Decision: Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)
Children, Education, and Privacy
-->
-->
| • Discussion Forum | | Do you have an opinion about this page? Make it known on the Discussion Forum! |
|
 |
Does the government interest in the education of children include being able to force all parents to send their children to public schools rather than private schools? Or is there a sphere of privacy around the family which permits parents to make decisions about the education of their children free from government intereference?
Background Information
In November, 1922, the state of Oregon passed the Compulsory Education Act, which required every child from the ages of eight to sixteen to attend 'a public school for the period of time a public school shall be held during the current year' in the district where the child resides; failure so to do was declared a misdemeanor.
This was a relatively unique law in America, having been passed largely due to the efforts of the Ku Klux Klan and the Oregon Scottish Rite Masons. It existed as a testimony to post-World War I fears about Bolshevism and immigrants. In addition to anti-Catholicism, supporters argued that separating students into schools for different religions would lead to dissension and discord - a fear realized in part in Northern Ireland today.
The plaintiff, the Society of Sisters, was an Oregon corporation organized in 1880 and dedicated in part to private education, according to the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church. They brought suit challenging that the law:
...conflicts with the right of parents to choose schools where their children will receive appropriate mental and religious training, the right of the child to influence the parents' choice of a school, the right of schools and teachers therein to engage in a useful business or profession, and is accordingly repugnant to the Constitution and void.
Court Decision
Can the State require all children to attend public schools? In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled on June 1, 1925 against the State and in favor of parents in this case.
According to the Court, the law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment:
...the Act of 1922 unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control. As often heretofore pointed out, rights guaranteed by the Constitution may not be abridged by legislation which has no reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the state. The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only.
The Surpeme Court did, however, indicate that the State has the power to require children to attend some school and the power to regulate schools to ensure that they are doing a good job at education. In this way, the Court affirmed the interest government has in socializing the young to citizenship, but denies nevertheless that the State has a monopoly in this project.
Significance
This decision has had a profound influence on the past 75 years of jurisprudence, influencing virtually every facet of civil liberties development. It emphasized the existence of fundamental rights which are not expressly stated in the actual text of the Constitution, prefiguring later decisions in the realms of privacy, abortion, and more.
-->
No comments:
Post a Comment