Another sign of the impending apocalypse:
The Arkansas Supreme Court on Thursday struck down the state’s law banning sexual contact between teachers and students, finding that people 18 or older have a constitutional right to engage in a consensual sexual relationship.
I’d say that you could hear smug yankees inserting “hillbilly” jokes here, but as soon as they realizes this helps advance the agenda of people like former “safe schools” czar Kevin Jennings, teacher recruiting should go through the roof in Arkansas.
Not everyone on the Arkansas Supreme Court has lost their minds.
In a dissent, Justice Robert Brown said that the majority’s opinion will cause disruption in high schools because there will be nothing to prevent teachers from having sex with students who are 18 or older.
“This will cause significant disruption in our high schools and have a deleterious impact on education in general and the teacher-student dynamic in particular,” wrote Brown.
Can I get a “DUH.”????
The Left, which is always finding something positive in sexualizing our children, will put the best spin possible on this. I can just see the arguments now.
“With all those possibilities for “extra credit”, the students’ grades are bound to rise!” (I bet that isn’t all that rises either.)
“This should make recruiting of teachers much easier, and think of all the quality teachers that they will be able to get from places like Los Angeles!”
If I sound angry, it’s because I am. There is a HUGE elephant in the room here that the “consenting adults” crowd will conveniently ignore, even if it becomes blatantly obvious, and the state’s attorney’s argued it.
Attorneys for the state argued the law protects high school students from sexual advances of teachers who are in positions of authority. But the high court found the law was unconstitutional because it criminalized sexual conduct between consenting adults.
Ignoring this was silly, as it ignores a long-standing legal concept in our jurisprudence. (It also glosses over the fact that not only is this a matter where the ability of one party to “consent” is questionable, as they are hardly in a position to “negotiate at arms’ length”.) That concept is “In Loco Parentis”, which means “In the position or place of a parent.”
To understand the application of “In Loco Parentis“, I found this brief explanation:
Through the legal doctrine of in loco parentis, courts upheld the right of schools to discipline students, to enforce rules, and to maintain order.3 Rooted in the English common law, in loco parentis originally governed the legal rights and obligations of tutors and private schools. 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 441 (1765) (“[A parent] may also delegate part of his parental authority, during his life, to the tutor or schoolmaster of his child; who is then in loco parentis, and has such a portion of the power of the parent committed to his charge, viz. that of restraint and correction, as may be necessary to answer the purposes for which he is employed”). Chancellor James Kent noted the acceptance of the doctrine as part of American law in the early 19th century. 2 J. Kent, Commentaries on American Law *205, *206–*207 (“So the power allowed by law to the parent over the person of the child may be delegated to a tutor or instructor, the better to accomplish the purpose of education”).
As early as 1837, state courts applied the in loco parentis principle to public schools:
“One of the most sacred duties of parents, is to train up and qualify their children, for becoming useful and virtuous members of society; this duty cannot be effectually performed without the ability to command obedience, to control stubbornness, to quicken diligence, and *414 to reform bad habits …. The teacher is the substitute of the parent; … and in the exercise of these delegated duties, **2632 is invested with his power.” State v. Pendergrass, 19 N.C. 365, 365–366 (1837).
—Morse v. Fredrick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007)
“In the position or place of a parent.”
Yeah, I’m not sure that I’m digging the image that evokes. Call me crazy…
This is a judicial sanction of a predatory betrayal of trust. And sadly, I think it is a reflection of “modern” morals and values. And you can keep them.