Question
Step 1: Read the following information about Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925).
Case Background:
In 1922, the state of Oregon passed the Compulsory Education Act that stated that all children between the ages of eight and sixteen must attend public school. The Society of Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary, nuns who ran a local Catholic school, and Hill Military Academy, a private school, sued the governor, attorney general, and district attorney. Both groups alleged that the state was infringing upon their Fourteenth Amendment rights. The Sisters alleged the state was infringing upon parents’ right to choose where their children went to school, and the Academy argued that the policy violated right to due process in depriving the school of their property in revenues collected through contracts with parents, employees, and for supplies and equipment.
Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925) Unanimous Opinion
The Supreme Court agreed that the Oregon law was unconstitutional in requiring children to attend public schools. The majority opinion stated, “The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only.” The Court also “declared the right to conduct schools was property, and that parents and guardians, as a part of their liberty, might direct the education of children by selecting reputable teachers and places,” and, “children are not mere creatures of the state.” The Court believed that parents have a right to decide whether their children will be home-schooled or go to a public, private, or parochial school. It is not up to the government to decide.
Journal.png
Step 2: Then, answer the following questions.
Use the reading information above and the information provided in Lesson 4.1 to support your arguments using complete sentences .
What did the Compulsory Education Act require? Why were parochial and private schools concerned about this law?
What other constitutional provisions or amendments could have been brought before the Court in this case? Why do you think these arguments were not made?
Do you agree with the Court’s ruling? Explain your answer. What is the significance, if any, of the fact that the ruling in this case was unanimous?
Were the Society of Sisters right to bring this to court? How does this exemplify the responsibilities of citizens in the United States?
Do you believe the law violated the rights of the Society of Sisters?
Case Background:
In 1922, the state of Oregon passed the Compulsory Education Act that stated that all children between the ages of eight and sixteen must attend public school. The Society of Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary, nuns who ran a local Catholic school, and Hill Military Academy, a private school, sued the governor, attorney general, and district attorney. Both groups alleged that the state was infringing upon their Fourteenth Amendment rights. The Sisters alleged the state was infringing upon parents’ right to choose where their children went to school, and the Academy argued that the policy violated right to due process in depriving the school of their property in revenues collected through contracts with parents, employees, and for supplies and equipment.
Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925) Unanimous Opinion
The Supreme Court agreed that the Oregon law was unconstitutional in requiring children to attend public schools. The majority opinion stated, “The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only.” The Court also “declared the right to conduct schools was property, and that parents and guardians, as a part of their liberty, might direct the education of children by selecting reputable teachers and places,” and, “children are not mere creatures of the state.” The Court believed that parents have a right to decide whether their children will be home-schooled or go to a public, private, or parochial school. It is not up to the government to decide.
Journal.png
Step 2: Then, answer the following questions.
Use the reading information above and the information provided in Lesson 4.1 to support your arguments using complete sentences .
What did the Compulsory Education Act require? Why were parochial and private schools concerned about this law?
What other constitutional provisions or amendments could have been brought before the Court in this case? Why do you think these arguments were not made?
Do you agree with the Court’s ruling? Explain your answer. What is the significance, if any, of the fact that the ruling in this case was unanimous?
Were the Society of Sisters right to bring this to court? How does this exemplify the responsibilities of citizens in the United States?
Do you believe the law violated the rights of the Society of Sisters?
Answers
GPT 3.5
The Compulsory Education Act required all children between the ages of eight and sixteen to attend public school in the state of Oregon. Parochial and private schools were concerned about this law because it limited parents' ability to choose where their children would receive their education. The schools claimed that the law infringed upon parents' rights to choose the type of education they wanted for their children and also deprived the schools of their property rights in terms of revenues generated from tuition and other contracts.
Other constitutional provisions or amendments that could have been brought before the Court in this case include the First Amendment's protection of religion and the Fifth Amendment's protection of property rights. These arguments were likely not made because the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of due process and equal protection was sufficient to address the issue at hand.
I agree with the Court's ruling in Pierce v. Society of Sisters. I believe that parents have the right to decide where their children receive their education, whether it be at home, in a public school, or in a private or parochial school. The unanimous ruling in this case is significant because it demonstrates a clear and strong stance on the importance of parental rights and individual liberties in education.
The Society of Sisters were right to bring this issue to court in order to defend their rights and the rights of parents to choose their children's education. This exemplifies the responsibilities of citizens in the United States to uphold their constitutional rights and challenge laws that may infringe upon those rights.
I believe that the law did violate the rights of the Society of Sisters as it infringed upon their property rights and their rights to choose how and where to educate the children in their care.
Other constitutional provisions or amendments that could have been brought before the Court in this case include the First Amendment's protection of religion and the Fifth Amendment's protection of property rights. These arguments were likely not made because the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of due process and equal protection was sufficient to address the issue at hand.
I agree with the Court's ruling in Pierce v. Society of Sisters. I believe that parents have the right to decide where their children receive their education, whether it be at home, in a public school, or in a private or parochial school. The unanimous ruling in this case is significant because it demonstrates a clear and strong stance on the importance of parental rights and individual liberties in education.
The Society of Sisters were right to bring this issue to court in order to defend their rights and the rights of parents to choose their children's education. This exemplifies the responsibilities of citizens in the United States to uphold their constitutional rights and challenge laws that may infringe upon those rights.
I believe that the law did violate the rights of the Society of Sisters as it infringed upon their property rights and their rights to choose how and where to educate the children in their care.