What is the state’s role in raising the next generation? Can parents be trusted to bring up children without interference from government? Put this way, many people would likely say that no one, particularly not the state, should be in the business of telling parents how to be parents. However the state clearly does have some interest in how children are raised. To take an obvious example, the rights of children not to be physically or mentally abused are protected over and above any rights a parent might claim.

This principle is applied even in the face of strongly held religious beliefs, as demonstrated by the tragic case of Madeline Neumann, who died earlier this year
from a treatable diabetic attack. Her parents stood by while her symptoms worsened, refusing to take her to a doctor, insisting that prayer along could heal her (Glauber, 2008). They were charged with second-degree reckless homicide, with the district attorney saying “In this case, it was necessary to weigh freedom of religion and parenting rights against the state’s interests in protecting children” (Glauber, 2008).

The principle at work here is clear; you are free to hold any religious beliefs you wish, but if these beliefs result in the suffering or death of your child, then the state may hold you accountable. But what about the beliefs? They tend to run in families (Myers, 2006) - to follow the above example, children raised in a household that believes prayer to be more effective than medicine are more likely to hold this potentially destructive belief themselves, even into adulthood. If this is true, a fundamental question related to the problem with families, is whether parents should have an absolute right to indoctrinate their children with whatever beliefs they see fit. Or whether some attention should be paid to the potential consequences of those beliefs, for the children themselves and for wider society.

An extreme, but pressing illustration of this problem can be seen in the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. The radicalisation of young Muslims is dependant on a wide variety of factors (Department for Communities and Local Government, 2007). However, for many, this process can be facilitated by an emphasis within the home on traditional Muslims values, portrayed as in conflict with ‘decadent’ Western ideas. Such an outlook, with its attendant increased risk of radicalisation, is clearly potentially destructive; both for the bearer, and others.

So should parents be allowed to inculcate such beliefs in their children? Allowed to make the task easier for those who would recruit them to jihad? I believe the answer is ‘Yes’. It is not, and should never be, the business of the state to prevent the communication of ideas, whether it be within the family or outside it. Rather than attempting to silence these ideas, what the state can, and should do is set out its stall in opposition to them. Public education of children provides the ideal means to do so.

The law in this country (and many others) requires that all children be educated (eg British Government 1996, pt.1, ch.1, s.7), and with time and expense putting home schooling out of reach for most families, this effectively amounts to a law requiring almost all children to attend school. To stick with the example of opposing Islamic fundamentalism, the state may use this time, when they have children’s compulsory attention, to set forth the arguments in favour of the values of secular democracy.

The idea of the state preaching values in the classroom makes many people uncomfortable, myself included. However, as a society there are some ideals we have determined as objectively true. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a global expression of the rights of all human beings, everywhere. It is a mark in the sand that says we have decided; that free speech is better than enforced silence; that equality of rights for all is better than differentially according rights based on sex, race, religion, or sexuality (Kurtz & Lindsay, 2008). If we do indeed hold to these truths, then we should have no qualms about teaching children that we do, and why we do. If we do not teach these core values because we view them as potentially controversial, then we should give up now, because this is a battle of ideas we have already lost.

Islamic fundamentalism is an extreme example; there are more subtle issues in which parental control over what children learn might conflict with the interests of society as a whole. A recent example is the growing conflict between science and religion in the classroom. In the US, well-funded organisations attempt to smuggle religion into science classes, under the thin veil of ‘intelligent design’ (Goldenberg, 2005). In the UK, perceived public pressure encouraged the former head of education of the Royal Society to suggest that teachers address religious ideas in science lessons (Sample, 2008). Much of the support for such proposals comes from parents who do not wishfor their children to be exposed to scientific truths that contradict their deeply held religious beliefs.

What is the solution to this problem? Should parents be permitted to pick and choose what knowledge their child is exposed to whilst in school? Should teachers be required to tiptoe around religious beliefs for fear of offending students and parents? Absolutely not. Again I will say that it is not the place of the state to intervene in what is taught in the home. However it should be the role of the state to educate children to the best of its ability. This means not watering down painstakingly acquired and verified knowledge, for fear of causing offence by contradicting ancient religious texts.

A proper appreciation for the scientific method is more essential now than ever. The coming years will bring many issues to the forefront, including genetic profiling, enhancement technology, GM foods, stem cell research, and alternative energy production. State level decisions on these issues will require an electorate that is not only familiar with basic scientific principles, but also capable of assessing what constitutes evidence for a scientific claim. Does the evidence show that this or that alternative energy source works, or not? Do GM foods cause harmful side effects, or do they not? The list goes on. Failing to equip our future generations with the tools to answer these, and other questions, would be a mistake with significant long-term ramifications.

This means that parents should not be permitted to cocoon their children away from certain branches of knowledge. Human beings are primed to assimilate best
information that confirms what they already believe (Lord, Ross, & Lepper, 1979). They are also primed to socialise primarily with people they agree with (Sutherland, 2007). This means it can be extraordinarily difficult to change anyone’s mind about anything, particularly after they have reached adulthood. It is therefore vital that children be exposed to a multiplicity ideas and opinions throughout their education, and to ensure that they are equipped with the tools of science and reason to help them sort fact from fiction.

This view stands in direct opposition to the present government’s moves towards allowing parents more choice in how their children are educated. Faith schools and academies, permitted to teach their own, evidence free, curricula, allow parents the opportunity to shield their children from opinions that they themselves disagree with. This is not an exercise that could be called education; it simply reinforces existing prejudices, and ensures that these children will likely leave school with a fixed, fundamentalist mindset, inoculated against evidence and argument. There are some things that society needs children to be taught. Things like the ideals of tolerance and free speech. Things like the value of reason and evidence. Allowing families the right to choose not to have their children exposed to these things benefits no one.

Of course this leaves open the question of whether government itself can be trusted to choose wisely when deciding what should be included in a universal public education. The present government has already made a significant misstep in this area, when ministers called for children to be taught the ‘core British values’ of tolerance and free speech (Eason, 2007). The mistake here, of course, is not the teaching of values, but the labelling of them as ‘British’. As many critics pointed out at the time, Britain does not have a monopoly on free speech and tolerance; these are values that many people of all nations hold as universal.

Governments are composed of people. These people are, to understate the case massively, imperfect. They will make mistakes, and taking choice in education out of the hands of parents and placing it in theirs will amplify the consequences of these mistakes. That’s why the final choice must lie with the electorate. Ideas about universal education should be part of the platform of political parties, letting parents (along with everyone else) decide what’s best. And if they decide on moral relativism and creationism in science classes then we should accept that, because that’s what living in a democracy means. But we shouldn’t shut up about it, because that’s what democracy means too.

It is worth noting here that many people believe that the views and values commonly depicted as ‘traditionally’ Muslim, are in fact a relatively recent interpretation of the faith, promulgated by some influential groups within the religion. However, despite perhaps being a recent innovation, these beliefs are promoted as traditional by the groups in question, and therefore, when they are accepted, are accepted as such. I believe that this justifies my use of ‘traditional’ here, although there is scope for legitimate disagreement on this point.

References
British Government 1996, Education Act 1996.
Department for Communities and Local Government, 2007. The Role of Muslim Identity Politics in Radicalisation (a study in progress). Viewed 20 September 2008,
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/452628.pdf
Eason, G 2007, ‘ Britishness lessons ‘fuel racism’’, BBC News, 7 April, p.1, viewed 20 September 2008, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6535089.stm
Glauber, B 2008. ‘Parents charged in diabetes death’, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 28 April, p.1, viewed 20 September 2008,
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=744614
Goldenberg, S 2005, ‘US Judge bans intelligent design from science lessons’, Guardian, 21 December, p.1, viewed 20 September 2008,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/dec/21/evolution.schoolsworldwide
Kurtz, P & Lindsay, R 2008, Islam and human rights, viewed 20 September 2008,
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/ISLAM_AND_HUMAN_RIGH TS_REPORT.pdf
Lord, C, Ross, L & Lepper, M 1979, ‘Biased assimilation and attitude polarisation:the effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence’, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 37, pp.2098-109.
Myers, S 2006, ‘An interactive model of religiosity inheritance: The importance of family context’, American Sociological Review, vol.31, no.5, pp.858-866.
Sample, I 2008, ‘Reiss resigns over call to discuss creationism in science lessons’, Guardian, 16 September, p.1, viewed 30 September 2008,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/sep/16/michael.reiss.resignation
Sutherland, S 2007, Irrationality, Pinter & Martin, London.