Educated people today seem to be embracing concepts that clearheaded philosophers of an earlier era would quickly recognize as lunacy.  An interviewee of the San Francisco Chronicle (long known as a nationally ranked platform for less-than-brilliant comments) has recently trotted out one of the oldest, but most disturbing ideas: that the government has a more basic claim on children than parents do.  In doing so, she made the following statement:

“[Leslie] Heimov [executive director of the Children's Law Center of Los Angeles] said her organization's chief concern was not the quality of the children's education, but their ‘being in a place daily where they would be observed by people who had a duty to ensure their ongoing safety.’”

 (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/07/MNJDVF0F1.DTL)

Though her basic position is essentially worthless, Heimov’s comment contains a few instructive points. 

First, Heimov displays a shocking misunderstanding of the rights and responsibilities of parents.  Essentially, she is arguing that the state of California needs to systematically protect children from their own families.  The presupposition that undergirds this kind of thought is that the state is primarily responsible for the welfare and development of all children.  The government may often choose to delegate some of its role to parents, but it reserves the “right” to revoke parental authority whenever it chooses and for whatever reason.  Children only belong with their parents so long as what the parents do is pleasing to the state.

Next, Heimov also inadvertently reveals what is really going on here (a fact that none of the few web comments I looked at below the article picked up on):  For groups like hers this is not about parents being qualified to instruct their children in a range of academic subjects and life skills; compulsory school attendance is a tool of social control.  They believe that parents in general cannot be trusted to raise children properly and so the state must have a mechanism that allows it to observe and intervene at will.  While the word “safety” generally applies to physical danger, the courts and activists of California have already shown that they will use the broadest possible sense of the word.  This has the potential to produce a truly Orwellian state of affairs. 

If the parents of California give up their rights as parents to the government, they should not be surprised to see the government begin to exercise those rights.  The “Govenator’s” recent comments are encouraging, but Californians should stand behind him and act decisively.

A second point emerges from the way the Chronicle staff employed the quotation.  It was literally the final word of the article, apparently intended as a complete rejoinder to the statement from the seemingly misguided homeschoolers.  The author offered no analysis or critique of the asinine idea that parents should have to complete some ridiculous course in non-sense secular humanist educationese before they become magically “qualified” to care about their children’s “ongoing safety.”  The Chronicle accepted the idea at face value, as if it were actually something resembling commonsense and intelligence.  The very fact that one well-educated childrens professional could make such a statement and an equally well-educated journalist could repeat it as unchallenged truth is more than enough to demonstrate that there is “something rotten” in the state of California.

Frankly, I can understand how Heimov and the Chronicle can mistakenly think that our children are now the government’s responsibility.  As American culture continues its rapid decline into self-centered imbecility, more and more parents are indeed abdicating their rights and failing in their responsibilities.  This leaves the rest of society to live with the results.  Who will step into this gap?  In an earlier time, it would have been the churches, relatives, and local communities; those most competent to really intervene in a meaningful way.  Today, people reflexively expect the state and federal governments to assume control.  This is unfortunate on at least two levels.  First, the government (especially as influenced by modern educational theorists) is the least qualified to act in a parent’s stead.  Second, as we see here in California, the government tends to go after just those parents who are the least likely to need supervision:  parents who care enough about their children’s future to take a personal hand in shaping it.  So, far from really fixing the problem, the philosophies advocated by Heimov and the Chronicle only make matters worse while trampling on parental rights in the process

 The simple fact is that it takes parents to raise children, but a village to make them into idiots.