It is no secret that our institutions of higher learning are largely controlled by liberal thinkers who attempt to indoctrinate our youth with their agenda. In fact a poll by Luntz Research concluded more than 80 percent of Ivy League professors voted Democrat in the 2000 election with only 9 percent voting Republican. The American Council of Trustees and Alumni conducted a corresponding survey to decide what, if any, impact this has on our nation’s college students. Of 658 students polled at the top 50 U.S. colleges, forty-nine percent said some “presentations on political issues seem totally one-sided”, and forty-six percent said “professors use the classroom to present their personal political views.”

I don’t believe these studies accomplished anything significant other than confirming popular belief regarding the political makeup of our country’s colleges. For the most part, college students are at a point in their lives where they understand it is necessary to formulate their own opinions and not blindly accept those offered by teachers, religious leaders, politicians, or even their parents. Would anyone argue that a five year old has the same capacity?

There is currently a lawsuit pending in Massachusetts regarding the curriculum of Eastbrook Elementary School. The State, along with the ACLU, the Human Rights Campaign, the Massachusetts Teachers Association, and Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders are arguing a State interest in teaching homosexuality. The lawsuit stems from David Parker’s disagreement with a book given to his 5 year old son as part of “diversity training”. World Net Daily had the original story back in October of 2005:

The dispute began last spring when Parker’s then-5-year-old son brought home a book to be shared with his parents titled, “Who’s in a Family?” The optional reading material, which came in a “Diversity Book Bag,” depicted at least two households led by homosexual partners.

David Parker’s son brought home the book ‘Who’s in a Family?’ in school’s ‘Diversity Book Bag’ (Image: Article 8 Alliance)

The illustrated book says, “A family can be made up in many different ways” and includes this text:

“Laura and Kyle live with their two moms, Joyce and Emily, and a poodle named Daisy. It takes all four of them to give Daisy her bath.”

Another illustrated page says:

“Robin’s family is made up of her dad, Clifford, her dad’s partner, Henry, and Robin’s cat, Sassy. Clifford and Henry take turns making dinner for their family.”

Parker complained to school officials, and at a scheduled meeting at Eastbrook Elementary School April 27 with the principal and the town’s director of education, he was told an agreement could be reached.

But after the superintendent intervened via telephone, Parker abruptly was told that unless he left the meeting he would be arrested.

Parker insisted that an agreement be reached before he left, and school officials called police, who handcuffed him and brought him to jail, where he spent the night.

The issue now is in the process of now being resolved in a courtroom with attorney’s representing the school district filing a motion to dismiss. Their basis for the dismissal is teachers at Eastbrook Elementary School have a “legitimate state interest” in teaching the homosexual lifestyle, and parents have no input into those decisions.

I am not sure any parent, even one who agrees the homosexual lifestyle should be taught in public school to children as young as 5, would agree that parents should have no input into the decisions which affect their child’s education. World Net Daily has more on the motion to dismiss:

“The state must fight ‘discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation’ in ways that ‘do not perpetuate stereotypes,’” the lawyers for the school district argued. They also explained to the judge that, in their opinion, parents have no right to control what ideas the school presents to elementary schoolchildren, and if parents disagree with that dictate, they can take their children elsewhere.

“Once I have elected to send my child to public school, my fundamental right does not allow me to direct what my child is exposed to in the public school,” said the school’s lawyer.

This is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard, and sadly it is not the first time it was said. Not to long ago in San Francisco, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled “We agree, and hold that there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children, either independent of their right to direct the upbringing and education of their children or encompassed by it. We also hold that parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students. ”

It is no wonder that most American families support school voucher programs, allowing them to pull their children from public schools. It is also no wonder why the ACLU adamantly opposes them.

The State argues it must “fight discrimination”, which does sound like a noble enough cause, however when you look at all of the different groups who may fall victim to discrimination or prejudice, it is clear the State does not take the same “diversity training” approach with all groups.

The question that should arise from this court case is not wether or not homosexuality is moral and therefore OK to be taught to 5 years olds. The question should be wether the State has a right to impose its own ideology of a family on children.

<hr>
“Is it a right or a duty in society to take care of their infant members in opposition to the will of the parent? How far does this right and duty extend? –to guard the life of the infant, his property, his instruction, his morals? The Roman father was supreme in all these: we draw a line, but where? –public sentiment does not seem to have traced it precisely… It is better to tolerate the rare instance of a parent refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the common feelings and ideas by the forcible asportation and education of the infant against the will of the father.” -Thomas Jefferson - Note to Elementary School Act, 1817