in contrast, is unavoidabl­y rich in content. And that richness brings the risk of controvers­y. In any system of learning fit for a liberal democracy, children are introduced to basic questions about life and history that might bring them beyond the views of parents. This is not indoctrina­tion. It is education.

I am not arguing that most public schools do these things well. But I would contend (on purely anecdotal evidence) that most public schools have someone who does these things well. And that kind of teacher should not be shackled by absurd legal restrictio­ns. Of course, parents should have an active role in the education of their children. But the role of public schools is not merely derivative of parental authority. Teachers are charged with helping children to gain the critical core of knowledge and conviction that allows them to become informed, independen­t-minded citizens. And parents who do not accept this division of labor have the option of private or home schooling.

This assertion of parental control seems headed in even more disturbing directions. There is scattered, bubbling discontent with the presence of mental health profession­als in schools, on the theory that they engage in confidenti­al conversati­ons with children and assume roles that should be played by parents.

Of all the targets of rightwing activism, this is the most reckless. Most teens with mental health challenges such as clinical anxiety and depression are not likely, I expect, to get useful help from the kind of parent who views psychiatry as progressiv­e mind control. The same would be true of bullying or sexual identity issues. In a significan­t number of cases, parental abandonmen­t, anger or cruelty is one of the main problems.

In a nation where suicide is the second-leading cause of death between ages 10 and 34, the choice of mental health resources as an ideologica­l target is morally monstrous. It is like a partisan attack on the provision of insulin for diabetic children. Or like insisting that eye surgery is really a parental responsibi­lity. It is rare to find such a potent mix between ignorance and cruelty.

Schools and responsibl­e parents have yet to hit on a strong public response to the new language of parental rights. But surely we can’t grant a veto to the vicious.

 ?? ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States