Citizens Project

School Vouchers, Parental Rights Movements Face Conflicting Interests

14th September, 2011

By David Trillo, guest writer

To many ardent church-state separation activists, and I am definitely ardent, opposition to tax-funded school vouchers for religious or parochial schools approaches an article of faith.  Separationists argue that tax aid to religious schools is a plain, flagrant violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, and may violate state and federal laws by funding institutions that practice religious or other forms of discrimination.

Voucher supporters tend to view such prohibitions as discriminatory against religion or violations of parental rights.

On August 12, Denver District Court Judge Michael Martinez saw the Douglas County Choice Scholarship Program through separationists’ eyes, ruling it unconstitutional.  The school district intends to appeal.

These surface issues that typically make the news, however, miss most of the action that raises deeper concern.  As is often the case when a political movement that normally tries to limit individual liberty takes sides with a “rights” cause, the explanation for the seemingly conflicting ideals begs an investigation.

School vouchers are often portrayed in the guise of parental rights.  The right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children has been the subject of ballot initiatives in several states as well as favorable Supreme Court rulings^{1, 2} that paved legal precedent for Constitutionally protecting a wide variety of unenumerated rights, including the divisive right to an abortion.

An amendment to the Constitution that reads, in part, “The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right¹” looks like something that I could vigorously support.  An amendment that emphatically locks the government out of our family lives would appear to be a powerfully progressive tool.

Yet many of such an amendment’s strongest supporters come from Religious Right groups that openly express legislative goals such as “protecting marriage,” “strengthening the traditional family,” and “policy issues relevant to families from a foundation firmly established in a biblical worldview³” – words that clearly imply a governmental role in shaping and engineering family life.

If that puzzles you, the mystery will begin to disappear when we explore exactly what sort of tool its Religious Right advocates see in it.

A clue appears in a Focus on the Family web article⁴ that criticizes the American Library Association while downplaying Banned Books Week.  A quick guide⁵ page to parental rights articles at citizenlink.org links to it as well as to other pages, most of which object to various sexual issues.

One of the “parental rights” that it alleges is the right to “challenge,” i.e., request the removal of library books that a parent finds objectionable.  Dr. Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, echoes this view, implying that public libraries somehow violate parental rights⁷ when they carry books that some parents find objectionable.

That raises a question.  If other parents demand that the library affords their children maximum access to the same kind of information, who wins?  Religious Right groups appear to believe that the parents demanding the limitations should win.

In addition, the Focus Citizen Link article⁴ asserts that parents should use their rights to demand that libraries carry, for example, anti-gay materials to balance out perceived pro-gay books.  (That sounds a lot like the old broadcast Fairness Doctrine.)  Ironically, the American Civil Liberties Union has recently sued a Missouri school district for censoring gay-supportive Web sites while allowing anti-gay sites¹³ – a policy supported by many “parental rights” advocates, at least as indicated by comments on accompanying news stories.

Another clue appears in a Parentalrights.org news alert concerning California Senate Bill 48, which involves teaching about the contributions of gay and lesbian Americans.  While the organization’s demand for parental opt-out rights appears sincere, it notes that, in the absence of an opt-out right, “there is no lesser recourse available than to change the entire curriculum for all.⁶”

Citizen Link is more audacious, asserting that “same-sex marriage laws have directly undermined parental rights” by encouraging class discussion of “controversial sexual topics.¹⁰”  (That’s quite an about-face from Religious Right groups’ stances on teaching Intelligent Design alongside evolution, advocated on the grounds that schools should “teach the controversy.”)  Apparently, even other citizens’ marriage choices must step aside to prevent sparking classroom discussions that some parents would rather avoid.

There are, undoubtedly, millions of well-meaning Christian parents who sincerely want nothing more than a right to excuse their children from certain curriculum content.  But as evidenced above, some Religious Right groups view parental rights as a tool to deprive everyone’s children access to information that socially conservative parents find objectionable.  They envision a world in which the rights of “conservative” parents trump intellectual freedom, and can demand removal of “objectionable” library materials despite the wishes and rights of other parents who want no such limitation⁸.

But that is a recurring pattern in far right vernacular, where the words “rights” and “freedom” translate more accurately into “power.”

As I already mentioned, a Constitutional parental rights amendment feels very appealing to me.  But when you realize that Religious Right groups generally consider Antonin Scalia to be a model Supreme Court judge, and it was that same Antonin Scalia who opined that parents have no court-enforceable right to direct their children’s upbringing¹² (Troxel v. Granville, 2000)¹¹, I have some doubts whether “conservative” politicians would return me the favor if my parental stances clashed with their government policies.

What raises my suspicions is the fact that most high-profile parental rights advocates appear to assume that their primary beneficiaries are always conservative religious parents.

Parentalrights.org vigorously opposes the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child; one of their specific objections reads, “Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.⁹”

It is odd that granting this right to a child would be objectionable; what if the child in question wanted to become a Christian, yet had stridently anti-religious parents?  Or in this time of fear of “Sharia Law,” what if a child of Muslims wanted to become a Christian?  Would they still side with the parents’ rights?  Or would the child’s religious freedom suddenly be worth defending?  The objection makes sense, however, if it is assumed that the parents who would enjoy these rights are always conservative Christian parents.

It’s also odd that Religious Right groups appear to support near-absolute parental rights, in light of their oft-stated desire to protect children and safeguard their innocence – almost a children’s-rights view in itself.  Again, it all makes perfect sense if it is assumed that only religious or social conservatives are morally qualified to be trusted with parental rights and act in the best interest of children.

This brings me back to school vouchers.  It’s curious, again, that Religious Right groups that support strong parental rights would also support government vouchers for private or religious schools, since many of these schools require, as a condition of admission, that parents surrender most or all of their rights while children are in the school’s custody.  Isn’t that exactly what they were fighting against?

The school voucher and parental rights arguments put forth today are undeveloped, founded in inconsistent and contradictory premises, and are therefore difficult to put together into a coherent ideological or political model.  Implementing either vouchers or parental rights amendments now would certainly have many consequences that their proponents never intended – or might even deeply regret.

To the eyes of a fair and impartial federal judge, a Parental Rights Amendment would not deliver what many of its backers think it would.  Moreover, parental rights are not, in themselves, adversarial in nature to children’s rights.  In the hands of a judge appointed because of his or her sympathy to Religious Right causes, however, the new amendment could likely be applied pursuant to its evident intent which – as often seems to happen – appears to be quite opposite what its enticing words say.

The puzzle pieces, as they seem to fit, tell me that “Parental rights” are apparently intended to mean “special powers for socially conservative parents.”  And school vouchers are merely a temporary shelter from public schools that are considered hostile to faith.  If unrestricted school vouchers for religious schools became freely available, I doubt that the campaigns to stock public school boards with “conservatives” would stop.  Efforts to elect Religious Right majorities to school boards would continue unabated.

On the other hand, if you’re one of the millions who merely want the government to butt out of your parenting, then you might in fact have more in common with me: I share that goal of limiting the government’s involvement in our personal living choices as well.

References:

1. Parentalrights.org, The Annotated [Parental Rights] Amendment, http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={E7900CE9-7AE0-47B3-81F6-CC16B7CAA8A0}
2. Parentalrights.org,  Parental Rights Doctrine, http://parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={3051ABFF-B614-46E4-A2FB-0561A425335A}
3. About Us, Citizen Link, a Focus on the Family affiliate, citizenlink.org, http://www.citizenlink.com/about-us/
4. Citizen Link, “The Truth About Banned Books Week,” Citizen Link, a Focus on the Family affiliate, citizenlink.org, http://www.citizenlink.com/2010/09/28/the-truth-about-banned-books-week/
5. Citizen Link, “Quick Guide: Articles on Parental Rights in Schools,” Citizen Link, a Focus on the Family affiliate, citizenlink.org, http://www.citizenlink.com/2011/04/28/quick-guide-articles-on-parental-rights-in-schools/
6. Parentalrights.org,  “Whatever Schools Teach, Parents Have No Rights,” http://parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={9B1459E6-8710-4884-B9E7-C4D53CE8278B}
7. Dr. Albert Mohler, “Banned Book Week – Parenting at the Mercy of the Local Librarian,” albertmohler.com, http://www.albertmohler.com/2009/10/01/banned-book-week-%E2%80%93-parenting-at-the-mercy-of-the-local-librarian/
8. Alysse ElHage, “The ‘Right’ to Read: Should Intellectual Freedom Trump Parental Rights in Libraries?,” North Carolina Family Policy Council, http://www.ncfpc.org/FNC/0811SF.html
9. Parentalrights.org, “20 Things You Need to Know about the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child,” http://www.parentalrights.org/vertical/Sites/%7BC49108C5-0630-467E-9B9B-B1FA31A72320%7D/uploads/%7BD9F69482-C92B-4BB2-A291-06CBA2B9CF69%7D.PDF
10. Candi Cushman, “Parental-Rights Backlash Is Brewing,” Citizen Link, http://www.citizenlink.com/2010/04/26/parental-rights-backlash-is-brewing/
11. Troxel v. Granville (2000), Supreme Court of the United States, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-138.ZS.html
12. Antonin Scalia, Troxel v. Granville (2000), Supreme Court of the United States, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-138.ZD1.html
13. Suzanne Ito, “ACLU Sues Missouri School District for Illegally Censoring LGBT Websites,” aclu.org, http://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech-lgbt-rights/aclu-sues-missouri-school-district-illegally-censoring-lgbt-websites

Read More - No comments yet - be the first!

LGBT Equality: How Does Colorado Stack Up?

5th August, 2010

Citizens Project celebrated the recent overturning of Proposition 8, California’s anti-gay marriage law, and it made us wonder; how do California’s LGBT laws stack up to Colorado’s?

Colorado had two items on the 2006 ballot regarding same-sex marriage.  Referendum I was a proposed law that would have “legalize[d] domestic partnerships, providing same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the legal protections and responsibilities granted to married couples under Colorado law.” (CNN)

The other item on the ballot was Amendment 43, which would have defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.  Amendment 43 passed with 56% of the vote, and Referendum I, along with LGBT marriage equality, was defeated when 53% voted against it. (CNN)

However, some rights were granted to same-sex couples in 2009.  HB 1260, which Governor Bill Ritter signed in April of 2009, legally allows “couples (gay, lesbian, or heterosexual) to enter into ‘designated beneficiary agreements’. Designated beneficiaries would have certain rights, including the right to receive state employee pension benefits, health insurance coverage, the right to medical decision-making for an incapacitated partner and the right to inherit if a partner dies without a will.” (HRC)  This bill did more than help same-sex couples; it helped unmarried heterosexual couples as well as people who can’t afford a lawyer to draft a will. (DallasVoice)

California’s laws regarding marriage are more complex.  For a few weeks in 2004, the Mayor of San Francisco issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but these were later nullified by California Supreme Court.  Then, in 2008, Proposition 8 was introduced and voted on, and passed in the November election with 52% of the vote.  This proposition said that, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”  (CA Voterguide)  However, on August 4, 2010, a California Judge reversed Proposition 8, calling it unconstitutional.  This decision will be appealed, and at least for now, same-sex couples in California are not allowed to marry.  That could change, depending on the ultimate outcome of this litigation.

Colorado’s 1992 Amendment 2 is an ugly blotch in our state history. Amendment 2 would have prohibited legal protection from discrimination for gays and lesbians.  It passed with xx% of the vote. Fortunately, justice prevailed and Amendment 2 was overturned by the Colorado Courts. Given this attempt to legalize discrimination against LGBT people, it may surprise you that California and Colorado have very similar laws in other areas that affect LGBT communities.

Employment: Both Colorado and California have laws that protect people from being discriminated against due to their sexual orientation and gender identity.  California put these laws into effect in 1992 and 2003, where Colorado put them into effect in 2007.  (HRC)

Housing:  Both Colorado and California have laws that prohibit housing discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.  For Colorado, this occurred with the passing of SB 200 in 2008, which, in addition to pre-existing nondiscrimination laws for sexual orientation and gender identity to employment, added housing, public accommodations, credit transactions, jury service, and more to the legally protected areas. (HRC, HRC)

Hate Crimes:  Both Colorado (in 2005) and California (in 1999) include sexual orientation and gender identity in their state hate crimes law (HRC)

School discrimination:  Both Colorado (in 2008) and California (in 2002) have laws that address discrimination, harassment and/or bullying of students based on sexual orientation and gender identity. (HRC)

Adoption:  Both Colorado and California allow second-parent adoptions (adopting the child of one’s partner) as well as same-sex couples jointly petitioning to adopt (adopting from the child’s biological parent(s) or is in the custody of the state) (HRC)

Hospital Visitation:  Colorado and California have similar hospital visitation laws, but they are a result of different processes.  In California, equal hospital visitation rights are granted to same-sex spouses or partners through marriage equality or statewide relationship recognition.  In Colorado, same-sex spouses or partners are extended equal hospital visitation rights through specific provisions as part of a limited relationship recognition statute. (HRC)

Out-of-Jurisdiction Recognition:  In order to be eligible for benefits and protections extended by Colorado, couples must re-register with Colorado regardless of their relationship status elsewhere.  California, on the other hand, recognizes out-of-jurisdiction marriages that occurred before November 2008 as valid marriages, and all other same-sex marriages and civil unions or domestic partnerships as valid domestic partnerships. (HRC)

We can see that Colorado and California’s past in regard to LGBT issues are very similar.  Both states had, or are in the process of having, bad legislation overturned that would have prohibited equal rights from being attained by LGBT communities.  Both states are among the top LGBT-friendly states with regards to discrimination laws.  And they both, despite all of these positive attributes, have a long way to go before true equality is reached.

Read More - No comments yet - be the first!

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

30th June, 2010

With the recent developments regarding the United States’ military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, which effectively bans openly gay and lesbian citizens from serving in the military, it is an appropriate time to examine where the policy came from, where it currently stands, and the possibilities for its future.

Leading up to his 1992 presidential election victory, Bill Clinton promised to end the ban on gays and lesbians in the US military.  However, once in office President Clinton encountered fierce resistance from Congress.  During the Congressional debates, Dr. Gregory Herek, a respected social psychologist with over 15 years of research in topics of sexual orientation, spoke on the potential consequences of lifting the ban on gays and lesbians in the military.  His ultimate conclusion was that “the research data show that there is nothing about lesbians and gay men that makes them inherently unfit for military service, and there is nothing about heterosexuals that makes them inherently unable to work and live with gay people in close quarters.”  Despite these affirmations, President Clinton was unable to persuade congress, and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was formed as a compromise.  This was, at any rate, progress, because it allowed gay and lesbian troops to serve in the military, as long as they kept their sexual orientation a secret.

Every year, a bill is used to decide the budget of the US Department of Defense, and the 2010 version includes an amendment that would eliminate the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law.  This was voted on by the House of Representatives on May 27, and it passed on a 234-194 vote.  The Senate Armed Forces Committee also voted on the bill, and it passed there with a 16-12 vote.

The biggest argument against passing the bill is that its potential effects on the military are unknown.  The Pentagon is currently undergoing a review that was commissioned after President Obama’s State of the Union Address, where he discussed his desire to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.  The goal of the review is to determine whether or not the repeal would affect the “military’s standards of readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion and recruitment and retention,” and to offer strategies on how to implement the law if it was passed.  The results of this review are not due until December, so many Representatives who were not in favor of repeal said that they were reluctant to agree to the bill without first knowing the results of the Pentagon review.

What is known about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is there are many negative consequences.  Apart from its obvious discriminatory nature, which can alienate troops and force them to lie, it is very expensive.  A 2006 study showed that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell has cost the US over $363 million dollars in investigations and training replacements.  Over 13,000 people have been kicked out of the military since 1993 due to their sexual orientation, which includes troops with critical skills such as Arabic linguists, fighter pilots and doctors, whose skills are invaluable during a time in which the US is involved in two wars.  There are over thirty countries that allow gays and lesbians to serve openly, including Israel, England, Canada, Australia, and Spain.

There are still many obstacles in the way before the repealing of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell can be passed.  The next step is that the Senate must vote on the bill, which could occur this summer.  If it were to pass in the Senate, the president, the defense secretary and the Joint Chiefs of Staff all must sign off on it as well.  This might be a very significant obstacle because President Obama has threatened to veto the bill because it contains money for defense projects he deems wasteful.

Despite these obstacles, there is more hope than ever that the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law will finally be eliminated.  As Dr. Herek mentioned, there is absolutely nothing that prevents gays and lesbians from serving as well as heterosexuals.  And with numerous examples of countries successfully embracing gays and lesbians into their militaries, isn’t it time that the United States, a self-professed powerful force for good in the world, did so as well?  As someone close to me always says, there have always been gay and lesbian troops in the military, and I believe that it is long past due to finally allow them to serve their country openly and freely.

Read More - No comments yet - be the first!

Join Citizens Project & Join the Conversation!

19th April, 2010

Please join Citizens Project at a community gathering and join the conversation!

Come meet your neighbors for informal discussions about how we can work together to make our community a better place. Citizens Project invites you to join us in creating a louder voice for inclusion, diversity and equal rights. We want to hear your stories and create conversations that lead to bridging cultural divides in our community.

Community Conversations

Tuesday, May 4, 2010
5:30 – 6:30 pm
Panera Bread, 7344 North Academy Shops, 80920 (map)

Saturday, May 8, 2010
10:00 – 11:00 am
Panera Bread, 3120 New Center Point, 80922 (map)

Thursday, May 13, 2010
5:30 – 6:30 pm
Panera Bread, 1832 Southgate Road, 80906 (map) 

Please join us at one or all of these community conversations, and invite your friends and colleagues!

Read More - 1 Comment

Creating Community Breakfast

6th April, 2010

June 3, 2010
7:30 am	to	8:30 am

Save the date and join Citizens Project at the 6th annual Creating Community Breakfast!  This fun and free fundraising breakfast will feature speakers, musical entertainment and a few surprises. 

Thursday, June 3, 2010
7:30 – 8:30am (check-in begins at 7:00am)
Bigg City Event Center, 5825 Mark Dabling Blvd (south entrance

View the invitation

Learn more about the work Citizens Project is doing in the Pikes Peak region to promote equal rights, diversity, religious freedom through separation of church and state and civic engagement, and learn how you can help!

Read More - No comments yet - be the first!

Create Isolation? Not us!

26th March, 2010

Now we invite you to join us to make our community a better place. We are creating a louder voice for inclusion, diversity and equal rights by collecting stories, creating conversations, and telling a new, powerful story of Colorado Springs and the Pikes Peak region.

Today, we want to hear more about you.

Tell us your story. Tell us about your personal experiences of diversity, discrimination, inclusion, or isolation. Tell us about a time you felt unwelcome or devalued in our community, and tell us about a time you felt included and respected. Tell us what you wish for Colorado Springs and our region, and how you think Citizens Project can help residents make a difference.

• Make your voice heard – leave a comment below
• Connect with us on Facebook
• Send us an email

We look forward to hearing from you!

Read More - 1 Comment

Citizens Project in the news!

25th March, 2010

You’ve seen the billboards, the print ads, the bus sides and the websites. Church Equals State, Freedom From Expression, Create Isolation, Celebrate Conformity. And now you know that Citizens Project was the organization behind this provocative campaign.

Learn more about what the campaign is all about by checking out Citizens Project’s recent media coverage and stay tuned to learn how you can join the conversation!

• Check out the Gazette article by Mark Barna: Springs nonprofit hopes billboards spark diversity dialogue
• Read a story by Anthony Lane on the Colorado Springs Independent blog: Church equals state? Huh?
• Also, watch for Citizens Project on KRDO Channel 13 news this evening, when Executive Director Barb Van Hoy talks about the awareness campaign

If you haven’t already, please join our email list for opportunities to get involved!

Read More - No comments yet - be the first!

Walmart store sells Black Barbie for $3, White Barbie for $5.93

24th March, 2010

Thanks to Diversity Consultant Jody Alyn and her student for this piece in her newsletter:

Is this a race-based business practice? A race-based buying practice? Or a sign of something else?

Check out the news story about Walmart and watch a video about one  news program’s effort to recreate Dr. Kenneth and Mamie Clark’s famous research on doll preference and racial identity.

Reprinted with permission.

The linked news story on ABC’s web site  is very thoughtful.

Read More - No comments yet - be the first!

Religious Right Offensive on Public Education in Texas

15th February, 2010

Citizens Project has been following the dangerous extremism on the Texas Board of Education over the last several months. It exploded in the national press yesterday with this cover story in The New York Times Magazine.

The injection of partisan politics into education went so far that at one point another Republican board member burst out in seemingly embarrassed exasperation, “Guys, you’re rewriting history now!”

Citizens Project will keep monitoring local schools to prevent this from happening here. Please let us know if you hear of any inappropriate politicizing we should be aware of.

Thanks to our friends at the Texas Freedom Network for fighting the Texas takeover.

Read More - No comments yet - be the first!