Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals continued war against reason

Garynorth.com , Ninth Circuit website ^ | November 2005 | Gary North/ redstate.org

[Zack Nguyen]

More news on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals continued war against reason.

In the case Fields v. Palmdale (November 2, 2005), parents sued the Palmdale School District for giving a survey, which included ten questions of a sexual nature, to students between the ages of seven and ten.

The School District sent a note home to parents asking for parental consent to engage their children in a survey of early trauma. The note did not mention sex.

The School District, collaborating with the School of Psychology and Seymour, developed and administered the questionnaire to first, third, and fifth grade students. According to the decision (p. 15066), "The children were asked to rate the following activities, among others, on a scale from "never" to "almost all the time.""

According to p. 15066 of the Fields decision, the following is a list of the questions included on the student survey:

8. Touching my private parts too much

17. Thinking about having sex

22. Thinking about touching other people's private parts

23. Thinking about sex when I don't want to

26. Washing myself because I feel dirty on the inside

34. Not trusting people because they might want sex

40. Getting scared or upset when I think about sex

44. Having sex feelings in my body

47. Can't stop thinking about sex

54. Getting upset when people talk about sex

According to the decision (p. 15066), "The children were asked to rate the following activities, among others, on a scale from "never" to "almost all the time." Other choice questions included "Wanting to kill myself" and "Wanting to hurt other people."

Seven year olds were asked these questions. The parents of the children learned of the survey questions when their children started telling them about the survey.

Horrified, the parents complained to the school, arguing that had they know the true nature of the survey, they would have never offered their consent. The school district rebuffed the parents, and the parents sued.

The trial court rejected the parents arguments and today, in stunning language, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the rejection. In fact, the Ninth Circuit, in its opinion stated:

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. Finally, we hold that the defendants’ actions were rationally related to a legitimate state purpose. [Emphasis in original.]

[Zack Nguyen]

This case is almost a year old, but I don't remember reading anything about it.

Some of the above was taken from http://www.garynorth.com, the original of which apparently came from redstate.org. I changed some of the prose to better explain the situation.

Read the Ninth Circuit Court opinion here:

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E8695945B7C6F6B5882570AD0051320A/$file/0356499.pdf?openelement

This decision, and the accompanying quote, are so outrageous that I don't even know where to begin. What sort of arrogance leads a court to tell me that I have to share my children's minds with the state whenit comes to sex? I have no right, according to the Ninth Circuit, to be the sole arbiter of what my children are exposed to sexually and what they are not.

This means that my children's minds are not really my sole responsibility. It means their minds also belong to the state, meaning thatthe state can fill them whatever it wants, and I have no say. This decision is an abomination. Sorry, I'm a little angry right now.

Opinions welcome.

[Zack Nguyen]

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E8695945B7C6F6B5882570AD0051320A/$file/0356499.pdf?openelement

Hot link here.

[Jeff Chandler]

What sort of arrogance leads a court to tell me that I have to share my children's minds with the state whenit comes to sex?

Liberal arrogance. First they want to sexualize the children, then they want to homosexualize them.

[Zack Nguyen]

Sorry, I was apparently so distracted that I failed to give this thread a decent title. Maybe you want to rename it something more descriptive.

[mcvey]

It's nuts. Our local school system idea is built out of the idea that schools and parents worked together through school boards and other community systems.

Now many teachers (and professors) feel greatly superior to those who hire them. Since the issues are often one of faith, morality or ethics--and not subjects that can be objectively determined--the substitution of the views of educational professionals for those of the parents is undemocratic and unethical.

These are, however, the same people who insist that all cultures are equal--except for the ones held by those who pay their salaries.

McVey

Education ping list

Let Republicanprofessor, JamesP81, eleni121 or McVey know if you wish to be placed on this ping list or taken off of it.

[Spunky]

From Ruling: "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."

What is coming out of our courts is very scary.

[rottndog]

educational professionals

There's an oxymoron.

[Zack Nguyen]

Thanks for the ping broadcast. It is the slow but steady encroachment of the state on the rights of the family.

[Zack Nguyen]

I agree. It's horrifying. I don't have to live under the Ninth Circuit (whew) but that is really no defense in the future.

[Zack Nguyen]

You may be right. As I understand it homosexual behavior is taught as normative in certain public schools now. I don't know how widespread this is.

[Zack Nguyen]

Thanks you! That is much better.

[rottndog]

It is the slow but steady encroachment of the state on the rights of the family.

In a free society, the nuclear family is the primary unit of governance--good families produce good citizens which facilitate a free and orderly society. It is no surprise, therefore, that the family unit has been under a relentless assault for decades now by leftists who want the primary unit of governance to be the state.

This decision by the Ninth Circus is just the latest manifestation of that assault, and the most egregious one at that--It is a direct attack on the family unit.

[Zack Nguyen]

In a free society, the nuclear family is the primary unit of governance--good families produce good citizens which facilitate a free and orderly society. It is no surprise, therefore, that the family unit has been under a relentless assault for decades now by leftists who want the primary unit of governance to be the state.

Well said. The left sees the state as a redemptive institution, and will brook no other gods before it.

[hinckley buzzard]

If a university professor was doing research on children's sexual behavior, attitudes, etc, he would first have to submit this questionnaire to an ethics committee. To be found acceptible, at a minimum it would have to include informed consent of the parent, as well as notification that the parent could refuse to allow his children to be subjects without penalty. To be approved, it would also need to have a rationale of what the data was intended to explain and how it relates to the field at large. There would also need to be reasonable assurance that participation would do no harm including emotional harm, to the subjects. The idea that the State somehow has the right to invade family privacy at will, without any such safeguards, is draconian, fascistic and unethical. Any judge who gave this intrusion a blanket OK is himself ipso facto unethical and unfit to sit on the bench.

[Obie Wan]

I,ll keep pushing it. Can we get these people on some kind of term\time limits? We really don't need lifetime appointments for liberal scum like these ninth circuit bozo's !!!

[Zack Nguyen]

I had not thought of that, You're right, a university researcher would probably not have got past the ethics committee.

And you're right, it is fascist.

[Westpole]

I agree that the policy is reprehensible. The survey has no place in a school especially a public school. But the decision is a conservative one. This policy is enacted by locally elected school board members. If we conservatives run to the courts to redress every local decision in our favor how can we complain that the liberal judges do the same? Keep perspective here please. Federal courts do not run our schools nor should they!...Now everyone organize to throw out every school board member that supports this kind of stupidity.

[Alex1977]

I have to disagree. Parental consent, in these surveys, should be subdued. The problem of domestic violence, rape and so on against children is always a convincing argument in favor of this kind of questionnaires. Protecting children against sex, violence inside family is as important as protecting fetus from mother's drug or alcohol abuse and, obviously, from ABORTION.

[Jeff Chandler]

The way to detect if a child is being abused is through observation of the child's behavior. This blanket survey is a trojan horse for the education industry perverts.

[Alex1977]

The way chosen by the researchers is disputable, I agree with the proposal of an ethics committee. But IMO, parental consent should never be fundamental.