Although U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo) had good intentions introducing a parent’s bill of rights, at least one expert foresees a downside.
“What you're doing is opening Pandora's box for the court system,” said Mary Byrne, who holds a doctorate in education from Teacher's College at Columbia University in Manhattan. “A better alternative might be legislation directing the FBI to respect the rights of parents to determine the appropriate education for their children rather than open that Pandora's box for judges in the courts.”
Hawley introduced his Parents' Bill of Rights on Nov. 4 with the intent of protecting the right of parents to know what their children are being taught, who is teaching them, and which organizations are receiving school contracts.
“It will also protect parents’ right to show up and check on their kids and be involved,” said Hawley in a tweet on Twitter. “Parents aren’t the problem. They are the solution.”
As previously reported, California Republican Kevin McCarthy, who is also House Minority Leader, announced a similar proposal on Nov. 3.
“I think they are probably under a great deal of pressure to do something,” Byrne told the St. Louis Record. “Parents here in my area of the state are very concerned about the overzealous reaction of the Department of Justice towards the anger of parents who are dealing with unresponsive school boards.”
Last month, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland directed the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s offices to convene with local law enforcement nationwide at the federal and state level to address a rise in threats of violence against school board members, teachers, and staff in public schools.
“Threats against public servants are not only illegal, but they also run counter to our nation’s core values,” said Garland in a statement online. “Those who dedicate their time and energy to ensuring that our children receive a proper education in a safe environment deserve to be able to do their work without fear for their safety.”
Byrne said there is the concern in conservative circles that writing a bill of rights will expand government involvement.
“Judges assume power and that's the problem we're having in the current system of checks and balances is that even judges have to be taught to respect freedom,” Byrne said. “That's the downside of this parents' bill of rights and we always have to consider the downside.”
Instead of legislating parents' rights, Byrne said she would rather create a culture in which liberty is the default position and the government limits itself.
“That should be the default position,” she said. ‘We shouldn't have to draw the picture of what freedom looks like. I would recommend legislation limiting the power of the government and respecting what's already implicit in our constitution rather than expanding government. That's what a bill of parental rights would mean is an expansion of government.”