Shelley Burtt on Honoring Liberal Democratic Ideals

1123 Words3 Pages

Shelley Burtt argues that liberal democratic ideals are best honored when parents are allowed to structure their children’s education through an opt-out option in ways compatible with their religious beliefs. This strong principle of parental deference under which most parental objections to particular aspects of public school curriculum should be both respected and accommodated. Overall I believe her argument is pretty weak and there should be no parents deference when it comes to religious reasons in public schools.
Burtt begins by the article by setting up the arguments of those against parental deference, using a couple of past court cases as an example. Using the thoughts of Amy Gutmann as her basis. Some of the reasons she proposes that are against parental deference are that public schools can’t afford to turn teachers into traffic controllers in an effort to accommodate the various conscientious or religious objections of their students. Then there is also avoiding religious divineness. To excuse students from certain classes because of their religious objections to the material being presented would highlight in an invidious way religious differences that public schools are meant to mute. Accommodating to these concerns would too severely compromise the public school’s civic mission, which is to prepare students for citizenship and encouragement of personal autonomy. She also compare it to the Mozert v. Hawkins County Board of Education case the court also ruled in the case of the school that required students to do some readings.
In the second part of the article Burtt argues the shortcomings of Guttmann’s point of view argues that taking kids out of class does not compromise the public schools civic mission, and tha...

... middle of paper ...

...qual opportunity to all citizens it will allow for the best situation for people no matter if they change beliefs, stay the same, or just drop their beliefs all together.
Public schools might have the constitutional authority to insist on curricular uniformity over parents’ religious objections and they should, no matter the legal situations currently involved. Not only should the option of parental deference not be respected or accommodated, it shouldn’t be allowed at all. I believe that Guttman’s case against paternal deference was stronger than Burtt’s case for. Education in evolution, role elimination, planetary systems are fundamental skills that are essential for the children’s life and society as a whole. Even if parents don’t wish to have their children taught these lessons the State has a right to use paternalism to do what is right for society as a whole.

Open Document