Rochester, NY
A federal judge in Boston today dismissed a case brought by two Lexington, MA couples over references to same-sex relationships in Lexington public school classrooms. In their suit, the couples claimed that parents have the first responsibility for the moral education of their children. I agree. The problem immediately becomes one of definition, however. Who's to decide whether a parent's opposition to discussion of same-sex couples in the classroom reflects moral principles or just homophobia?
Parental influence over public-school curricula on the basis of individual views of morality is tricky stuff. After all, it seems almost impossible to know whether such views are based on ignorance, fear and hatred or honest moral concerns. Furthermore, how is one to adjudicate whether such individual views reflect collective opinion and whether that majority opinion is actually fair and right?
After all, the subjective morality claims made by the Lexington couples extend to the teaching of war, colonization, evolution, biology, sex, literature, global warming, genocide, poverty, world religions and political science let alone current events and media studies. One person's D.H. Lawrence is another person's filth. One parent's history of the Vietnam War is another parent's view of an immoral, unjust war. And one neighbor's knowledge of dinosaurs contradicts another neighbor's belief that the Earth is only as old as the Garden of Eden. Indeed, it is truly difficult for many people today to achieve the perspective of what Adam Smith in The Theory of Moral Sentiments called the "dispassionate spectator."
So, if the Lexington couples want to ensure that their children are protected from whatever it is they fear about same-sex couples, they certainly have the right and responsibility to school their children elsewhere.
A federal judge in Boston today dismissed a case brought by two Lexington, MA couples over references to same-sex relationships in Lexington public school classrooms. In their suit, the couples claimed that parents have the first responsibility for the moral education of their children. I agree. The problem immediately becomes one of definition, however. Who's to decide whether a parent's opposition to discussion of same-sex couples in the classroom reflects moral principles or just homophobia?
Parental influence over public-school curricula on the basis of individual views of morality is tricky stuff. After all, it seems almost impossible to know whether such views are based on ignorance, fear and hatred or honest moral concerns. Furthermore, how is one to adjudicate whether such individual views reflect collective opinion and whether that majority opinion is actually fair and right?
After all, the subjective morality claims made by the Lexington couples extend to the teaching of war, colonization, evolution, biology, sex, literature, global warming, genocide, poverty, world religions and political science let alone current events and media studies. One person's D.H. Lawrence is another person's filth. One parent's history of the Vietnam War is another parent's view of an immoral, unjust war. And one neighbor's knowledge of dinosaurs contradicts another neighbor's belief that the Earth is only as old as the Garden of Eden. Indeed, it is truly difficult for many people today to achieve the perspective of what Adam Smith in The Theory of Moral Sentiments called the "dispassionate spectator."
So, if the Lexington couples want to ensure that their children are protected from whatever it is they fear about same-sex couples, they certainly have the right and responsibility to school their children elsewhere.