Every year, 'progressive' ideologues seem to get increasingly extreme in their schemes for government control over our lives. This is especially evident in academia.. James G DwyerJames G Dwyer .One clear example is a book about homeschooling that was released in 2019 from the University of Chicago Press. This book, Homeschooling: The History and Philosophy of a Controversial Practice, is co-authored by James G. Dwyer and Shawn F. Peters. Dwyer is a legal philosopher at the William & Mary School of Law and Peters is a historian at the University of Wisconsin-Madison..The first few chapters of this book discuss the history of homeschooling in the United States, while the subsequent chapters offer a far-left philosophical perspective on the roles of parents and the state in the lives of children, especially with regards to education..In essence, this book proposes a philosophy of God-like powers for the state. According to Dwyer and Peters, there are no parental rights in education, or in anything else regarding children for that matter. Even custody of children for the birth parents is simply a provisional privilege, granted by the state..That is, in their view when a child is born all authority over decisions for the child is vested in the state. The state, recognizing children need to be cared for by adults, will select some adults and deem those adults to be the “legal parents.”. Shawn F PetersShawn F Peters .As the authors put it, “the state chooses legal parents for them.” The state will often — but not necessarily — choose the birth parents..In Dwyer’s and Peters’ view, children are placed into family relationships by the state. How do adults become parents in their scheme? The state matches them with children, albeit provisionally. Someone’s role as a parent is “merely a legal privilege” which can be terminated “without recourse.”.The custody of children is not only granted by the state, but is continually reviewed by state officials to determine if the parents can maintain custody. That is, parents are monitored to ensure compliance with the state’s agenda. As Dwyer and Peters put it, the state places “each child into the legal custody of particular persons” and “continually” renews “that placement.”.In effect, every family is an artificial construct of the state that can be altered or abolished according to the dictates of government officials. Each family is regularly evaluated by “professionals” to ensure the parents are continuing to meet the state’s expectations for its children..As one would expect, Dwyer and Peters believe the state has complete and unchallenged authority over the education of all children. As they put it, “The state must be the ultimate decision maker as to the aims of schooling.”.Parents have no option but to ensure that their children receive a state-mandated education. Otherwise, the children will be apprehended and delivered to others who will comply with the state’s requirements: “When it selects people to serve as legal parents, whether those persons are biological parents or not, the state must insist that they accept that the child will receive an education that the state deems adequate. If they are not willing to accept that, then the state should choose other parents for the child from among the millions of people wishing to adopt a child.”.Dwyer and Peters are essentially proposing a police state, at least as it pertains to child-rearing, education and family life. Ironically, they developed their scheme in the name of protecting children..Since children must be cared for, there will always be adults in authority over them. In free countries like Canada and the United States, it is the parents who have this authority, along with the rights to make decisions about the children’s upbringing and education..However, far-left ideologues, like Dwyer and Peters, want to vastly expand and strengthen the power of government by transferring authority over children to the state. In this way, every child would be raised in accordance with “progressive” ideals and instructed in “progressive” ideology..Is it just me, or does this sound like tyranny?.Although their proposal is obviously extreme and not about to be implemented any time soon, it is very “progressive” and therefore in tune with the cultural direction of North American society. In the near future, the popularity of these kinds of ideas could expand beyond the far-left fringes of academia and become a direct threat to every family and every freedom-loving citizen. A society along the lines proposed by Dwyer and Peters would clearly be a totalitarian nightmare.
