Taking a needed stand for public education

Recently, a school principal in Carman brought a defamation case against a parent who insinuated on social media that the principal promoted the dissemination of child pornography in schools.

The principal’s lawsuit against the parent is more than a matter of personal reputation. It is about upholding human rights and children’s rights. It is about teacher professionalism. It is about the future of public education.

“Parental rights” rhetoric is on the rise, where some parents or lobby groups seek to control the curriculum and books that are available to all students. “Parental rights” activists purposefully employ language about protecting children as rhetorical Teflon, deflecting any criticism.

In doing so, anyone that challenges their views or underlying motivations is positioned as someone who wants to harm children.

Despite this rhetoric, the “parental rights” movement is not interested in recognizing or protecting children. Efforts to remove books and censor curriculum ignore and undermine children’s rights, rights that are enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which Canada ratified in 1991.

Aside from having the right to attend school, children also have the right to books, curriculum, and resources that reflect their full humanity and lived experience. As decreed in the CRC, children have the right to see themselves reflected in the curriculum, to learn about human rights, and to learn to live in a free and diverse society.

This means children have the right to be introduced to views and values beyond those of their parents. Children are not property of their parents, nor are they citizens in waiting; they are already rights holders with “equal and unalienable rights” of their own.

Parents do not have absolute authority over their children.

“Parental rights” is a term that leans on the illusion of common sense, but “parental rights” are not absolute.

While the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does grant parents the right to raise their children according to their own values, it also places reasonable limits on these rights. For example, parents’ rights, where recognized, do not override children’s rights.

In addition, parental rights cannot be used to undermine established human rights in public schools.

People can expect respect and accommodation of their private (religious) values — up to the point that they infringe on the rights of others. Parental rights cannot be used as justification for the endorsement of racist, homophobic, or transphobic views or for the erasure of LGBTTQ+ perspectives and experiences.

Public schools have a responsibility to uphold — and reflect — public values, namely those outlined in provincial human rights legislation, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Moreover, public schools cannot curate curriculum to mirror the values of individual parents — especially in a diverse society. Doing so would be unfeasible, deny students the opportunity to engage with perspectives beyond their house-holds, and risk endorsing views that undermine human rights.

A common tactic of the “parental rights” movement is to attack teachers, curriculum, and public schools using provocative and ultimately harmful claims.

Just as they exploit the language of child protection to shut down debate, proponents of “parental rights” also attack teachers with charged terms like ideology and brainwashing, aiming to stir fear and distrust. Like the case in Carman, we have seen them launch far worse accusations at educators, calling them pedophiles and groomers.

By flippantly throwing around these terms, this movement is creating a chilling effect, eliciting fear in teachers who then become more cautious about teaching books and curriculum that may be deemed “contentious.”

This is a form of soft censorship, where teachers opt against using so-called controversial materials for fear of these false and outrageous accusations, all of which ultimately restricts curriculum and denies students their rights to rich and diverse perspectives. The result is that people, topics, and themes are being erased from the curriculum. In other words, the curriculum is being undemocratically censored by a small minority of parents — or worse, by lobby groups using the facade of parenthood.

This censorship is precisely their intent — to control what is happening in classrooms by creating a culture of fear. When “parental rights” propagandists challenge teaching about gender and sexuality, consent, systemic injustice, and diverse lived experiences, it creates a climate of uncertainty and pressure for educators. No teacher wants to be the target of the next social media campaign.

Certainly, many teachers are standing up for their students and their professionalism, but the constant assaults take a toll.

While genuine queries from parents and guardians about school curriculum and classroom pedagogy are a welcome and expected part of public schools, the “parental rights” movement weaponizes and fabricates cultural conflicts to undermine public trust in public education.

It is a movement that is intentionally trying to stir anxieties about public education to motivate and rationalize divestment and encourage alternatives.

We need to be very careful where this leads; as education historian Jack Schneider chillingly reminds us, if we lose public education, we aren’t getting it back.

As these attacks intensify and spread across the nation, educators need strong backing — from school leaders, teacher unions, government, and parents, including the often-silent majority who believe students deserve public schools that invite diverse perspectives, uphold human rights, recognize children’s rights, and represent broad lived experiences.

At first glance, this case in Carman may appear to be a case about one educator standing up for their personal reputation, but it is really a case about the reputation and preservation of public education.

» Shannon D.M. Moore is an associate professor in the faculty of education, University of Manitoba. Melanie D. Janzen is a professor at in the faculty of education, University of Manitoba. This column was first published in the Winnipeg Free Press,