Federal Judge rules "No fundamental right to literacy"

[Gawdzilla Sama]

https://www.freep.com/story/news/educati...748052002/

So we now live in a country where you are guaranteed the right to buy a murder weapon designed specifically to murder people... but learning to read and write?  Well that's not a right at all!

As a teacher, parent, and human being--this makes me want to shake this judge as hard as I possibly can.  And this country, for that matter.  Literacy should be a fundamental right.  But I guess we want really do want to turn America into a third world country.

The Grim Old Party depends on people being ignorant.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

When it comes to human rights we are largely full of shit.  We like to lecture other countries but they have long since figured out how hypocritical we are.  And now, with orange shitgibbon in the WH there is no longer even a pretense.

It amazes me that the other countries sit like a bunch of dummies while the US rants about their behavior.

[henryp]

If you have a school filled with kids with behavioral problems, learning disabilities, and no parental support, you're going to have a high rate of failure.

Calling success in school a right is a bit unrealistic.

[Joods]

I'm sorry, but that would be an incredibly weak argument even if it were true.  The fact is that the line about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness comes from the Declaration of Independence, not the constitution.  So it is not in any sense binding law.  If it were a part of the constitution, it's not necessarily the case that literacy would be guaranteed as a result of those inalienable rights, as literacy doesn't appear to be a prerequisite for obtaining any of them.  One might be more successful in pursuing happiness if one is literate, but it doesn't guarantee the successful pursuit of happiness, only that one, ostensibly, cannot be forbidden from pursuing it.

As to Article 26, beyond what Rev said, the guarantee of an education only mandates that one should be provided, not the specifics or accomplishments of such an education.  As the article quoted in the OP says, that's left to more local powers to decide.

Actually, the 14th Amendment equal protection clause requires that when a state establishes a school district, they must not deny any child living in that state, access to the school system. And since AF has seen a number of threads about immigrants crossing the US/Mexico border, the 14th Amendment would, interestingly enough include undocumented persons living in that state. 

Education and the 14th Amendment - Constitutional Rights Foundation:

In 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of a group of children of undocumented workers who had been denied free public schooling by the state of Texas. 

[b]The Background of Plyler v. Doe
[/b]
In May 1975, the Texas state legislature passed a law authorizing school districts to deny enrollment to children who had not been "legally admitted" into the United States. Under this law, Texas school districts could either bar from the schools the children of illegal aliens or charge them tuition. The Tyler Independent School District in Smith County chose the second option.
Several federal court lawsuits were filed against the Texas law. The first was a class-action suit filed in 1977 by legal defense attorneys on behalf of "certain school-age children of Mexican origin residing in Smith County, Texas, who could not establish that they had been legally admitted into the United States." A federal district court ruled in 1977 and again in 1980 that the state law violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. An injunction (court order) barred the state and the Tyler school board from denying free public schooling to the undocumented immigrant children. A federal appeals court in 1981 agreed with the lower court rulings. The Tyler school board and school superintendent, James Plyler, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)

By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court decided:

1. The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment applies "to anyone, citizen or stranger" residing within a state's boundaries. The children in this case were within the jurisdiction of the state and were thus protected by the 14th Amendment. 
   
   
   
2. The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment requires Texas and the Tyler Independent School District to provide free public schooling to the children of undocumented immigrants on an equal basis with the other children in the state and school district.
   

Writing for the majority, Justice William Brennan concluded: "We cannot ignore the significant social costs borne by our Nation when select groups are denied the means to absorb the values and skills upon which our social order rests."

Writing for the four dissenters, Chief Justice Warren Burger stated: "By definition, illegal aliens have no right whatever to be here, and the state may reasonably, and constitutionally, elect not to provide them with governmental services at the expense of those who are lawfully in the state."

emphasis mine. 

Furthermore - even with the Constitution set aside, there are laws protecting the education of certain US citizens, such as disabled children under the age of 21. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, fully supports FAPE, which stands for Free Appropriate Public Education. That term comes from Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which states the following: 

(a) Promulgation of rules and regulations


No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States, as defined in section 705 (20) of this title, shall, solely by reason of his or her disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance or under any program or activity conducted by any Executive agency or by the United States Postal Service. The head of each such agency shall promulgate such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the amendments to this section made by the Rehabilitation, Comprehensive Services, and Development Disabilities Act of 1978. Copies of any proposed regulations shall be submitted to appropriate authorizing committees of the Congress, and such regulation may take effect no earlier than the thirtieth day after the date of which such regulation is so submitted to such committees.

(b) "Program or activity" defined
For the purposes of this section, the term "program or activity" means all of the operations of --
(1)(A) a department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or of a local government; or
(B) the entity of such State or local government that distributes such assistance and each such department or agency (and each other State or local government entity) to which the assistance is extended, in the case of assistance to a State or local government;
(2)(A) a college, university, or other postsecondary institution, or a public system of higher education; or
(B) a local educational agency (as defined in section 8801 of Title 20), system of vocational education, or other school system;

red mine for emphasis. 

All Public schools receive Title IV funding (Federal funding), therefore they are not allowed, by federal law, to discriminate against child with a disability. So even if you were to still agree with the judge, you'd be wrong to do so. Every child - disabled or not - has the right to receive a Free Appropriate Public Education. 

Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) is an educational right of all children in the United States that is guaranteed by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

Bottom line: Literacy, which is reading, which is required in all educational programs in public schools, is an educational right. I don't know how the laws or the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution can be more clear. So, no - this judge did not have the right to rule the way he did. I hope that the case gets appealed to the SCOTUS and that they actually do something right for a change and hear the case.

---

If you have a school filled with kids with behavioral problems, learning disabilities, and no parental support, you're going to have a high rate of failure.

Calling success in school a right is a bit unrealistic.

Actually, the No Child Left Behind act ensures you are wrong. While I don't agree with some parts of the act, I do agree with the premise of it; that as far as educational standards go, no child be left behind. 

And as I said in my other post, all public schools receive Title IV funding. Because they do, if they want to continue receiving those federal funds, the children must be at or above certain educational standards set forth by State Educational Agencies. IDEA ensures that children with disabilities - including behavioral problems - get all the help they need from our educational system. 

FYI - I am an educational advocate for my area. I help parents who have special needs children, when the public schools want to deny their children their educational rights.

[Anomalocaris]

I can't say that I disagree with the ruling.  Educational opportunity might be a right, seeing that it is a matter of law.  However, we can't elevate everything to the level of a right just because it's desirable.

Right is nothing more than desirability sanctified.

In this case, to admit something is desirable but to deny that it is a right is clearly a but a bit of rhetorical gymnastic to excuse the denying to some people, and not solely out of concern for practicality, of what is extremely desirable so as to enable others to gain more of what is even more of what is even further from a right.

[Minimalist]

If you have a school filled with kids with behavioral problems, learning disabilities, and no parental support, you're going to have a high rate of failure.

Calling success in school a right is a bit unrealistic.

That's right. We're Americans and apparently we can't do jack shit anymore. You must be so proud.

[Anomalocaris]

If you have a school filled with kids with behavioral problems, learning disabilities, and no parental support, you're going to have a high rate of failure.

Calling success in school a right is a bit unrealistic.

If you have a World filled with viruses, bacteria,  accidents, and acts of god, so to speak. you're going to have a high rate of death.

Calling life a right is a bit unrealistic.

[GUBU]

As other people have said, I could have sworn people actually did have a fundamental right by law to this stuff. How are you going to hold a job without learning how to read or write? Or do much of anything as an adult? It's not just desirable. It's necessary.

In the USs future, as desired by republitraitors the vast majority of jobs are going to be Mcjobs where illiterate peons push colour coded buttons 20 hours a dayfor the princely wage of five cents an hour.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I propose a new amendment to your Constitution, Amendment Number WhateverNumberItIsYou'reUpToNow:

'Litracey iss ay phundimentle rite and shell knot bee deenyed two enywon.'

Next problem, please.

Boru

[Angrboda]

I can't say that I disagree with the ruling.  Educational opportunity might be a right, seeing that it is a matter of law.  However, we can't elevate everything to the level of a right just because it's desirable.

Right is nothing more than desirability sanctified.

In this case, to admit something is desirable but to deny that it is a right is clearly a but a bit of rhetorical gymnastic to excuse the denying to some people, and not solely out of concern for practicality, of what is extremely desirable so as to enable others to gain more of what is even more of what is even further from a right.

I don't agree with your theory of rights. In some sense, rights are simply privilege, sanctified. However, we don't consider all privilege worthy of such elevation, so there is more to something being a right than mere desirability. Not having considered the question at any length, I'm unsure what that something is and simply note that we do distinguish between things that are rights and ordinary desirables, and thus your argument encompasses an incomplete and over-simplified conception of rights. So no, I wouldn't agree that the distinction is merely one of mental gymnastics, or at least, is not apparently so. Given our intuitive distinction of the nature of rights, unless you have some explicit condemnation of the reasoning employed, I don't buy your argument. It's merely a hand wave to attempt to dismiss a result you don't like.