Wisconsin v. Yoder
In Wisconsin v. Yoder, the court takes great care in understanding the detrimental harms the child will face if they are required to attend secondary school or a level of higher education created by the state. The Amish community has lived in separation and isolation, as a self-self-sufficient society since the beginnings of the religion. The state required that all children living in the state’s domain must attend public or private school until the age of sixteen (3). By forcing children who have no sense of an outside world to attend an institution whose very nature is to educate the young with worldly influences, the sanity of the Amish child is being put in danger (3)(6). Their community is based upon faith and harvest rather than obtaining knowledge (6). In Old Order Amish communities, they must live a life where their church and home are separated from outside influence (5). By sending their children to secondary school, Amish parents believed the sanctity of their salvation would be threatened (4). During adolescence, Amish children begin to learn their roles in their community, attending a school they would be wasting time that would alternatively be spent learning the values and culture of their religion which directly impacts the life they will be living (6). This period is deemed crucial to the growth of the child from adolescent to adult while allowing the children to obtain an elementary education does not harm this process but rather teaches them skills that are necessary for the child’s future (6). By attending an Amish school they will be learning manual skills that would enable them to become functioning members of the Amish society and to follow suit of their elders to keep the Amish way of life.
The court ruled that the mental well-being of the child must be put before the demands of the state; if state rules endanger a child, they are not constitutional under the first and fourteenth amendments (3). To supplement state instruction, the Amish children would attend classes that would be beneficial to integrate them into the Amish culture (4). Justice Burger uses expert testimony to show how there would be harmful effects to the children of the Amish community if they were forced to go to a public high school (6). These public schools are also not equipped to handle the inclusion of an Amish child in their classroom and be able to integrate them (6).
My argument against the court’s decision in Wisconsin v. Yoder is that there was not enough emphasis on the rights of the child. Much of the case does focus on the child’s mental and religious well-being when forced to attend higher education but does not focus on the child’s own rights when deciding if they should attend. The court focuses on the parent’s wishes and their own religious rights and makes the claim that since a child’s emotional state is in jeopardy, the act of forcing them into higher education is not constitutional. What we fail to establish is the religious wishes of the child. The Wisconsin v. Yoder case is a great example of the infringement of the rights of a third party that has no say in the decision and may receive detrimental consequences because of it. For the laws that were enacted resulting from this case to be truly constitutional, there must be a clause acknowledging the choices of the child, not just the adult.
Justice Douglas, who wrote the dissenting opinion in Wisconsin v. Yoder, would agree with my argument. His dissent differs from mine in that I think we should add a greater focus on the mental well-being of the child and not just of that of religious liberties since that is what the majority opinion believes plays an important role in the ruling of the case. His analysis though of religious liberties plays a pivotal role in the discussion of children in religion. Every person has their own beliefs and has their own relationship with their religion (17). A parent would not be able to truly decide what experiences would negatively impact their child’s religious experience when religion is one person’s relationship with faith (17). The child, however, would have the power to decide, since they are in charge of their own growth when it comes to religion. We are seeing in our current political climate, the rise of youth fighting for their beliefs. They have the freedom under the first amendment to act upon these beliefs and to shape their future. I think if we can deem the teenagers marching in the streets for their rights, we should allow that same discretion to children who wish to have an education outside of their religion.
Justice Burger would respond to my argument that through education is important to the well-being of society and to individual persons since the Amish do not participate in most of a state’s society, their lack of higher education would not affect the greater good of the state. “There is no doubt as to the power of a State, having a high responsibility for the education of its citizens, to impose reasonable regulations for the control and duration of basic education
(7).” The importance of education is directly correlated to creating a functioning society if a group lives outside of society’s bounds it is not required that they are educated if they deem education unnecessary for their survival. A parent is able to impose this idea onto their child and has a right to deem certain acts detrimental to the child’s greater good. Until a child reaches adulthood they wouldn’t be deemed fit to make choices related to their future, especially ones that would have a significant impact on the child’s mental health if chosen wrongly. “A majority of the court was of the opinion that the State had failed to make an adequate showing that its interest in ‘establishing and maintaining an educational system overrides the defendants' right to the free exercise of their religion (7).” The defendants meaning the parents of the child but not the child themselves interests are at the pinocle of Justice Burger’s claims.
I believe that Justice Burger has a good point, but misses the main basis of his own argument. If a child at the age of thirteen wishes to keep attending school, but their parents take them out for religious reasons, that child’s mental health and freedom are being infringed upon. Who are we to deny a person’s a right to an education? Especially if the person’s involved believed that the decisions they make are in their best interest. Some students may be aware by the age of adolescence of their own personal religious beliefs; some of which may not align with the religion they were raised in. “Power of parent to educate child, even when linked to a free exercise claim, may be subject to limitation if it appears that parental decisions will jeopardize the health or safety of the child, or have a potential for significant social burdens (3).” If this is the case as seen in the constitution, children would be stripped of religious freedom by their parents when forced to attend school in the Amish community and not given the opportunity of a choice. If forcing a child to attend secondary school is hurting the free exercise of their beliefs than forcing a child to not attend secondary school has the same result. The freedoms of the child are being taken away by their parent’s want of their own personal religious freedoms.
When addressing free exercise of religion we must remain diligent in our focus on the third party that is most affected by the decisions of the court. If we are to put the mental health of a child and the sanctity of their religion we must allow them to make decisions that coincide with these issues. If the free exercise of religion is of importance in a case that involves a parent and a child, we must focus on not just the parent’s religious freedoms but those of the child.