Law Professor–Constitution Requires Homeschoolers To Teach Children Liberal Pieties

November 7, 2007 6:26 PM

Law Professor–Constitution Requires Homeschoolers To Teach Children Liberal Pieties. Kimberley Yuracko, a blonde feminist law professor at Northwestern, has written a paper called Education Off the Grid: Constitutional Constraints on Homeschooling which suggests that the Constitution requires states to regulate what parents teach their children, to prevent racism or sexism. The state may be obliged to limit the extent to which parents may teach their children idiosyncratic and illiberal beliefs and values. It’s Galileo all over again, with his “counterfactual” claim that the earth went round the sun.
posted by cousincozen (48 comments total)

Never would've happened if she were a brunette.
posted by ofthestrait at 6:31 PM on November 7, 2007 [7 favorites]

What's a liberal piety?
posted by zennie at 6:32 PM on November 7, 2007

This is what happens when women crawl out of the kitchen, into the peroxide bottle, and start getting uppity with the book learning.
posted by headspace at 6:34 PM on November 7, 2007 [3 favorites]

What's a blonde feminist? I didn't realize it, as a movement, had fractured along hair color distinctions.
posted by geos at 6:35 PM on November 7, 2007

I'm not touching this with a 100 ft. pole.
posted by The Light Fantastic at 6:35 PM on November 7, 2007

paul bunyan was polish?
posted by pyramid termite at 6:37 PM on November 7, 2007 [1 favorite]

I was coming in here to express my indignation at her blondness, but I see others have beat me to it.
posted by arcticwoman at 6:39 PM on November 7, 2007 [1 favorite]

"Never would've happened if she were a brunette."

Not so.
posted by cousincozen at 6:40 PM on November 7, 2007

maybe she's an illegal immigrant from norway - i bet vdare.com is REAL concerned about blondes illegally immigrating here
posted by pyramid termite at 6:40 PM on November 7, 2007

What's a blonde feminist?

They're the one's who think the ERA debate is about baseball.
posted by jonmc at 6:41 PM on November 7, 2007 [2 favorites]

You know who else obliged the state to do things?
posted by bigschmoove at 6:42 PM on November 7, 2007

She better fix me a plate of turkey real quick. Or else.
posted by puke & cry at 6:42 PM on November 7, 2007 [2 favorites]

as a left-of-liberal homeschooling parent, i'd have to say that the greatest fount of 'illiberalism' has to be the public school system; a greater education in mindless authoritarianism and meaningless labor cannot be found.

so i thank the fundamentalists for making sure that it is legal to follow my own consicence and keep my kids out...

also, maybe you meant blonde feminazi? chip meet shoulder...
posted by geos at 6:42 PM on November 7, 2007

You know who else obliged the state to do things?

nah, he wasn't blonde
posted by pyramid termite at 6:44 PM on November 7, 2007

But he prefered them, although he was no gentleman.
posted by jonmc at 6:45 PM on November 7, 2007 [2 favorites]

Man, those are some fun people over there at vdare.com, cousincozen. I like this guy's can-do attitude!
posted by BT at 6:49 PM on November 7, 2007

a/s/l/hc plz

asshole hardcore? Dude, this is a family site, take that somewhere else.
posted by jonmc at 6:51 PM on November 7, 2007

Not to cast aspersions, but has there been any discussion of this article by legal scholars who aren't referring to the author as a "blonde feminist"?
posted by never used baby shoes at 6:51 PM on November 7, 2007

Man, those are some fun people over there at vdare.com

you bet - they're animal-loving too - they'd go nuts for this blonde sheep
posted by pyramid termite at 6:53 PM on November 7, 2007

Well whomever is running that silly blog Vdare is a nut obsessed with race, blonde feminists, and evil liberalism. Nothing to see there. Just ignore her/him.
posted by Red58 at 6:56 PM on November 7, 2007

Why doesn't she just write Horowitz's next column for him?
posted by LarryC at 7:01 PM on November 7, 2007

I somehow think she won't be voting Ron Paul.
posted by caddis at 7:01 PM on November 7, 2007

because he's too embarrassed to turn in something that's been written in lipstick
posted by pyramid termite at 7:02 PM on November 7, 2007

Not to cast aspersions, but has there been any discussion of this article by legal scholars who aren't referring to the author as a "blonde feminist"?

No silly rabbit, relevant legal criticism is only for men.

But in all seriousness, it doesn't appear to be published yet, so I can't entirely comment but the link in the link to prawfsblawg sounds about right to me.
posted by whoaali at 7:03 PM on November 7, 2007

I agree with Geos. I'm as lefty as they come, and I'd like the the government to stay out of my curriculum. Which is pretty damn liberal. I'm raising free-thinkers here!
posted by Biblio at 7:09 PM on November 7, 2007

So you want parents to teach their children racism and sexism? Am I understanding that correctly?
posted by octothorpe at 7:11 PM on November 7, 2007

Metafilter: [Blonde] Law Professor–Constitution Requires Homeschoolers To Teach Children Liberal Pieties

But how good is she in bed?
posted by mrmojoflying at 7:14 PM on November 7, 2007

Thanks whoaali...it looks like a very interesting argument; I'll be interested to see how it is received when it is published.
posted by never used baby shoes at 7:20 PM on November 7, 2007

I don't want people to vote Republican, but saying it's against the law, or even the Constitution, is a bit shaky.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 7:24 PM on November 7, 2007

If you want to read the paper, the whole thing is online (from my link, scroll down and click on the "New York, USA" button--a direct link doesn't work).
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 7:24 PM on November 7, 2007

Thanks Mr. President. I've just started to have a look, and I think it is important to note that the author, while identifying herself as a law professor, does not state she is blonde. Obviously, she is omitting important facts already - and we're only on page 1.
posted by never used baby shoes at 7:33 PM on November 7, 2007 [1 favorite]

Cage Match:
In this corner - Kimberley Yuracko
In the opposite corner - Ann Coulter
Let the match begin....
posted by caddis at 7:43 PM on November 7, 2007

Quote:
as a left-of-liberal homeschooling parent, i'd have to say that the greatest fount of 'illiberalism' has to be the public school system; a greater education in mindless authoritarianism and meaningless labor cannot be found.

So then this person is lying, or you are just misaligning yourself from the common meaning of liberal:

First of all, whatever else I have observed about homeschool, it is by and large an conservative evangelical Protestant phenomenon. Homeschooling families are, in effect, a very distinct subculture that aligns itself with the Christian Right and, in terms of politics, the Republican Party. Homeschooling is by definition a conservative educational enterprise; modeled in large measure after ancient models of education (specifically the Greek and late Roman/Early Christian models), this style of education has since its origins served to support ideologies and power on the one hand or has existed as subversive culture with the specific purpose of undermining ideology and power when the minority group believes it is kept “out of the loop.” Both options rely heavily on emphasizing what has always been known as the truth and seeks either to defend this conservatism or reinstate it to its “proper” place.
posted by Brian B. at 7:45 PM on November 7, 2007

Link to quote above.
posted by Brian B. at 7:45 PM on November 7, 2007

you say she's a blonde, but what i wanna know is, does her carpet match the drapes?
posted by bruce at 7:48 PM on November 7, 2007 [1 favorite]

It's pretty lame when commenters don't read the crap they're commenting about (and though I did read this particular law review article, I've committed this sin myself).

But it's just ridiculous when the person posting the article hasn't read it.
posted by facetious at 7:58 PM on November 7, 2007

I'm drunk at the moment, but the paper seems to be arguing that education is supporting under either the Due Process Clause, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, or the Privileges and Immunities and the 14th proper.

Many of the cases cited to support this view of education, such as Marsh v. Alabama, seem to hinge entirely on First Amendment grounds and would not be similarly held if religion were not an issue.

The author might have more success making a state-by-state case, which she does initially very effectively, as many states have explicit education clauses.
posted by null terminated at 7:59 PM on November 7, 2007

I am not sure he is lying, but there are lots of reasons that people home school their children other than religious indoctrination. For instance, many kids are home schooled when they somehow don't fit into public school, be they troubled, hyperactive, gifted, whatever. There is no doubt though that a huge portion are home schooled in the name of religious indoctrination.
posted by caddis at 8:00 PM on November 7, 2007

cousincozen = vdare
posted by roll truck roll at 8:07 PM on November 7, 2007 [1 favorite]

It's pretty lame when commenters don't read the crap they're commenting about (and though I did read this particular law review article, I've committed this sin myself).

But it's just ridiculous when the person posting the article hasn't read it.

There are basically two kinds of law review articles. First, there are the ones that comprehensively survey an uncertain area of law and try to assemble something coherent out of the unfolding clusterfuck that Congress, the courts, and executive agencies have shat out. Those are useful, sometimes invaluable.

Second, there are ideologically-driven pieces of shit like the one linked, articles that invent and then "solve" a problem that no one else has ever given a damn about. I don't think anyone actually reads this latter group.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 8:09 PM on November 7, 2007 [1 favorite]

Um, could you please flesh out for me exactly how an article by a 'blond feminist law professor' on home-schooling is connected to some infelicitous remarks by James Watson (who you neglected to mention is a 'grey-haired geneticist notorious for neglecting to mention the foundational work done by his female colleague in his Nobel acceptance speech'); and how both are connected to some spurious data provided by Charles Murray ('balding academic gadfly most famous for positing that blacks are less intelligent than whites and currently employed at a right-wing think tank') about Galileo ('bearded polyglot persecuted by the Catholic Church who has been dead for 365 years')?
posted by googly at 8:17 PM on November 7, 2007 [3 favorites]

FPP's not a total loss. I hadn't known that Galileo was blonde.
posted by straight at 8:22 PM on November 7, 2007

Second, there are ideologically-driven pieces of shit like the one linked, articles that invent and then "solve" a problem that no one else has ever given a damn about. I don't think anyone actually reads this latter group.

I couldn't disagree more. While, I'm not speaking about this law review article in particular (it's 71 pages just not gonna happen tonight), law professors are supposed to come up with ideas and solutions, and many areas of the law have progressed thanks to years and years of the development of soft law (law review articles and uh other stuff that have no actual legal effect). And I would disagree that the state of America's education system and the painfully low standards to which home schooling parents are held by the state is not a problem that doesn't need to solved. I'm not saying this is the way to do it or that it should be handled by the courts and not the legislature, but it's an interesting argument and the type that should be explored in law review articles, by distinguished professors at excellent university, even if they may, god forbid, be female and blonde. Most change and progress starts with a single idea and grows from there, this is the process by which this happens.
posted by whoaali at 8:33 PM on November 7, 2007 [1 favorite]

Ya' know ... the blonde is actually right, IMO.

If states set themselves up as requiring that all children be educated to a minimum level, to the point of prosecuting parents that do not abide by a set of rules, then it cannot logically abdicate all oversight over the education process.

"Hey, you have to send your kids to school! Not sending your kid to school is a form of abuse, for which you could lose your parental rights!"

"But I don't wanna send them to school."

"Well ... uhh ... OK ... nevermind, then ... have fun ..."

I'm horrible at simple arithmetic. If you want a good laugh, just watch me try to balance a checkbook. But apparently, most states think it's A-OK to step back, absolve me of any legal responsibility and merely watch from the sidelines as I teach math to my children, simply because I demand the right to do so.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 8:39 PM on November 7, 2007

I'm horrible at simple arithmetic.

I'll take the liberty of assuming you weren't homeschooled. So you can be a math dunce taught by professionals, too. Worse, better? I'm having a laugh, but I'm also honestly asking.
posted by jonmc at 8:43 PM on November 7, 2007

Kimberley Yuracko, a blonde feminist law professor at Northwestern, has written a paper called Education Off the Grid: Constitutional Constraints on Homeschooling which suggests that the Constitution requires states to regulate what parents teach their children, to prevent racism or sexism.

Legal paper != statute.

Blonde Law professor's opinion != law

Non-blonde Law professor's opinion != law

Your bedsheet-wearing friends at VDare can relax, cousincozen. The First Amendment still protects them.
posted by jason's_planet at 9:03 PM on November 7, 2007

I couldn't disagree more. While, I'm not speaking about this law review article in particular (it's 71 pages just not gonna happen tonight), law professors are supposed to come up with ideas and solutions, and many areas of the law have progressed thanks to years and years of the development of soft law (law review articles and uh other stuff that have no actual legal effect).

"Many" areas? Yeah, that is what they say, but by and large, nobody reads this shit except other academics, if that.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 9:07 PM on November 7, 2007

Man, if I made a MetaFilter post for every crazy proposal I read in a law review article, I wouldn't have time to link to cousincozen's incredibly classy contribution to Urban Dictionary.
posted by Partial Law at 9:16 PM on November 7, 2007