Homeschooling Threat

Hugh Hewitt listeners might want to listen in tonight at 6 p.m. (PDT) for what looks like something of an unusual hour -- one dedicated entirely to the challenge homeschooling in CA is facing.

This all stems from the actions of one whacked California judge (how often have we put those four words together?). The Second Appellate District in Los Angeles County's pivotal ruling, which came down on February 28th, found that a homeschooling family from Southern California did not have a right to “homeschool” under the California Constitution unless the parent is a credentialed tutor.

The ruling stemmed from a Juvenile Court case about allegations of abuse or neglect that originally had nothing to do with homeschooling, writes the Christian Home Educators Association of California:

When the Juvenile Court judge would not prohibit the parents from home schooling their children, the court-appointed attorneys for the children went to the California Court of Appeals. The Appellate Court went further than they needed to, and essentially ruled that State law does not provide any options that allow parents to teach their own children at home.

The Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), representatives of which will be interviewed by Hugh today, wrote:

There are two basic issues in the case:

1. Does state law allow parents to homeschool without a state teaching credential?

2. If not, is this law unconstitutional?

Below are three short quotations from the case which give the clear answer:

“It is clear to us that enrollment and attendance in a public full-time day school is required by California law for minor children unless (1) the child is enrolled in a private full-time day school and actually attends that private school, (2) the child is tutored by a person holding a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught.”

“California courts have held that under provisions in the Education Code, parents do not have a constitutional right to school their children in their own home.”

“We agree with the Shinn court’s statement that ‘the educational program of the State of California was designed to promote the general welfare of all the people and was not designed to accommodate the personal ideas of any individual in the field of education.’ ”

In the first quote the court makes it clear that it believes that parents may not operate their own private schools. In the second they deny that a parent has a constitutional right to homeschool, and in the third they concur that California law does not accommodate parents pursuing their own education program for their children.

As you can see, the decision is categorical and was not written to be limited to just the facts of this case.

Nothing has changed in California homeschooling ... yet. The case has some court-wending to do yet until anything becomes final.

There is something you can do in the interim -- sign the HSLDA's petition. A lot of people are -- the HSLDA is getting enough traffic to justify routing their home page hits directly to their petition page.

Every signature will help shine a light on this issue, forcing cockroach judges to scurry under the law library bookshelves again -- where we are safe from them.

Two of our three incredible daughters spend some time in homeschooling and are much the better for it. Dedicated parents can be terrific teachers, better than many credentialed teachers struggling with stupid regulations and a perpetual shortage of funds. And homeschool teachers can still teach values.

What a concept! And certainly one worth protecting.

Can There Be Justice For These Murders?

Vahik Farhadian was murdered Thursday night in LA, along with Manyam Masihi. Farhadian was the uncle of Incredible Daughter #1's recently ex-boyfriend.

He managed an apartment building in Burbank. He was an Armenian, a Christian, a man who came to America to become a part of the country, even as he lived within the warm familiarity of Burbank's large Armenian community.

Another resident of the building, Manyam Masihi, was also killed, and Farhadian's son Oshin was shot in the shoulder and is still hospitalized. Read the news report here.

I bring up this tragedy, that looms huge in the lives of three families, but will pass by unnoticed by America, because the murderer, an Armenian man named Rafael Shirinian, killed himself as police arrived, leaving me with a very big question I'd like your thoughts on: Was justice served?

The murders were, even by murder's low standard, extremely unnecessary. Shirinian went on his bloddy rampage (shooting Farhadian 11 times, although you wouldn't know that from the coverage) because Farhadian didn't have a parking space available for Shirinian at the apartment building.

(It was poor urban planning that killed these folks, but that's another story....)

Shirinian had been arguing and fighting about it for some time over the matter and seemed unable to take no for an answer. Finally, he snapped, shooting Vahik as he arrived back at the building from the grocery. Oshin took off into Masihi's appartment and escaped out the window with Masihi's two children. Shirinian killed Masihi after she warned off another person who was about to walk onto the scene. He shot at but missed that person, who fled.

All over a parking space!

And in the end, as police closed in, Shirinian pointed the gun at his chest and pulled the trigger. Police attempted to revive him, but he died.

The Farhadian family will now have no chance to see Shirinian stand trial and face charges for the murders he committed. They will not be able to face him, or tell the court the pain he caused. They will not see him hauled off in chains to prison, as he presumably would be, given the evidence. And they won't see him executed by the state.

Shirinian got off easy, although ID#1 points out that he did suffer more pain for longer with the gunshot to the chest than he would have experienced with a gunshot to the head. But is a few minutes of pain enough to provide justice?

Is the family actually better off, having avoiding defense attorney theatrics and the risk that the jury will not provide justice?

Are the courts an elemental and necessary component of justice? If they're not, would justice have been served if someone other than Shirinian had killed him? Finally, if justice was not served, is there any way the Farhadian family can find it? If not, what will the impact on them be?

Kids, Courts, Government And Free Speech

I've always found it interesting that current news often creates a diarama in the foreground of older news that is just reaching the courts. As Tinker v. DesMoines, the landmark decision on the extent of freedom of speech in high school, comes up for a challenge before the Supreme Court, the world marches on, presenting us with examples that underscore the importance of the case.

Tinker grew out of the Vietnam era, when a couple high schoolers were suspended for wearing anti-war T-shirts. It's been a tough issue for the courts ever since, with the basic rule now being along the line of, "As long as they don't interrupt the school's purpose of education, anything goes."

As high school freedom of speech and Tinker come before the Court for a new review, from different sides of the world two very different stories frame Tinker with new urgency and clarity. First, from New Hampshire:

HAMPTON, N.H. (AP) - Some parents are protesting the "sex" edition of the student newspaper at Winnacunnet High School. Several said they were especially offended by a photograph of two women kissing under the headline, "Why men love women who love women," a quiz question about anal sex, and an interview with an unnamed custodian who said he had found a vibrator in the girls' shower.

"Those articles offended me personally as a parent," said Venus Merrill, a school board member. "It's not something you want to read with your 10-year-old and it's not something that should be going home."

Principal Randy Zito said the Winnachronicle had crossed the line of responsible reporting and that he had dealt with the problem privately. He also said he had pulled copies of the paper that normally would have been sent to middle schools in the cooperative school district.

The newspaper's faculty adviser defended the editors' decisions and said the February edition of the paper was intended to inform students, not shock people—although they knew it would stir controversy.

"The kids wrote the articles and came up with the topic," said adviser Carol Downer. "They didn't go out to cause controversy, but the Winnachronicle is also not a P.R. piece for the high school. This is a place for students to express their view and talk about the issues that are troubling the student body."

The newspaper is not reviewed in advance of publication by administrators. The school board has not discussed the controversy in a public meeting, but parent Paula Wood, of Seabrook, said she wants it on the agenda for the next one.

Under Tinker, parent Venus Merrill may not have much to say about the newspaper. If the girls in the photo were students at the school, that could disrupt education and be grounds for stopping publication. Anal sex? That's probably not something Tinker would meddle with.

Abe Fortas, who famously said in the Tinker decision that freedom of speech doesn't end at the schoolhouse door, probably didn't anticipate school newspapers writing about anal sex and vibrators; we just don't know how he would have differentiated political protest from sexual messages.

Meanwhile in Europe, there's a flare-up between the EU and Poland:

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS – The European Parliament is poised to investigate the legality of draft restrictions against discussion of homosexuality in Polish schools, if a bill is formally proposed. But a leading NGO has already expressed concern over civil liberties in Poland.

Warsaw is planning to ban discussions on homosexuality in schools and educational institutions across the deeply orthodox Roman Catholic country, with teachers set to be fired, fined or imprisoned if they violate the rules. Openly gay teachers would also be in line to lose their jobs.

The European Parliament's committee on civil liberties discussed the Polish ideas on Tuesday (20 March) and decided to launch a study into the compatibility of such legislation with EU rules, if the bill is ever officially submitted to the Polish lower house.

"The disturbing proposals to outlaw discussion of homosexuality raise serious concerns about the commitment to fundamental rights in Poland," said Dutch green MEP Kathalijne Buitenweg in a statement after the meeting.

"It is shocking that the government of a modern European country would even consider such draconian legislation. The promotion of gay hatred is the antithesis of EU anti-discrimination rules and the Polish government must publicly reject this approach," she added.

Odd, isn't it, that disallowing the teaching of homosexuality is seen as "the promotion of gay hatred?" Be that as it may, this case frames a counter-extreme to cases like that unfolding in New Hampshire.

To look at Poland's proposed restrictions under a Tinker lens, imagine a school newspaper running a story calling for a ban on the teaching of homosexual issues and the expulsion of gay teachers. Such an article, offensive as it may be to Lib sensitivities, would certainly be allowed.

Libs pushing for expansion of free speech through a more liberal interpretation of Tinker need to be aware that the decision would allow more conservative actions -- like challenging the imposition of the homosexual agenda in the classroom -- not just liberal messages. And while Libs like big government, they can see in Poland's proposed new law the risks that come with letting government control too much of education.

Conservatives offended by the New Hampshire newspaper (or a "bong hits for Jesus" T-shirt, as is going before the Court now) and hoping for a more narrow definition of free speech on campus should pause as they consider the EU's heavy-handed meddling in Poland's affairs, which is very parallel to states rights issues here in America. Do we want federal law dictating what can or cannot be said in our schools, or should that be left to local school boards?

Me? I prefer that schools be places of learning. Part of that learning experience is to give the students the chance to debate hot issues, and part of it is the opportunity to see adults acting intelligently. That means principals have to actually think, be role models and take actions.

Sometimes, letting free speech rule makes sense and spawns debate and learning. Sometimes defining the limits of free speech and prohibiting certain actions makes sense and spawns debate and learning. If the standing policy is "anything goes all the time," students will not learn anything useful, just as will be the case if the policy is "anything controversial must be avoided."

Of course, my idea requires bold principals who are not afraid to act. Don't laugh; it's not impossible. It is what we should ask of those to whom we entrust our children's education, and failure to model effective moral clarity should be grounds for dismissal.

Hat-tips: Breitbart and Brussels Journal