Judge says there's no fundamental right to learn to read and write

BDBoop

Former Staff
Dec 2010
47,418
45,001
Twitter
Does this mean truancy is no big anymore? I mean, who cares if kids are in school, since there's no reason for them to be there.

Detroit Free Press

The ruling came in a federal lawsuit that was closely watched across the U.S. because of its potential impact: Filed on behalf of Detroit students, it sought to hold a dozen state officials — including Gov. Rick Snyder — accountable for what plaintiffs said were systemic failures that deprived Detroit children of their right to literacy.

The lawsuit sought remedies that included literacy reforms, a systemic approach to instruction and intervention, as well as fixes to crumbling Detroit schools. Earlier this month, officials with the Detroit Public Schools Community District said it would cost $500 million to bring school buildings up to par.

The City of Detroit, the American Federation of Teachers, the AFL-CIO, the community group 482Forward, Kappa Delta Pi, the International Literacy Association and the National Association for Multicultural Education all filed briefs in support of the plaintiffs.

The lawsuit was filed by Public Counsel, a Los Angeles-based law firm that is the nation's largest public interest law firm. Mark Rosenbaum, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, declined to comment Saturday, saying he wanted an opportunity to first speak with his clients.

Spokespeople for Snyder couldn't be reached for comment.


I'm seriously starting to think that the entire system of governance in America is corrupt. Everybody is on the take, everybody is advancing a fucked-up agenda for no discernible reason.
 

Wonderer

Moderator
May 2014
29,720
20,202
Missouri
I won't be able to dig into it further right now, but this from the article might explain it a bit:

Michael Addonizio, a professor of educational leadership and policy studies at Wayne State University, said that "morally and politically," Murphy's ruling is "a disappointing outcome. It's a difficult theory to swallow."

But he said he suspects constitutional scholars won't be surprised. He cited as a precedent a U.S. Supreme Court case from the '70s that found education was not a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution.

"The plaintiffs wanted to make this not a case about funding or resources, but a case about the fundamentality of reading, and the right of every student to have access to that skill," Addonizio said of the Detroit lawsuit. "But I think a lot of people felt that this case was very closely related," to the earlier case.

He said the plaintiff's argument "was a very worthwhile argument to make."
I'll need to read the actual opinion (and the prior case referred to) before I opine further.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people

StanStill

Former Staff
Dec 2013
13,897
16,011
Work
If we all decide it's a right, and ensure that we all have access to it, and won't allow people to dismantle the system that ensures we all have access to it, then it's a right.

Really doesn't matter if it's written on some 230 year old piece of paper or not, although if you need something, read the 9th amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I count among those rights, the right to decide what is a right.
 
Mar 2012
59,991
41,456
New Hampshire
If we all decide it's a right, and ensure that we all have access to it, and won't allow people to dismantle the system that ensures we all have access to it, then it's a right.

Really doesn't matter if it's written on some 230 year old piece of paper or not, although if you need something, read the 9th amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I count among those rights, the right to decide what is a right.
While I do agree, I think amendments would be necessary to really make it stick. Otherwise what prevents a new crop of judges from overruling it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person

StanStill

Former Staff
Dec 2013
13,897
16,011
Work
While I do agree, I think amendments would be necessary to really make it stick. Otherwise what prevents a new crop of judges from overruling it?
We do.

I see your point, but I don't see how judges can overrule something that isn't written specifically. And what prevents the amendment from being repealed? There are decisions that haven't specifically been overruled, like Plessy v Ferguson, which we now ignore because of later decisions. Without pressure from the public and a change in public attitude, pushing for the right of equal access, decisions like Brown v Board of Ed, would have never happened. It's not because the court was perfectly stacked with the right number of astute and fair judges that those decisions happened. Maybe it helped it happen sooner than it might have otherwise, but really the change that happened was in public attitude.
 
Mar 2012
59,991
41,456
New Hampshire
We do.

I see your point, but I don't see how judges can overrule something that isn't written specifically. And what prevents the amendment from being repealed? There are decisions that haven't specifically been overruled, like Plessy v Ferguson, which we now ignore because of later decisions. Without pressure from the public and a change in public attitude, pushing for the right of equal access, decisions like Brown v Board of Ed, would have never happened. It's not because the court was perfectly stacked with the right number of astute and fair judges that those decisions happened. Maybe it helped it happen sooner than it might have otherwise, but really the change that happened was in public attitude.
Still its far harder to overturn an amendment than a public that cant make up its mind on issues. If you look at our elections over the last 30 years, one would think the average voter is schizophrenic. How do we manage the wild swings we have seen? Public attitude swings with the wind. I would never have expected to be where we are today just 10 years ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
78,617
48,702
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
If we all decide it's a right, and ensure that we all have access to it, and won't allow people to dismantle the system that ensures we all have access to it, then it's a right.

Really doesn't matter if it's written on some 230 year old piece of paper or not, although if you need something, read the 9th amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I count among those rights, the right to decide what is a right.
The 9th Amendment is only a rule of construction. It does provide for the protection of non-enumerated rights, but does not provide any particular substantive right - i.e., not everything one can conceive of is actually a right, necessarily. It does, however, provide for the protection and discovery of new or previously unknown rights.

Sent from my SM-J327V using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
78,617
48,702
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
There are decisions that haven't specifically been overruled, like Plessy v Ferguson, which we now ignore because of later decisions.
My recollection is that Brown expressly overruled Plessy.

Sent from my SM-J327V using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people

StanStill

Former Staff
Dec 2013
13,897
16,011
Work
Still its far harder to overturn an amendment than a public that cant make up its mind on issues. If you look at our elections over the last 30 years, one would think the average voter is schizophrenic. How do we manage the wild swings we have seen? Public attitude swings with the wind. I would never have expected to be where we are today just 10 years ago.
Yes, but it's probably just as hard to get a new amendment passed. I don't think the public needs to wait for an amendment to assert something is a right.

Plus I don't see any schizophrenia in public attitude. I think public attitudes have gradually become more civilized, generally more accepting of individual liberties and rights, whether for women or minorities, or people with mental or physical handicaps, attitudes about drug use, about sexuality, about all kinds of things have become a lot more humane in my opinion. Not everyone is on board the civilized humanistic train, but more and more people are.

When did it wildly swing back and forth?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Panzareta