One of the first things you learn as a teacher’s assistant in the school systems today is that the parent is the poison and the school system is the cure. It’s a nasty way of saying what the school administrators believe to be the truth: that the parents are literally polluting their children’s minds with the wrong ideas and it’s the job of the teachers to set the children’s minds straight. If, in the case that they cannot set the minds straight, then by all mean, set the CPS dogs loose to mop up the situation.
Michelle Malkin of CRTV first exposed Dwyer’s radical philosophy in an interview where he told her:
The state needs to be the ultimate guarantor of a child’s well-being. There’s just no alternative to that.
The reason that parent-child relationship exists is because the state confers legal parenthood on people through its paternity and maternity laws.
That’s the state that empowers parents to do anything with children, to take them home, to have custody, and to make any kind of decisions about that.
As alarming as his words are, it is clear that his ideas carry influence.
One of Dwyer’s books was the required text for Bartholet’s class on Family Law at Harvard Law School. According to the class syllabus, posted online, the discussion on the first day of class was “State Creation of Parent-Child Relationships,” followed by the “Assignment of Children to their First Legal Parents” on day 2.
In just 2 days of class, students learned philosophies about the role of parents that are antithetical to all of American historical teaching, as well as the cultural, religious, and historical beliefs of virtually every society in the world.
The professors worked together in 2013 to lecture on “Child Advocacy Program – Art of Social Change: Child Welfare, Education, & Juvenile Justice.”
Professor Bartholet alluded to Dwyer’s work in a 52-page paper published in the Buffalo Law Review, entitled, “Creating a Child-Friendly Child Welfare System: Effective Early Intervention to Prevent Maltreatment and Protect Victimized Children.”
In it, she argued against diligent efforts toward family preservation. She posed a question:
A child-friendly system would be interested in finding out whether maltreated children would do better in a system in which their parents are provided voluntary services, or in a system in which CPS can require that parents cooperate with the service plan and can remove children and terminate parents’ rights if parents fail to cooperate and improve their parenting capacity.
It is apparent from the paper that Bartholet favors the latter approach.
Parents’ experience with CPS tells us that the latter view is now the standard practice. Parents who attempt to choose not to accept the “voluntary” services often find their social workers proceeding with termination of parental rights.
There is nothing voluntary about it. Disagree with the government about how you feel your children should be raised, and you risk losing them.
This is an important statement here of which to take note. The fact is that, like a professor, the state expects those lectured to spit out exactly what is taught to them, and if they don’t, epic fail. In the case of the professor, the student fails the course. In the case of a parent, however, the stakes are much more severe: Lose your child!
This is evidenced by the many traps that are set for homeschooling parents. I learned through the lessons of many other homeschooling parents that you try to be as low-key as possible in your dissension of the state’s view or you risk the wrath of the system. And believe me when I tell you that the system almost always wins. I am not a toe-the-line kind of guy, but when your kids are at stake, you’ll do almost anything to ensure that they remain in your custody.
There are ways to make the arguments against the school administrators and state officials that allow yourself a little leeway in so far as an argument that’s difficult to deny. Try sitting before a panel of four administrators and facing a series of questions about why you will not send your child to that school and you sober up real quick to the underlying insidiousness of it all. Their bottom line isn’t the children, nor has it ever been. Their bottom line is green and it involves how many children they have in their care. The more children, the more green. Homeschoolers threaten their funding, their pensions, their job security and their belief systems. Need I say more?
Turn to the following page to read about how the bad parenting of the few is used to be the overarching theme of justification as to how the state may come into the lives of any ordinary family and upend it forever!
Lenin, Mao and Hitler had exactly the same beliefs. That fact this woman gets anywhere near our children is a travesty. This woman should be barred from education because she knows nothing about. I served 30 years in our military and defended this country against the domestic enemies of our freedoms. This is the face of that enemy.
And you want us to trust you with their education? God forbid ! What a soviet style doctrine from someone who obviously is not a parent!#TheLeftIsLost
She should never get near our children!