Home
United We Stand; Divided We Fall
A response to the Harvard Homeschool “Reform” Summit and
NHELD’s “Open Letter to the Homeschooling Community”
Dear Fellow Homeschoolers,
As many of you now know, Harvard Law School has scheduled an event entitled Harvard Homeschooling Summit on June 18-19, 2020. This invitation-only event will “convene leaders in education and child welfare policy, legislators and legislative staff, academics and policy advocates to discuss child rights in connection with homeschooling in the United States.” Once again, the straw man argument is that homeschooling hides child abuse. The hosts are Elizabeth Bartholet and James Dwyer. Included in the speaker list are several members of the Coalition for Responsible Home Education and CT’s own Child Advocate, Sarah Eagan. Ms Bartholet’s makes it clear that she seeks a presumptive ban on homeschooling. Mr. Dwyer has stated that parental rights are granted by the state and must be exercised by the state. UPDATE: As of May 1, 2020, we have read that the Summit has been canceled, possibly to be rescheduled to 2021.
Having read the summary of Ms Bartholet’s article in the Harvard Magazine, journalists and policy experts are weighing in across the country. While the general consensus has been to point out the outrageousness of these claims in what is still a free republic, some have pointed out that their new boldness in operating out in the open and planning a working session is serious business. We can anticipate legislation in the days ahead. It is a dangerous time, as we see an all-out assault on our parental rights.
At such a time, it is critical that supporters of liberty pull together - in particular those in positions of home education leadership. While homeschool organizations may have their differences, now is the NOT the time to focus on what divides, but what unites us - namely our desire for the unconditional freedom to raise our children as we see fit. Now is the time to work together on effective strategies and lay out actionable items in which everyone can take a part.
It is discouraging therefore to witness Deborah Stevenson of NHELD (National Home Education Legal Defense) and other CT leaders wasting valuable time and leadership potential on social media attacks, calling into question the motives of other organizations, namely HSLDA (Homeschool Legal Defense), despite their 35+ yr history of fighting for homeschool freedom. Perhaps Ms. Stevenson’s goal is to educate, but as we so often see in the political world, the unfortunate result of a negative campaign is stir up confusion and distrust, leading to division. We can’t afford that right now. Or ever.
In NHELD’s “Open Letter to the Homeschool Community” Apr 22, 2020, Deborah Stevenson posited several claims and questions demanding answers. We hope that the following responses and observations can clarify some of the confusion and provide a wider perspective on the important role we all have to play.
1) Concerns about HSLDA’s response to the Summit
HSLDA Atty. Darren Jones first posted about the Harvard Summit on March 24th, 2020.
The success of HSLDA in securing homeschool freedom – and evidence of their motives- is borne out in the fact that one of the sessions is devoted to addressing: The Current Politics: HSLDA Dominance and Tactics . Another speaker, Samantha Field,( who will be sharing the stage with Sarah Eagan), authored “Meet HSLDA, The Most Powerful Religious-Right Lobby You’ve Never Heard Of”
Mr. Jones made the tongue-in-cheek observation:
“A preliminary agenda includes riveting topics …. the Summit looks like a fascinating line-up of speakers, and HSLDA would love to attend. Alas, it’s invitation only, and the exact location is undisclosed.”
It seems he resorted to sarcasm since it appears doubtful they will be invited. Other HSLDA attorneys may have made similar comments. But HSLDA’s position as a target of this conference speaks volumes on whether or not they are to be trusted as a group that promotes homeschool liberties. Is it any wonder that after pursuing and defending our freedoms at the individual and court level-for the past 35 years they would not respond to challenges that question their motives and detract from the serious danger posed by the Harvard speakers? Ms. Stevenson asks why they are not making a stronger statement or “putting up a fight”. It is good to remember at this point that this is a media campaign, not pending legislation. HSLDA has known about most of these organizers for many years, and while they take the threat that this gathering poses seriously, it is not new information. What is clear is that the Summit organizers fear HSLDA as a force to be reckoned with in standing strong for freedom - maybe that is statement enough. The time for the “full frontal attack” will come. Meanwhile, HSLDA has posted a second response here which offers both short and long term strategies for ways that we can work together to help preserve our homeschool freedoms. That sounds like the kind of forward thinking that leads to positive change.
And today, May 1st, HSLDA Atty. Mike Donnelly will be one of the speakers at a zoom meeting at the Harvard Kennedy school to address “Harvard’s ‘disinformation campaign against homeschooling’.”
2) Concerns about Mike Farris/HSLDA’s position on parental rights.
Ms. Stevenson links Atty. Mike Farris (original founder of HSLDA but now with Alliance Defending Freedom) together with HSLDA and the Parental Rights organization as all having a common philosophy around parental rights - probably true. She repeatedly calls into question their commitment to protecting parental rights, particularly in the realm of home education, instead implying that they would rather compromise or hand our parental rights over to the government. Aside from the fact that this is demonstrably at odds with the work to which both Mike Farris and HSLDA have dedicated their lives, it is worth taking a closer look at the following quotes from Mr. Farris which she frequently uses to support this claim:
a) “Parental rights should not be absolute”, and
b)“We certainly do not want to return to the language of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights of 1780 [that said] ‘Parents should have the right to make all decisions for their children”
The quotes are taken from an article by Michael Farris on the Parental Rights website.
It is not long, so we encourage you to read it for yourself: https://parentalrights.org/amendment/why-do-we-need-section-three-if-parental-rights-are-already-considered-inalienable/)
a) As you will see in the article Mr. Farris lays out 3 categories of rights:
He points out that which is understood by most legal scholars - that parental rights must not be absolute but instead belong in “very important” category, because if they were absolute, parents could abuse and neglect their children with immunity from prosecution.
It is also worth examining Ms. Stevenson’s statements from a press release June 6th 2018:
She states, in the context of the Matthew Tirado case, that given evidence that a parent is not acting in the best interest of their child, the state should hold ” a due process hearing to override any lack of consent or cooperation of the parent to order an evaluation of the child’s needs [CGS§§ 17a-101g, 17a-112, 17a-113] …including possibly placing them “in a residential educational setting.”
She goes on to say that DCF ought to “terminate the parental rights of [over] the children” “take temporary custody of children, place children in foster care and have parents arrested and jailed” if they violate truancy laws or abuse their children.
Clearly she believes, along with Mr. Farris (and everyone else against child abuse) that parental rights should not be absolute because there obviously are times when the authority of the parent must be infringed upon or terminated.
So, if parental rights are not absolute, under what circumstances should they be limited or infringed upon? According to Mr. Farris, only when the burden of proof against the parent is exceedingly high:
b) “In light of the fact that parental rights cannot and should not be considered an absolute right, the question remains: Have we chosen the correct method of limitation on this right?
We certainly do not want to return to the language of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights of 1780: ‘Parents should have the right to make all decisions for their children… provided that they are demeaning themselves peaceably and [are] good subjects of the commonwealth.’ I guarantee you that such a rule would let the government run roughshod over every parent that had the courage to defy an improper government edict.”
What is being said then? Why does Mr. Farris NOT want to return to the 1780 law? Because it would make it too easy for government to take parental rights away! He believes parents SHOULD have the right to make decisions for their children, but it should NOT be dependent on such a ill-defined standard.
He goes on to say that a much better precedent to use is that of the Wisconsin v. Yoder case because it elevates parental rights even above the government’s interest in compulsory education - a very high standard indeed. This is the one we would want the courts to turn to in siding with parental rights, especially in the realm of home education.
It would seem that this is the exact OPPOSITE of what Ms. Stevenson has been trying to imply about Mr. Farris’ position.
That is why it is best, as she points out: “Please do your own research. Look up the facts. Read them for yourself. Question everything. Learn about everything. And then make up your mind.”
Space does not permit us to address all the questions raised by Ms. Stevenson, but we hope that clarifies two main concerns and provides a more accurate perspective on the work of these important organizations.
It should be noted here that TEACH has a long and intentional relationship with HSLDA and Deborah Stevenson and CHN, not because we are in lock step with all of their positions but because we trust that at the end of the day we are all fiercely committed to defending the same end - the unconditional right to home educate our children, free from governmental oversight. And this is born out in our history
While Deborah Stevenson and CHN have and do play an important roles in defending our homeschool freedoms in CT, so have many, many other individuals and organizations - all from their respective worldviews, but with the same end in mind. Not one of us can take sole credit, and the minute we think we can, and stop working together, we are in danger.
One recent example of this was SB 874 which arose in February 2019, and would have forced homeschoolers to register with the state. This alarming proposal was buried deep in the Governors budget bill, but HSLDA’s robust bill tracking system was able to pick it up. Because of our close working relationship, they immediately called to warn us. We were able to quickly send out an alert to the CT homeschool community, which gave us a good two week head start to organize a defense. Ordinarily we would also have immediately reached out to NHELD and CHN, but for reasons which are still not clear, they had chosen to block our communications in their group. Thankfully we were all able to get the word out to our respective communities, but the response was not as strong and coordinated as it could have been. Deborah Stevenson then began circulating rumors suggesting that HSLDA was somehow deficient in their response, which further divided the community. These kinds of actions are discouraging because TEACH has worked so long and hard to build bridges and develop strategies for our organizations to represent a unified leadership front.
To be clear, TEACH does not agree with all of the positions that HSLDA holds - their promotion of Google Suite for homeschool groups is one recent example. No one is above critical review, but when we have disagreed, we have addressed them directly, rather than criticize them publicly at every turn, and we evaluate the issue in light of the vastly greater good they have done. In reference to Google Suite, they did consider our concerns and recently thanked us for alerting them to a privacy violation lawsuit against Google. Responding graciously to concerns and make corrections if needed are what you would expect from an organization of integrity.
Here are a couple more claims made by Ms. Stevenson that require clarification:
1) The criteria for joining HSLDA is acceptance of their religious philosophy.
While HSLDA does operate out of a biblical worldview and accordingly requires employees and board members to share that view, they will represent any family irrespective of belief or philosophy.
Incidentally, the scripture verses she references right after that claim are actually from the TEACH website and missing this phrase to provide context.
“Since the filing of a NOI is part of a suggested procedure and not law, it is the decision of the parent(s) whether or not to comply”
2) That HSLDA will not defend divorce cases.
” HSLDA’s primary mission is to protect parents’ legal right to direct their child’s education. When one parent wants to homeschool, and the other does not, it is not for HSLDA to say which parent should be able to determine how the children are educated; if they are challenging each other’s rights, the judge must decide what is best for the children based on the evidence before him”
They have also never made representation conditional upon filing a NOI or following voluntary guidelines.
From the HSLDA website:
“Through the years,[since 1983] HSLDA’s primary goal has remained the same—to bring together a large number of homeschooling families so that each can have a low-cost method of obtaining quality legal defense. Today, HSLDA gives tens of thousands of families the freedom to homeschool without having to face legal threats alone. Through many families sticking together, we have been able to keep the cost of a year’s membership close to the rate that a family would have to pay for an hour of an attorney’s time almost.”
More recently they have begun to push back against over-reaching CPS investigators and rogue state officials and file suit for damages. One such example is a federal civil rights suit filed in 2016 on behalf of a single mom with limited resources against a CPS agency for harassment. They won a $700,000 settlement for her, and sent a strong message to California CPS to think twice before bullying the next homeschooler. In addition to legal and legislative work, they serve members and non-members alike with homeschooling guidance, transcript preparation, special needs help, webinars, homeschool group services, an online academy, research services, charitable assistance and many more programs.
The point is, we hope you will see the value in what HSLDA has accomplished, by God’s providence and in concert with many other organizations across the country, all who have fought valiantly to win and preserve the freedoms that we all enjoy. None of us can do it alone, nor can we expect to build our own house by felling another’s. In the infamous words of Benjamin Franklin:
“We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.”