Who Owns the Children with Guns?

Can a school tell parents what their kids can do outside of school?  On private property?

Conservatives say no.  But they seem to say no for very different reasons.

Conservative intellectuals argue that the state must not overreach.  The average conservative-in-the-street, however, seems to cling to ancient notions that children are not persons.  At least that’s the message we hear in one story from Virginia Beach.

This is a story that has attracted its share of media attention.  According to NBC News, a school district suspended three middle-schoolers for shooting other students with toy pellet guns.  The students were not at school with the toy guns, but rather waiting for the school bus.

Virginia Beach School Board Chairman Daniel D. Edwards defended the decision.  “This is not an example of a public educator overreaching,” Edwards insisted in a public statement.

Conservative commentator Charles E. Cooke demurs.  In the pages of The National Review, Cooke blasts the school decision as a typical and terrifying example of “tyranny.”  School, Cooke insists, has no role in punishing students for something that occurred outside of school, on private property.  “In free societies,” Cooke argues,

schools are not designed to serve as a mandatory means by which the Bismarckian state may seek to shape the young, but instead to act merely as a service to which parents can choose to send their kids for basic education if they so wish.

Cooke’s essay illustrates this key tenet of conservative thinking, a central reason why today’s conservatives are so keen on educational issues.  Many American conservatives these days yearn for a smaller government.  School is one of the most commonly encountered faces of government.  As a result, school becomes the target of conservative ire.  Even more complicated, schooling for the young is mandatory.  Along with taxes, schooling is one of the most common ways government tells Americans directly what they must do.

This story also dishes up a very different example of the complicated ways Americans tend to think of children and schooling.  According to WAVY.com, one of the parents of the children involved insisted that her child was her property, at least until he got on the bus.  “My son is my private property,” Solangel Caraballo told the local TV station.  “He does not become the school’s property until he goes to the bus stop, gets on the bus, and goes to school.”

Caraballo’s outrage doesn’t come from the same intellectual tradition as that of Cooke’s.  Cooke worries about an overreaching state.  Caraballo, on the other hand, is perfectly willing to have the state assert ownership of her child, but only once the kid gets on the bus.  Until then, the kid is private property, wholly owned by his parents.

What are we to make of this kind of thinking?  If children are private property, what does that mean about their rights?  If they are not property, how can they be kept from voting (not until age 18 in the USA), or driving (not until @ 16), or drinking alcohol (not until 21)?  If they are not property, how can they legally be forced to attend school if they don’t wish to?  What sort of legal twilight zone do children inhabit, not fully legal persons, yet something different from a washing machine or a pair of pants?

Most important, how common is this kind of thinking?  How many Americans continue the ancient tradition of thinking of their children as their property?  Of thinking of their children as property at all, property that they can transfer to the control of the school?






Leave a comment

1 Comment

  1. This is a very common form of thinking in homeschooling circles. “Children belong their parents, not the state” is a common argument I remember. No where was it mentioned that children actually belong to themselves. In fact, my parents believed that I belonged to them and was still “under their authority” once I was an adult, and until I was married. At that point, I would have belonged to my husband. Sad for them, I turned out to be a lesbian!

    But all laughing aside, this mindset is very destructive. It is a strong motivator for parents to hunker down in isolation with their children to protect their property and it mingles in very nicely with the hyper-conservative “the government is out to steal my money, my guns, and my children” extremism. A deep, deep distrust of anything remotely related to government is part of the root of this, but so is the idea that children are property. Popular figures in the movement like Michael Farris have been advocating for a “parental rights” amendment to the constitution and fought the “rights of the child” international treaty (successfully… the US is now one of only a handful of U.N. members that has not ratified it) based on this premise: that the parent’s rights always supercede the government, and the rights of the child do not exist, for children belong to their parents. So this mindset is not exactly fringe and harmless. It is shaping US policy. Pretty sad, if you ask me.


Leave a Reply to galacticexplorer Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: