Smrt Lernins

The homeschool community as a whole is hugely obsessed with “parents’ rights.” It’s primarily from the conservative Christian set, but there’s also a group within the Libertarian-leaning community that pretty strongly rejects the notion of children having inherent rights (over those of the parent) that should be legally outlined and protected. The HSLDA has a whole section devoted to parental rights. Any attempt to establish rights for the children are dismissed as “attacks from the left.” As you can imagine, the UNICEF Convention on the Rights of the Child is incredibly threatening to a group of people who believe that their children are, in fact, their property to do with as they will. That concept is at the center of the Pearls’ teachings — children are property, your property, and you can beat them into whatever shape that most pleases you.

Of course, it wasn’t that long ago that majority of people thought of women as property (many, as the above-mentioned Pearls, still do). It wasn’t that long ago in US history that black people were treated as property. Or Chinese people (who built the railroads? wasn’t well-treated, enfranchised workers being paid a living wage). Sharecropping was by and large another form of slavery, aimed at a socioeconomic group rather than a racial group (I come from some hardscrabble folk, myself). Humanity has a pretty ugly history of treating specific subsets of our number as property; part of our upward movement towards education and cultural enlightenment is, theoretically, that we stop doing that. With each group that seeks enfranchisement (or even the simplest and most basic of human rights), however, there is always a group that wants to keep that from happening. How sad that the group most invested in keeping children from having these basic human rights would be comprised almost entirely of parents.

“But s/he is MY child!” That’s the argument parents use for everything from cutting off healthy body parts, to custody/visitation, to “using the rod,” to indoctrinating children into harmful or hateful beliefs. Well, s/he may be your child, but s/he isn’t your property. If a person could ever be called property in good conscience, surely your child is the property of him/herself alone. You have the (very, considering a full lifespan) temporary care and keeping of your child’s body, but you do not own him. Incidentally, that a governing body would outline the rights of a child in law or policy doesn’t mean the government owns your child, either, any more than the Constitution means the government owns you (if anything, it shows how very clearly the government does not own you), so you can drop that particular argument. It just makes you look ignorant.

Last March, blogger DaMomma wrote an incredibly poignant and insightful (and yes, rather inciteful) post on the (non-)rights of parents, which I hope you will all read and take to heart:

DaMomma’s Parents’ Bill of No-Rights

I don’t have the right to see my child.

I have the sacred obligation to be available to her for nurture, comfort, discipline and guidance regardless of whether it is convenient for me.

I don’t have the right to be included in all the decision-making regarding my child.

I have the obligation to make my child’s needs my first priority and to evalute her needs without regard to my own stake. I have the moral duty to be the advocate of her interests, even if they may conflict with my own.

I do not have the right to make my child’s medical choices.

I have the obligation to use my status as an adult to seek out all the professional care my child needs, and to provide it. I am duty-bound to educate myself on health conditions my child has, and to advocate for her until she is able to advocate for herself.

I do not have the guaranteed love of my child.

I voluntarily made an 18-year commitment to be responsible for another person. I am owed nothing in return. My child did not ask to be born, and is not responsible for the decision I made to bring her here.

I am not entitled to respect.

I am obligated to teach my child boundaries, rules and limits — so she can function in the world, so she is tolerable to others. I have a duty to teach her how to behave. I earn my child’s respect.

My child is not an object to which I may claim ownership.

She is a human being with thoughts and feelings. My childhood is over. My time of being the priority has passed. Whatever I did or did not get is something I must address for myself. It is separate from my child. She is entitled to her own time of nurture, protection and joy and I am obligated to provide it.

I am not entitled to a return on my investment.

I am obligated to work hard every day to provide for my child’s material needs (including some of her wants) regardless of whether she sees me, likes me, or behaves in a manner of which I approve.

Your kid isn’t a pair of shoes or a belt.
Your kid isn’t a car or a bicycle.
Your kid isn’t a dog, a car, or a parakeet.
Your kid isn’t a house or a plot of land.
Your kid isn’t a houseplant or a field of wheat.
Your kid is a person and you do not, cannot, own a person. His rights supersede your wants.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Daisy asks, “Should I join a homeschool advocacy group like HSLDA (Homeschool Legal Defense Association)?”

In a word, no.

Please forgive me if I become too wordy or impassioned, but this particular topical splinter has been digging into my brain for a while now. What comes out might not be pretty. As a secular homeschooler, I’m not ever going to be on board with the HSLDA. As a liberal homeschooler, I’m not ever going to be on board with the HSLDA. Honestly, as a homeschooler in general, I’m not ever going to be on board with the HSLDA.

HSLDA is a religious group and has, in my opinion, some rather sinister ulterior motives that go much further than protecting or extending the rights of homeschoolers. It’s not just “rah rah, homeschooling!” but a lot of unpleasant cause mixing — they’ve either directly worked against, encouraged members to work against, or celebrated legislation outlawing/limiting gay marriage, gun-free school zones, abortion, and more. Not only does this stand against things I believe in, ethically/morally and politically/legally speaking, but really crosses the line from supporting homeschool to intervening in the lives of others — ironically, the very thing they seem so convinced the government is set on doing. A 2004 article in the Boston Globe addresses many of my concerns with the organization and what I feel is an exploitation of homeschooling families and homeschooled children to push the HSLDA’s ultraconservative agenda.

When I think of major legal or social issues that might impact homeschooling, gay marriage isn’t something that springs to mind. The HSLDA seems to think it’s terribly relevant to homeschooling, however, as they sent an email to their mailing list asking if members would support amendment to ban gay marriage and later posted a Q&A page on the importance of a federal ban on gay marriage. I haven’t yet had someone else’s marriage, gay or straight, in any way affect my ability to homeschool my children, but I guess it’s possible I’m missing something. Does the mythical Gay Agenda now include “outlaw homeschooling” along with “destroy the sanctity of your marriage” and “corrupt your children” “go to work,” “raise a family,” and “live my life?”

What does abortion have to do with homeschooling, exactly, outside of the topics of health or religious belief? The HSLDA has an entire page on their site celebrating “partial birth abortion” ban. HSLDA president Michael Farris hopes, in his own words, that “homeschooled young people will help reverse Roe v. Wade.” Again, I’m curious as to what Roe v. Wade has to do with mathematics, science, language arts, or any other aspect of home education. How is Roe v. Wade, or abortion in general, an issue that should be addressed by a homeschooling organization?

Why does an organization charging around $100/year in membership dues, supposedly to pay for legal defense for homeschooling issue, instead shunt that money into stopping abortion or gay marriage, or championing non-homeschool-related political causes in general? HSLDA funds the National Center for Home Education, which is a lobbying organization, and Generation Joshua, which is designed to indoctrinate homeschooled students into the Farris’s specific set of conservative beliefs and recruit them for conservative grassroots movements.

Additionally, the HSLDA, champion of the “rights” of homeschooled parents, is also absurdly afraid of children having rights of their own.

You’re better off knowing your own rights and retaining your own counsel, IMO, unless you want to fund the above. Obviously, I’m addressing a general “you,” or more specifically, answering the question of whether I would join the HSLDA, because I certainly wouldn’t want to fund the above. Even some of my politically conservative, Christian friends won’t join the HSLDA, because they feel uncomfortable with the degree of political involvement and the related pressure on member-families. Sadly, the HSLDA presents itself as the only game in town and the only group standing between homeschoolers and terrible, crushing demise at the government’s hands. Yes, homeschoolers do have it pretty rough in some states, but the intrusive, rabidly conservative approach of the HSLDA strikes me as a way to worsen, rather than improve, conditions for homeschoolers.

Daisy also asked about joining the HSC (Homeschool Assoc of CA). This group appears to be inclusive and to genuinely focus on advocating for the rights of homeschoolers. If you really feel that joining a legal/advocacy group is important, the HSC sound like a much better bet to this [Smrt] Homeschooler.

Do you have a question for the [Smrt] Homeschooler? Email them to
smrtmama@smrtlernins.com