Tag: Authority

  • Navigating the path to higher education after local authority care

    Navigating the path to higher education after local authority care

    Young people in England with experience of children’s social care face significant barriers to entering and succeeding in higher education.

    Our research at TASO – Pathways into and through higher education for young people with experience of children’s social care – conducted alongside the Rees Centre, University of Oxford, highlights significant and concerning disparities.

    For example, at the age of 22, compared with the general population, care leavers and those who have ever been in care are four times less likely to enter higher education – 14 per cent of care-experienced people versus 56 per cent of the general population. Of those care leavers who do make it into higher education, 18 per cent drop out, more than double the withdrawal rate of their peers in the general population.

    And it’s not just care leavers who experience unequal outcomes. The research looked more widely at anyone with experience of children’s social care – a group that is around 20 times larger than the care leaver population – and found stark inequalities in their access to and experience of higher education compared not only to the general population, but also compared to those eligible for free school meals. For example, “children in need” are two to three times less likely to attend higher education than the general population.

    These results suggest that the experience of children’s social care has a lasting impact on educational prospects, and that the needs of affected young people are not being met by the current support system. Although the findings are perhaps not surprising, they are still shocking. Our report aims to act as a call to action for universities, policymakers and those seeking to close equality gaps in higher education.

    Routes to an unlevel playing field

    Not only is there an uphill struggle to the higher education “playing field” for those who have been in care, once there, the playing field itself is far from level. The data shows that getting those with experience of children’s social care into university is only the first challenge to address, and the high dropout rate demonstrates that targeted work is required to improve retention and support systems.

    Care leavers – and others with experience of children’s social care – often take alternative routes to university. Over one-third (36 per cent) of care leavers take a vocational pathway, compared to just 13 per cent of the general population, and they are more likely to start university later in life rather than at the traditional age of 18. This suggests that the traditional academic pipeline does not serve them effectively, and that policymakers should aim to support these alternative pathways and set strategies for recruiting mature learners.

    Care leavers and entry rates

    There are some differences between those with experience of children’s social care overall and care leavers specifically. Although care leavers have poorer outcomes on most measures, care leavers have a relatively high entry rate at age 18/19, compared to other groups who have experienced children’s social care.

    This could be due to a higher level of support being made available for this group in the transition from post-16 settings to higher education, reinforcing the importance of targeted interventions.

    Accommodation outside of term time

    Accommodation is another crucial area where care-experienced people are at a disadvantage, often without a stable home to go to during the term breaks. We need closer collaboration between local authorities and higher education providers to ensure they are collectively meeting their duty of support to care-experienced learners, and especially care leavers where the state has a corporate-parent responsibility.

    This is one clear area where more joined-up working is needed to help ensure that care-experienced students have somewhere suitable to stay when universities close their doors outside of term time.

    The people within the statistics

    It is also important to note that many with experience of children’s social care enter higher education and thrive. As with all statistical reports, focusing on averages, however derived, risks missing the many important exceptions. That is, some individuals succeed despite the relatively long odds of doing so, and we should not interpret statistical results in a causal or absolute way.

    We hope, in particular, that Virtual School Heads – a regional role that acts as a headteacher for all children with a social worker within a particular local authority – will find the research helpful when working on the strategic goal of improving educational inclusion and participation for care-experienced children and young people.

    A call for change

    The research underscores the fact that universities – including more selective or prestigious institutions – should rethink their approach to recruiting and supporting those with experience of children’s social care.

    We outline some of the ways to support these groups – by recruiting mature learners, those from vocational pathways, and by strengthening retention strategies. One possible idea, previously suggested by the Social Market Foundation, is that providers could be offered an additional £1,000 for each care leaver they recruit as a “student premium”, beyond existing accommodation support. At TASO, we want to see higher education providers evaluating their interventions to attract and support those with experience of children’s social care, so we can start to build a picture of what works to benefit these students.

    Our report makes it clear: universities, policymakers and local authorities must work together to ensure that those with experience of children’s social care are not left behind. The challenges they face in accessing and completing higher education are not inevitable but significant and targeted support is required to change the status quo. If higher education is a vehicle for social mobility, the continued focus on underrepresented groups – including those with experience of children’s social care – is vital.

    Source link

  • The FTC is overstepping its authority — and threatening free speech online

    The FTC is overstepping its authority — and threatening free speech online

    Federal Trade Commission Chair Andrew Ferguson reached out to followers on X yesterday asking for “public submissions from anyone who has been a victim of tech censorship (banning, demonetization, shadow banning, etc.), from employees of tech platforms.” His post was accompanied by a press release from the FTC and a forum for comments on their website, both making the same requests. 

    This outreach is being conducted, according to Ferguson, “to better understand how technology platforms deny or degrade users’ access to services based on the content of their speech or affiliations, and how this conduct may have violated the law.”

    In reality, the chair is angling to label editorial decisions he doesn’t like “unfair or deceptive trade practices.” But consumer protection law is no talisman against the First Amendment, and the FTC has no power here.

    The simplified formulation of Ferguson’s argument is this: If social media platforms are not adhering to their content policies, or “consistent” (whatever that means) in their enforcement, they are engaging in “false advertising” that harms consumers.

    Calling something censorship doesn’t make it so, and framing content moderation as “unfair or deceptive trade practices” does not magically sidestep the First Amendment. 

    Now, it is true that the FTC can generally act against deceptive marketing. That’s because pure commercial speech — that is, speech which does no more than propose a commercial transaction — possesses “a lesser protection” under the First Amendment than other forms of protected speech. And commercial speech that is false or misleading receives no First Amendment protection at all. But when speech — even in a commercial context — expresses opinions about social policy, government power over that speech gives way to the First Amendment.

    Content policies and moderation decisions made by private social media platforms are inherently subjective editorial judgments. In the vast majority of cases, they convey opinions on social policy as well as what expression they find desirable in their communities. Attempts to control or punish those editorial judgments violate the First Amendment.

    The Supreme Court recently made clear that these subjective decisions enjoy broad First Amendment protection. In Moody v. NetChoice, the Court rebuffed direct attempts by Texas and Florida to regulate content moderation decisions to remediate allegedly “biased” enforcement of platform rules:

    The interest Texas asserts is in changing the balance of speech on the major platforms’ feeds, so that messages now excluded will be included. To describe that interest, the State borrows language from this Court’s First Amendment cases, maintaining that it is preventing “viewpoint discrimination.” Brief for Texas 19; see supra, at 26–27. But the Court uses that language to say what governments cannot do: They cannot prohibit private actors from expressing certain views. When Texas uses that language, it is to say what private actors cannot do: They cannot decide for themselves what views to convey. The innocent-sounding phrase does not redeem the prohibited goal. The reason Texas is regulating the content-moderation policies that the major platforms use for their feeds is to change the speech that will be displayed there. Texas does not like the way those platforms are selecting and moderating content, and wants them to create a different expressive product, communicating different values and priorities. But under the First Amendment, that is a preference Texas may not impose.

    This is no less true when the government attempts to regulate through the backdoor of “consumer protection.”

    To illustrate the problem: Imagine a claim that platforms are engaging in unfair trade practices by removing some “hate speech,” but not speech that aligns with a certain view. What constitutes “hate speech” is entirely subjective. For the FTC to assess whether a “hate speech” policy has been applied “consistently” (or at all), they would have to supplant the platform’s subjective judgment with the government’s own “official” definition of “hate speech” — which, as you can probably already guess, will likely not be the same as anyone else’s. 

    And this illustration is not the product of wild imagination. In fact, FIRE is litigating this very question before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit right now. In Volokh v. James, FIRE is challenging a New York law requiring social media platforms to develop and publish policies for responding to “hateful conduct” and to provide a mechanism for users to complain about the same. Our motion for a preliminary injunction, which the district court granted, argued that the First Amendment prohibits the government from substituting its judgments about what expression should be permitted for a platform’s own:

    Labeling speech as “hateful” requires an inherently subjective judgment, as does determining whether speech serves to “vilify, humiliate, or incite violence.” The Online Hate Speech Act’s definition is inescapably subjective—one site’s reasoned criticism is another’s “vilification”; one site’s parody is another’s “humiliation”—and New York cannot compel social media networks to adopt it. . . . The definition of “hateful,” and the understanding of what speech is “vilifying,” “humiliating,” or “incites violence,” will vary from person to person . . .

    The First Amendment empowers citizens to make these value judgments themselves, because speech that some might consider “hateful” appears in a wide variety of comedy, art, journalism, historical documentation, and commentary on matters of public concern. 

    Ferguson and the FTC’s actions are particularly egregious given the fact that it has been made perfectly — and repeatedly — clear in the past that these kinds of editorial decisions are outside of their authority.

    LAWSUIT: New York can’t target protected online speech by calling it ‘hateful conduct’

    Press Release

    Today, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression sued New York Attorney General Letitia James, challenging a new state law that forces websites and apps to address online speech that someone, somewhere finds humiliating or vilifying.


    Read More

    In 2004, the political advocacy groups MoveOn and Common Cause asked the FTC to act against Fox News’ use of the “Fair and Balanced” slogan, arguing that it was false and misleading. Then-FTC Chair Tim Muris appropriately replied, “There is no way to evaluate this petition without evaluating the content of the news at issue. That is a task the First Amendment leaves to the American people, not a government agency.”

    In 2020, the nonprofit advocacy group Prager University argued in a lawsuit that YouTube violated its free speech rights by restricting access to some of its videos and limiting its advertising. They claimed that as a result, the platform’s statements that “everyone deserves to have a voice” and “people should be able to speak freely” constituted deceptive marketing. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected this claim, holding that the platform’s statements are “impervious to being quantifiable” and, as a result, were non-actionable.

    The bottom line is this: Calling something censorship doesn’t make it so, and framing content moderation as “unfair or deceptive trade practices” does not magically sidestep the First Amendment. And as always, beware — authority claimed while one is in power will still exist when one is not.

    Source link

  • The battle for authority and children’s autonomy

    The battle for authority and children’s autonomy

    Parental rights have emerged as a central battleground in the culture wars, debated in school board meetings, courtrooms and legislative chambers across the country. As conflicts intensify over what children should be taught, how medical decisions should be made and who has the authority to shape their identity, parental rights have taken on heightened significance.

    This debate is more than a struggle between parents and the state—it reflects deeper societal anxieties about identity, autonomy and control. Whether it’s school policies, medical decisions or the family’s role in public life, parental rights have become a lens through which broader cultural and political struggles are waged.

    Why have parental rights become such a cultural and political flashpoint? What do these debates reveal about shifting power dynamics between families, the state and society? How has this issue become a proxy for larger battles over authority, freedom and the future of societal norms?

    Exploring the historical roots, political significance, human meaning and contemporary implications of the parental rights debate reveals how this seemingly private issue mirrors larger societal tensions between individual freedom, state oversight and evolving social values.

    The humanities can offer critical insights into the rise of parental rights as a flashpoint in the culture wars and provide values to guide this debate. Let me suggest how:

    • Historical context: The humanities reveal how parental rights have evolved, shaped by shifts in family, authority and the state’s role. In ancient times, parental authority was nearly absolute, but by the 19th and 20th centuries, the modern state began intervening in child welfare. This historical perspective explains current tensions between family autonomy and state oversight, driven by changes in social structures like the welfare state and education.
    • Philosophical inquiry into authority and autonomy: Moral and political philosophy helps address the tension between parental control, children’s autonomy and state responsibility. This field can provide frameworks for exploring when parental rights should yield to children’s rights or the state’s duty to protect. This philosophical lens allows for deeper, more sophisticated debates on issues such as identity, health care and education.
    • Cultural analysis of identity and norms: Cultural studies examine how parental rights intersect with identity and societal values. Issues like school curricula on race and gender reflect larger cultural anxieties. The humanities can help unpack these tensions, offering insight into how public perceptions of parenting, authority and the state shape political and cultural conflicts.
    • Ethical frameworks: The humanities offer ethical guidance, balancing parental rights with the best interests of the child. They emphasize pluralism, empathy and dialogue in navigating contentious issues, encouraging solutions that respect diverse perspectives while upholding justice and equality.
    • Critical thinking and civic engagement: The humanities foster critical thinking, teaching us to analyze complex issues, consider multiple viewpoints and engage in reasoned debate. This is essential for moving beyond superficial culture wars and fostering informed civic engagement in debates on education, health care and family authority.

    Several contemporary literary works explore the tension between parental rights, children’s autonomy and the role of the state, offering thought-provoking perspectives on these issues.

    Ashley Audrain’s The Push examines the fraught relationship between a mother and her daughter, raising unsettling questions about parental responsibility, nature versus nurture and the state’s role in protecting children from harmful environments. The portrayal of maternal mental health and a child’s disturbing behavior highlights issues of child protection and parental rights, questioning whether the state should intervene in dysfunctional family dynamics.

    Robin Benway’s Far From the Tree explores adoption, biological parenthood and the foster care system, raising questions about the rights of birth parents versus adoptive parents and the state’s role in determining a child’s best interests. Through the lives of three siblings, the novel examines the competing influences of biological family ties and state-structured family systems, revealing the tensions between personal autonomy and state intervention.

    Kazuo Ishiguro’s Never Let Me Go explores the rights of individuals—particularly children—within a society that controls their fate for the benefit of others. The children in this dystopian world are raised for organ donation, raising ethical questions about autonomy, state control and the violation of human rights. The story poignantly depicts state authority overriding individual autonomy, with children treated as resources rather than individuals with rights.

    Celeste Ng’s Everything I Never Told You examines parental expectations and the pressures parents place on children through the lenses of race, gender and societal norms. The tension between parental control and a child’s autonomy is central to the story, as the parents’ unfulfilled dreams for their daughter ultimately alienate her, with tragic consequences.

    In Ng’s Little Fires Everywhere, a custody battle between an affluent white couple and a Chinese immigrant mother explores themes of race, privilege and the rights of biological versus adoptive parents. The novel raises profound questions about who decides what is in a child’s best interest and the state’s role in such decisions.

    Ann Patchett’s The Dutch House revolves around the inheritance of a family estate, creating a bitter conflict that pits parental rights, sibling loyalty and children’s autonomy against one another. The novel grapples with how much control parents should have over their children’s future, especially when material wealth is at stake, revealing the tension between parental decisions and children’s right to shape their own lives.

    Jodi Picoult’s My Sister’s Keeper addresses parental authority and medical ethics as Anna Fitzgerald sues for medical emancipation after being conceived as a bone marrow donor for her sister, Kate, who has leukemia. The novel explores the conflict between parental rights in making medical decisions and the child’s right to bodily autonomy.

    Jill Santopolo’s The Light We Lost depicts a mother’s fight to retain custody of her child amid state intervention due to her lifestyle choices. The story raises critical questions about how much authority the state should have in determining a child’s best interests and when it is appropriate to intervene in private family matters.

    Lisa Wingate’s Before We Were Yours, based on a real-life adoption scandal, highlights the state’s complicity in forcibly removing children from poor families and placing them with wealthy ones. The novel underscores the tension between parental rights, children’s autonomy and state intervention, particularly when class and privilege influence the state’s decision-making process.

    These works provide valuable insights into the ongoing debates over parental authority, children’s autonomy and the state’s role in deciding what is best for the child. They serve as powerful reflections of contemporary social and legal dilemmas and offer students excellent opportunities to engage with these issues in a thoughtful and nuanced manner.

    Historically, parental rights were rooted in the idea that parents should have control over their children’s education and upbringing, shaping their values, beliefs and development. Today, however, this concept has become a flashpoint in broader debates about autonomy, social norms, children’s rights and state power, highlighting the shifting dynamics of authority and freedom in the public sphere.

    Conservatives often advocate for parental rights as a way to preserve traditional values, emphasizing that parents should have the final say in decisions about their children’s education, medical treatment and social identity. These advocates argue that parents are best suited to determine what their children learn in school, how they are treated medically and how they are recognized by society.

    On the other hand, liberals at times defend parental rights when they clash with state restrictions, such as when states prohibit gender-affirming care or impose rules on dress codes or political expression in schools. In these instances, parental autonomy is framed as a defense against government overreach into personal and familial decisions.

    Certain issues also cut across partisan lines, such as when parents oppose vaccine mandates, seek alternatives like homeschooling or advocate for charter schools and school vouchers. These instances demonstrate that the debate over parental rights transcends simple ideological boundaries, touching on deeper concerns about individual choice and state authority.

    Ultimately, the modern fight over parental rights reflects a long-standing tension between family autonomy and state intervention. As societal norms around identity, health care and education evolve, the debate over parental rights reveals the complexities of balancing the needs of the child, the authority of the parent and the responsibilities of the state. This tension has made parental rights a defining issue in today’s political and cultural landscape, influencing not only how children are raised but also how society is structured.

    The outcome of this debate will have profound implications for the future of education, health care and social policy, shaping how society balances individual freedoms with collective responsibilities. The struggle over parental rights serves as a microcosm of larger societal challenges, making it a pivotal issue in the ongoing evolution of modern governance and cultural norms.

    The debate over parental rights reveals significant shifts in the power dynamics between families, the state and society, as well as changing views on authority, autonomy and social norms.

    At its core, the issue of parental rights centers on who gets to make critical decisions regarding a child’s upbringing, education and medical care. Historically, parental authority—especially for middle-class parents—was paramount, with families largely insulated from external intervention, particularly by the state. Parents were viewed as the primary custodians of their children’s moral, educational and physical well-being. This emphasis on family privacy often limited public intervention, even in cases of abuse or neglect.

    However, the state’s role has evolved, particularly in areas like public education, health-care regulation and child protection laws. Starting as early as the 1830s, several legal doctrines increased the state’s ability to intervene within families:

    • Parens patriae is a legal principle granting the state the authority to act as the guardian of individuals who cannot care for themselves, such as minors, the mentally ill or incapacitated individuals. This doctrine, meaning “parent of the country,” allows the state to step in when a child’s welfare is at risk, such as in cases of abuse, neglect or custody disputes. While it justifies state intervention to protect children’s health, safety and education, it also raises tension between family autonomy and state authority.
    • The best interests of the child doctrine guides decision-making in child-related cases like custody disputes, adoption and child welfare. This principle prioritizes a child’s well-being, safety and development over the rights of parents or guardians. In determining a child’s best interests, courts typically consider factors such as the child’s emotional and physical well-being, the stability of their living environment, parental capacity to provide care, and the child’s own preferences, especially as they grow older. Judges, along with social workers and child welfare agencies, use these criteria to make decisions that promote the child’s overall welfare.

    These doctrines reflect broader societal changes in how we view the state’s role in family matters. The shift from a model of near-total parental control to one where the state has the authority to intervene has been driven by the need to protect children’s rights and welfare. However, it also exposes the ongoing tension between parental autonomy and the state’s duty to protect vulnerable children.

    The evolving role of the state in matters of parental rights highlights the delicate balance between protecting children’s welfare and respecting family authority. As societal norms continue to shift, so too will the boundaries between parental rights and state intervention, making this an enduring and complex issue in legal and cultural debates.

    In the late 19th and much of the 20th century, the idea that the state had both the right and duty to intervene in children’s lives to protect their best interests was often applied selectively, disproportionately targeting marginalized and impoverished families. These interventions reflected broader societal prejudices about poverty, class and race and often extended beyond cases of extreme abuse or exploitation to situations of neglect—neglect that frequently resulted from the pressures on single parents or low-income families to work.

    Families in poverty faced heightened scrutiny from the state, as poverty itself was often equated with neglect. Children from poor families were regularly removed from their homes under the assumption that their parents could not adequately meet their material needs. Wealthier families, by contrast, were largely spared such interference, while poor, urban families were subjected to visits from social workers and child protection services, who monitored their living conditions.

    These families were seen as morally deficient, prone to vice and incapable of instilling proper values in their children, according to middle-class reformers. Their child-rearing practices were often deemed inadequate, not based on actual harm but on the biases of those overseeing them.

    While state interventions were intended to protect children’s welfare, they frequently resulted in the disruption of families, severing the bonds between parents and children. For many poor families, the threat of losing their children loomed, not due to abuse or neglect but because of their financial struggles.

    The state’s duty to protect children’s best interests also intersected with racial inequalities. Indigenous and African American families were especially vulnerable to intervention, as white authorities often deemed their cultural practices and parenting styles as inferior or harmful. Black children were disproportionately placed in foster care or removed from their families, reinforcing racial inequality. Indigenous children were forcibly taken from their families, placed in boarding schools or adopted by white families under the pretext of protecting their welfare, with the goal of erasing Indigenous identities through assimilation.

    While many of these interventions were motivated by genuine concern for child welfare, they were also deeply influenced by classist, racist and moralistic attitudes that viewed poverty and cultural differences as threats to children’s well-being. As a result, state intervention often reinforced social inequalities by punishing families for their economic status rather than addressing the root causes of poverty.

    This historical context illuminates the ongoing tensions between the state, family autonomy and social inequality in child welfare today. The legacy of these selective interventions continues to shape modern debates about the role of the state in protecting children and the impact on marginalized communities.

    The contemporary battle over parental rights stems from the increasing involvement of state institutions in areas once considered the sole domain of the family, such as school curricula, health-care decisions (especially around vaccines and gender-affirming care), and the balance between children’s autonomy and parental authority. The state often frames these interventions as efforts to promote the public good, protect children’s welfare or enforce social standards, but they can clash with individual parental preferences.

    This conflict has turned parental rights into a proxy for larger societal debates about authority and freedom. Conservatives, in particular, push back against what they see as government overreach, advocating for greater parental control over education—especially regarding how schools address race, gender and sexuality. They argue that such state involvement undermines the family’s role in shaping children’s values. On the other hand, progressives contend that the state has a duty to protect children from harmful ideologies or practices, such as religiously motivated science denial, intolerance of gender diversity or a lack of comprehensive sex education.

    Parental rights also tap into broader questions of individual autonomy, especially concerning children’s identity and health care. Debates over whether parents should be informed if a child requests a different gender identity at school or whether they should have the final say in health-care decisions for transgender children highlight tensions between children’s emerging autonomy and parental control. In these cases, parental rights are weighed against the belief that children have independent rights, particularly concerning their identity and well-being.

    This debate reflects shifting societal norms around family structures and authority. As traditional family models evolve to include single-parent households, same-sex parents and cohabiting families, the definition of parental rights is being reconsidered. These shifts complicate long-held assumptions about family authority and the state’s role in regulating or supporting diverse family forms.

    The politicization of parental rights reveals broader anxieties about control and autonomy in a rapidly changing society. For conservatives, defending parental rights often serves as a defense of traditional values, viewing the family as a safeguard against progressive cultural changes. For liberals, advocating for state intervention or children’s autonomy is framed as advancing social justice and protecting vulnerable populations from harmful practices.

    In a diverse, politically divided society, addressing the issue of parental rights requires carefully balancing family autonomy, children’s well-being and societal values like equality and justice. Because parental rights touch on deeply personal matters such as education, health care and identity, navigating this debate demands a thoughtful approach that accounts for differing worldviews, cultural values and ethical considerations.

    To best address parental rights, society should adhere to certain moral and ethical principles:

    • The best interests of the child: The child’s well-being must be at the heart of any discussion on parental rights. While parents play a crucial role, their authority is not absolute. Decisions around education, health care and identity should prioritize the child’s physical, emotional and psychological welfare. This principle, widely accepted in legal and ethical frameworks, underscores the understanding that children deserve protection, care and the opportunity to thrive. In health care, for example, choices such as vaccinations or gender-affirming care should center on the child’s long-term health, rather than parental ideologies.
    • Respect for parental autonomy: Parents are central in shaping their children’s values and upbringing, and their autonomy should be respected within reasonable limits. Families vary in their cultural, religious and philosophical beliefs, and a pluralistic society must allow room for those differences. However, this respect must be tempered by recognizing that children are not the property of their parents—they are individuals with rights. As children grow, their autonomy, especially regarding identity and health care, must be increasingly respected.
    • Balance between individual rights and state responsibilities: The tension between family authority and the state’s role in protecting children is a key challenge. The state has a legitimate interest in safeguarding children from harm and ensuring access to quality education and health care. State intervention is justified when parental decisions put a child’s well-being at risk. However, in areas like educational curricula, the state’s role is more nuanced, needing to balance parental preferences with society’s responsibility to provide a broad-based education that fosters critical thinking and prepares children for a diverse world.
    • Protection of children’s emerging autonomy: As children mature, their ability to make decisions grows. The debate over parental rights often involves how much autonomy children should be granted, particularly in personal matters such as gender identity or health care. Ethical considerations demand that as children approach adolescence, their voices and autonomy be increasingly respected, especially in cases where parental rejection could cause harm.
    • Commitment to pluralism and mutual respect: A diverse society must allow families to raise their children according to their cultural and moral values, as long as these do not violate basic human rights or endanger the child. In a politically divided environment, dialogue and mutual respect are essential. The goal should not be to impose a uniform set of values but to find common ground in safeguarding children’s well-being while respecting diversity in parenting styles.
    • Ensuring equality and justice: The debate over parental rights must be informed by a commitment to equality and justice. Marginalized families often face greater scrutiny and state intervention than more privileged families. Policies must ensure that all families are treated fairly and that vulnerable populations are not disproportionately targeted or penalized. This is crucial in areas like education, where equal access to resources must be guaranteed regardless of a family’s background.
    • Transparent decision-making and public accountability: When the state intervenes in parental matters, transparency and accountability are critical. Parents and communities need clear information about why decisions are being made, how rights are being balanced and how they can engage with or challenge these processes. This is especially important in contentious areas like child protection services and educational policies.

    Grounding the debate in these principles—pluralism, justice and mutual respect—will allow society to navigate these complex tensions and create a framework for parental rights that promotes both family autonomy and children’s well-being in an increasingly diverse world.

    The debate over parental rights is not just about the authority of parents—it’s a broader struggle over the future of societal norms, values, children’s autonomy and the balance of power between families and the state. This issue cuts to the core of how we understand freedom, responsibility and the rights of children, revealing deep cultural and political divides.

    The stakes are high. On one side is the preservation of parental authority and family autonomy, rooted in the belief that parents should have primary control over their children’s upbringing, education and health care. On the other side is the state’s responsibility to protect and empower children, ensuring their rights and well-being, especially when parental choices may conflict with broader social values or the child’s best interests.

    In a pluralistic society, navigating these conflicts requires a careful balancing act. Respecting family autonomy is crucial, but so are children’s rights and the state’s role in upholding justice, equality and the well-being of all citizens, particularly the most vulnerable. How we resolve this debate will shape not only the future of parental rights but also the evolving relationship between family authority, child autonomy and the state’s role in safeguarding the interests of its youngest members. This conversation will ultimately define how we balance personal freedoms with collective responsibilities in the fabric of modern society.

    Steven Mintz is professor of history at the University of Texas at Austin and the author, most recently, of The Learning-Centered University: Making College a More Developmental, Transformational and Equitable Experience.

    Source link

  • Appeals Court Upholds DOL’s Authority to Use Minimum Salary Threshold to Determine Overtime Exemptions

    Appeals Court Upholds DOL’s Authority to Use Minimum Salary Threshold to Determine Overtime Exemptions

    by CUPA-HR | September 12, 2024

    On September 11, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling in Mayfield v. U.S. Department of Labor that upholds DOL’s authority to implement a minimum salary threshold to determine exempt status under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime pay requirements. While the ruling does not answer how other lawsuits challenging the Biden administration’s rule will be decided, the ruling is significant and could help other federal judges determine whether or not to strike down the Biden administration’s increased minimum salary thresholds.

    Background

    The case’s plaintiff, Robert Mayfield, filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration’s overtime rule in August 2022. In his lawsuit, he argued that the FLSA language on overtime exemptions only mentions a worker’s job-related duties and that implementing a salary threshold to determine exempt status exceeds DOL’s statutory authority. The Western District Court of Texas, a lower court where the lawsuit was originally filed, sided with DOL, stating that the agency has the statutory authority to implement the FLSA overtime minimum salary threshold. Mayfield appealed the decision to the 5th Circuit soon after.

    The Decision

    In its decision that sides with the Department of Labor, the 5th Circuit Court held that DOL may use a minimum salary requirement as part of its test for determining whether or not an employee qualifies as an executive, administrative and professional (EAP) employee exempt from the FLSA overtime pay requirements. Notably, the 5th Circuit Court argued that DOL does have statutory authority under the FLSA to use a salary threshold to “define and delimit the terms of exemption.”

    Though the decision allows for DOL to use a minimum salary threshold, the 5th Circuit Court did state that there is a limit to the power granted to DOL to do so. Specifically, the decision states that DOL may only use the minimum salary requirement to the extent that the salary threshold established in the regulations is a reasonable proxy for who is and who is not an EAP employee. They argued that DOL’s power to rely on proxy is not “unbounded” and that the agency “cannot enact rules that replace or swallow the meaning” of the FLSA’s terms that they seek to define.

    Looking Ahead

    Outside of the Mayfield case, there are three pending lawsuits in the Eastern District Court of Texas to challenge the Biden administration’s overtime final rule. That rule implements a two-phase approach to increasing the minimum salary threshold under the FLSA. The first increase took effect on July 1, increasing the minimum salary threshold from the current level of $684 per week ($35,568 per year) to $844 per week ($43,888 per year), and the second increase is set to take effect on January 1, 2025, increasing the minimum salary threshold again to $1,128 per week ($58,656 per year).

    The decision from the 5th Circuit does not have an immediate impact on the lawsuits challenging the Biden administration’s overtime rule, nor does it provide a definitive answer on how lower courts decide in those legal challenges. As such, the Biden administration’s July 1 salary threshold continues to be in effect,* and the second increase to the salary threshold is still set to take effect on January 1, 2025. CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of additional updates related to the FLSA overtime pay regulations.

    *A preliminary injunction to block DOL from enforcing the overtime final rule was placed for public employees in the state of Texas. Private institutions in Texas and all other institutions outside of Texas need to be in compliance with the July 1 salary threshold.



    Source link