Alliance for Intellectual Freedom in Education

The 1993 Home-Ed-Politics Debate (Part 1)

1. How to Get Rich in the Protection Business by Stocky Manville (fwd)
Karen Peterson

2. How to Get Rich in the Protection Business by Stocky Manville (fwd)
Claude W. Anderson

3. How to Get Rich in the Protection Business by Stocky Manville (fwd)
Tom Walker

4. How to Get Rich in the Protection Business by Stocky Manville (fwd)
Craig Peterson

5. HSLDA
Karl Pearson

6. How to Get Rich in the Protection Business by Stocky Manville (fwd)
Tom Dillard

7. How to Get Rich in the Protection Business (rough translation)
Craig Peterson

8. Article about Michigan homeschooling case rulings
Tom Dillard

9. How to Get Rich in the Protection Business
Scott Somerville

10.HSLDA -Reply
Scott Somerville

11.How to Get Rich in the Protection Business (rough translation)
David L. Hanson

12.reply to HSLDA and protection racket
Doris Hohensee

13.reply to HSLDA and protection racket
David L. Hanson

14.HSLDA
Scott Somerville

15.Scott Somerville of HSLDA
Doris Hohensee

16.Article about Michigan homeschooling case
Scott Somerville

17.HSLDA
Karen Peterson

18.Article about Michigan homeschooling case
Craig Peterson

19.Scott Somerville of HSLDA -Reply
Scott Somerville

20.HSLDA -Reply
Scott Somerville

Message 1

Subject: How to Get Rich in the Protection Business by Stocky Manville (fwd)
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 93 7:26:29 WET
From: karen (Karen Peterson)
To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com

> How to Get Rich in the Protection Business
>
> by Stocky Manville
>
>
> In the old days, hoodlums made money easily. Certain hoods would go
> into the window-washing business. And they were successful! Boy, were
> they successful! They would go to the store owner and say, "I'm going
> to be your contract window-washer, and you're going to pay me $300.00
> a week for washing your windows." If the store owner refused, all his
> windows would be broken. After the glass was replaced, the hood would
> return and say the same thing. "I'm going to be your contract
> window-washer, and you're going to pay me $300.00 a week for washing
> your windows." A refusal of these terms resulted in more broken
> windows.
>
> The more sophisticated hoods worked in teams. The second team would
> come along and say to that same store owner, "I understand you're
> having some problems around here with hoods breaking your windows.
> We'll give you protection against these hoods...all it'll cost is
> $400.00 a week." If the stroe owner refused, windows would again be
> broken, and sometimes worse damage would be done. The store owner
> might never make the connection between the first hood and the new
> hoods offering protection. But the hoods were clearly feeding off each
> other.
>
> In the jargon of the street, that was called "the protection racket."
> Today there's a new twist. Here's a little allegory to illustrate how
> this is being done with homeschoolers.
>
> There once was an insurance company that specialized in insuring
> families against broken glass. They were very good at what they did,
> and they served their customers well. When folks bought this policy,
> it covered all broken glass - windshields, glass door panels, house
> windows - it was a conscientious insurance company that served its
> people well.
>
> Word spread about the good service and the good protection they
> offered. But as the insurance company grew larger, its staff was
> expanded. Soon there were big salaries to pay and benefits and other
> amenities, like a nice new office, more secretaries, advanced computer
> systems, family vacations in Hawaii, and so on. And since this
> insurance company prided itself on protecting the "little guy," they
> didn't want to raise their rates. So they had another idea. The
> protection company thought that if people understood the need for
> their protection, more people would buy. So they started speaking
> around the country, trying to convince people how bad things were.
> They told their audiences how vandals were marauding and breaking
> windows, causing unbelievable hardships for families. Their message
> always contained the same two points: "We've had more cases in this
> state this year than ever before," and "So-and-so had this problem,
> and we were able to fix it right away." In short, the message was,
> "There are people who are out to get you, but we're here to protect
> you. Join our protection plan now." Some glass users bought the story,
> but most did not. But the company was growing bigger and needed more
> revenue.
>
> The protection company did not sell enough protection policies. Then
> one day things began to look up. People in certain states suddenly
> wanted to join this protection plan. These certain states had recently
> experienced a rash of problems with glass. As the fear of these
> problems spread, people bought the protection. Naturally.
>
> As time passed, some families attended glass conferences in different
> states. These families noticed that the protection people were often
> the featured speakers at these conferences. They noticed that the
> messages were mostly of gloom and doom, but always ended happily with
> the protection company as heroes, saving one innocent family after
> another from the perils of vandals.
>
> Some families compared notes with each other. They wondered about this
> omnipresent protection company. They began to keep their eyes open and
> watch how the protection company was conducting itself at public
> hearings. They discovered things that were curious - it seems the
> protection company was using its considerable size and money to
> influence rules about glass. And it seemed they were submitting briefs
> to state officials behind the glass user's backs, and the content of
> these briefs seemed to contradict what the glass users really wanted.
> The resulting confusion seemed to allow vandals (who get their kicks
> out of harassing glass owners) to go unchecked, so they felt they
> could do what they wanted. The protection company's briefs were
> oftentimes very compromising and not in the best interest of the
> people they were paid to protect. They were causing considerable
> confusion and trouble for the glass users, but alas, the glass users
> didn't know that. They only saw the confusion.
>
> But people would rather be safe than sorry. So as the hype about the
> confusion intensified, the glass users bought the protection plan
> coverage...from the only company which offered it. But the big
> protection company didn't feel bad about this...they knew they did a
> good job for a few of the nearly 20,000 families who bought their
> protection. And besides, they weren't asking for much in return - a
> whole family could buy this protection for just $100 per year.
>
>
>
> [Note: Stocky Manville is a businessman, father, and long-time observer
> of the modern homeschooling movement. Permission is granted to
> reproduce or publish this article as often as desired for any
> publication or distribution.]
>

Message 2

Subject: Re: How to Get Rich in the Protection Business by Stocky Manville (fwd)
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 93 07:59:33 -0500
From: Claude W. Anderson
To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
CC: anderson@falstaff.cs.rose-hulman.edu

Karen,

I greatly appreciate the articles that you forward to this list. But this one has me quite concerned.

This little allegory contains some very serious allegations. If they are true, we should see some evidence. If there is no such evidence, I think this article borders on libel. I hope you will post that follow-up article today that offers some evidence to back up what the author is claiming about things said behind my back.

If you have no such evidence, you should send an "editor's humble apology" to the list members, and you should think more carefully in the future about allegations that you publish.

If Mr. Mannville is right, I will want to withdraw my membership from the protection agency and stop encouraging others to join. If not, that fact needs to be made clear to everyone on the list before more damage is done.

Pardon me for being a skeptic. I know nothing about Mr. Mannville. But I could envision that at this time when so much is at stake in a certain race for Lieutenant governor that someone who does not agree with a certain candidate's political/religious views could have planned to bring out this article just in time so that it would negatively influence some voters, but late enough so there is no time for refutation.

I anxiously await your reply. My first inclination was to send this info to the list. But that is not right. According to Matthew 18, when I

have a problem with something you have done, I must discuss it with you before making it a public issue.

I hope that you have already had that kind of discussion with Mr. Mannville and Mr. Farris and are ready to elaborate. Or that you are ready to issue a prompt retraction.

A house divided against itself cannot stand. THat is as true of the home-school movement as it is of the evil kingdom to which that quote originally referred. If there really is a "rotten apple" in our midst, I'll be the first to want to throw it out before the whole bunch is spoiled. But I need to know where that rottenness comes from.

I know yoou are likely to be busy. But the urgency of the situation

vis-a-vis the election warrants a speedy response. I plan to send a response to the list today, unless I get assurances that you need time to prepare a followup that will appear tomorrow. (I'm optimistically guessing that you already have that follow-up evidence and were just waiting to see if there is interest before you send it). If I don't hear from you by the end of the day, the response will be a copy of this letter.

I am sending a copy of your article and this response to someone at the agency so that they also have time to prepare a response.

I hate to write such a negative letter, but your uncharacteristic choice of article really has me disturbed.

---

Claude Anderson
anderson@cs.rose-hulman.edu - NeXT mail welcome
(812)877-8331

Message 3

Subject: Re: How to Get Rich in the Protection Business by Stocky Manville (fwd)
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 93 09:19:49 EDT
From: Tom Walker
To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com

The Stocky Manville allegory is a thinly veiled accusation or attack on HSLDA that is unfounded. I take it Mr. Manville has not had the privilege of having the local/state "public" school officials or "social services" people threaten or carry out actions against his family. Although I have not personally, I know several families who have and HSLDA has provided them with excellent "protection". I strongly support HSLDA and have often talked with the head, Michael Farris. I can assure you that the absolute last thing on his mind is creating a false sense of danger among home educators so that his organization can profit. Mr. Farris is a Bible believing Christian. This kind of deceit would be totally opposite the beliefs upon which he fashions his entire life.

Message 4

Subject: Re: How to Get Rich in the Protection Business by Stocky Manville (fwd)
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 93 11:49:32 -0400
From: craig@osf.org
To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com

Who is Stocky Manville? Do we know what publication this article was in?

I was not living in New Hampshire when our home schooling law was presented and passed. As I understand the circumstances behind the passing of the law there were problems which some of the homeschoolers were having meeting requirements which were set forth by their local school administrators. These administrators had wide powers in dealing with homeschoolers and, as one would expect, some of them were cooperative, and some were not. There was a concern that things would continue to deteriorate, and that something had to be done.

Let me preface my next remarks by saying that I am a freedom-loving Christian. I am very active politically at the state level, and have been fairly active at the federal level.

I see many homeschoolers in our state who would like to give up liberty for perceived safety. To quote Benjamin Franklin "Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety." When dealing with government, you must be careful. Often they will let you think that you are giving up nothing, when in fact you give up much.

The HSLDA came into our state touting a law which would give the homeschoolers a great deal of freedom, and provide a safe haven for those who had been assaulted by their school administrators. A number of Christian homeschoolers in the state formed a committee which helped to push the bill through our legislative process, and spent a great deal of time and efforts in so doing. Many people attended the hearings and lent their support. I am certain that the original legislation which was presented by the HSLDA was modified to some extent by this committee, and the legislature.

What we have now in New Hampshire is a bill which many homeschoolers cannot live with. It allows the state the same wide powers which it had before, but now they are codified in law. All of the homeschoolers in the state who attempt to comply with this law may have their notification of homeschooling rejected. Many have been culled into believing that because the law says that they must notify in a certain fashion, that that is all that they have to do; they believe that they can go on with their homeschooling plans because they don't have to apply. The law also says that the state must "accept" their "notification" before the homeschooling can start. Someone doesn't understand the distinctions between notification and application.

There is an appeals process for homeschooling to a board of people who claim to represent homeschooling. This is the Home Education Advisory Council (HEAC). I'm afraid that this board doesn't represent the interests of the average homeschooler in the state. Boards like this often end up being highly politically motivated, often with personal interests overriding the rights of parents to direct their children's education. [There's my political experience talking again.]

In a recent turn of events the head of the department of education (I think that is his title), Charlie Marston, is obtaining direct power over homeschooling. Mr. Marston is perported to be anti-homeschooling. The education board which existed before is up to be dissolved (not to be confused with the HEAC). We'll see how this all turns out.

I'm grateful that there are people who want to help homeschoolers, and who are so dedicated that they will truly spend their time and efforts on helping out -- not just giving lip service.

I also get concerned when people end up making a living at it. Often the organization's life becomes more important than the initial issue for which they were formed. The zealousness with which liberties were previously defended diminishes. This can partly because of fighting the dragon day in and day out -- it really wears you down, and takes some of the fight out of you.

I haven't any direct experience with the HSLDA. I am aware of some of the aftermath of legislation that they supposedly initially introduced into the state. Let me further state that whenever it comes to legislation, legal issues, judges, and politicians, it is almost impossible to predict outcome.

Tom Walker comments (WALKERTD@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU):

"I strongly support HSLDA and have often talked with the head, Michael Farris. I can assure you that the absolute last thing on his mind is creating a false sense of danger among home educators so that his organization can profit. Mr. Farris is a Bible believing Christian. This kind of deceit would be totally opposite the beliefs upon which he fashions his entire life."

I truly appreciate his testimony concerning the HSLDA. I'm glad to hear that he firmly believes that they are doing good, and are run by a good man.

I also don't believe that they are creating a false concern over the intrusive powers of government. Government must be closely watched, monitored, and controlled by the people. "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficient ... the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." Justice Louis Brandeis.

Again, I am not warning people to avoid the HSLDA. I am not warning them in any regard, except to be cautious of our valuable liberties and freedoms. "Fight the good fight."

We do need to unite together. We need to present a strong front to our legislatures and governments. Eternal Vigilance

Craig.

Message 5

Subject: HSLDA
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1993 10:50:02 -700 (MDT)
From: Karl Pearson
To: Home Ed Politics

Just a few thoughts for your consideration:

As an active home schooler for 12 years, I've seen something of the trends that have occurred over the last decade. Although I've never been able to put my hands on anything concrete, I've heard story after story from home schoolers in other states that Mr. Farris' organization has filed briefs in states in which they have little influence which would tend to inflame the public establishment against home schoolers. In my mind, these things are as true as the stories told of his benevolence.

This post is by no means any proof, just more hearsay, however, have any of you ever met someone who, when meeting them for the first time you had the same feeling you had when picking up a brick and finding a black widow spider underneath? I have heard that this is the feeling had by many people after having met Mr. Farris. Oh, and just because he professes his Christianity doesn't necessarily mean anything. I learned long ago that when transacting business, if the other party uses his religious beliefs as a reason for me to do business with him then he is a person who *CANNOT* be trusted.

The Rutherford Institute is a marvelous legal 'protection' organization that doesn't require a 'subscription' fee. They handle cases on a case by case basis and have acted responsibly and honorably for me and my organization and have never brought up their religious convictions, even though I know what they are and theirs are just as firm, if not more so, than anyone else in the 'protection' business.

One more thing. If Mr. Farris is as good a man as has been indicated, so be it. More power to him and I hope he wins election. However, there may be those in his organization who carry out subversive actions which ultimately could help to make HSLDA a more profitable entity for them. I've seen some pretty ugly tactics used by people who wish seek a little more job security...

-=> Karl L. Pearson, President, Utah Home Education Association
-=> No Other Success Can Compensate For Failure In The Home - Harold B. Lee

Message 6

Subject: Re: How to Get Rich in the Protection Business by Stocky Manville (fwd)
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1993 14:12:54 -0500
From: ldillard@digi.lonestar.org (Tom Dillard)
To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com

In reference to the allegory of protection, thinly compared to HSLDA, I'd like to add these comments.

We recently read in the _Teaching Home_ an update on the Michigan court's rulings with regards to the DeJonge and Bennett cases. The articles for the most part viewed the rulings as favorable for homeschoolers. I should note that they (I believe) are written by HSLDA.

A few days later my pastor handed me a copy of an article written by a James Lanting, which appeared in the Sept. 1 issue of the _Standardbearer_. It painted a very different picture about the ramifications of the rulings with regards to homeschoolers.

We have several friends that are concerned about these two opposing views; several of these families are members of HSLDA and therefore have a more vested interest than I do.

I did try to contact via email someone on the list (sorry, can't remember the name; was through MCI mail I think) about this but the mail bounced.

I do not have the article in front of me but do have it at home. If anyone is interested I'll see about getting at least parts of it posted.

I would welcome discussion on these two particuliar cases, since there seems to certainly be a difference of opinion about the outcomes.

-Tom

--
L.T. Dillard | DSC Communications Corporation | ldillard@dsccc.com
*** standard disclaimer ***

Message 7

Subject: How to Get Rich in the Protection Busine (rough translation)
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 93 15:16:53 -0400
From: craig@osf.org
To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com

A Personal Response to:
"How to Get Rich in the Protection Business"

This list just reprinted an article which "explained" how the protection racket was being applied to home schoolers. It explained how a certain "protection" company was extorting $100 a year from its 20,000 member families. Since this is a transparent reference to the Home School Legal Defense Association, where I work, I would like to respond.

First, this is a personal response. HSLDA does not, as an organization, defend its reputation when attacked by home schoolers. (We do defend ourselves against critics outside the home-schooling movement.)

But, personally, I was really hurt when I first read Stocky Manville's article. We home schooled our children in Cambridge and then in Boston as I went through Harvard Law School. I hated the approval process, and the requirements for home visits. As far as I could tell, the big school bureaucracies of those two big cities thought that I was a part of their staff. When I left Massachusetts to start work as an attorney at HSLDA, I hated Massachusetts law so much that I did not want to ever have to deal with it again. Instead, I got thrust into responding to real people -- our member families -- who were being harassed by their Massachusetts school districts. Instead of getting away from Massachusetts, I got more of Massachusetts than I ever had before. We have over 600 member families in Massachusetts alone, and I have received calls reporting negative contacts with school officials for nearly a quarter of those families.

The article "How to Get Rich in the Protection Business" is two years old. It has been passed around the home-school community since the old days when HSLDA had less than 20,000 members (we now have 34,000). I have only been at HSLDA since 1992, so I don't know from first-hand experience whether any of the insinuations made in the article have ever been true. I know that the article does not in any way describe the HSLDA that I know.

I was a Massachusetts home schooler, and a member of HSLDA while I was in the state. I know that I was very glad to be in HSLDA during those years. Now that I work at HSLDA, I know that I can't be quite as objective, but there are plenty of families in the state who can. Perhaps those families can add to this discussion. Is HSLDA a "protection racket," as Stocky Manville claims, or does it genuinely serve home schoolers, as I believe?

Message 8

Subject: Article about Michigan homeschooling case rulings
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1993 14:36:41 -0500
From: ldillard@digi.lonestar.org (Tom Dillard)
To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com

Below is the text of the article I mentioned in a previous post with regards to the lack of "protection" offered by HSLDA (note: I did not start this thread!!!). I do not doubt that HSLDA does a great job, but I would like to see comments on the below article and whether it's conclusions are correct or not.

-TD

>
> MICHIGAN HOME SCHOOLERS LOSE TEACHER CERTIFICATION BATTLE
>
> by Mr. James Lanting
> James Lanting, a member of South Holland Protestant Reformed Church,
> is a practicing attorney.
>
> State Regulation of Home Schools
>
> Michigan home schoolers have long chafed under an onerous state
> education law that requires parents who home school their children
> to provide instructors who are state certified. Curiously enough,
> only two other states in the U.S. (Alabama and California) continue
> to insist on teacher certification for home schools. In contrast,
> by far the majority of states that regulate home schools now
> require only that the parent-instructors have a high-school
> education and that the home school students submit to periodic
> academic achievement tests.
> During the last decade Michigan home school advocates have
> challenged not only the despised certification requirement, but
> also other regulations imposed on non-public schools (e.g., curricula
> requirements, 180 school day minimum, and record keeping). In May
> of this year, the Michigan supreme court finally addressed all of
> these issues in lengthy opinions in three unrelated home school cases
> that were consolidated for purposes of hearing. In the Bennett and
> Clonlara companion cases, although the truancy convictions were
> overturned because of procedural irregularities, the court
> essentially upheld Michigan's regulatory scheme over home schools,
> holding that the regulations reasonably advance the state's
> legitimate interest in compulsory education. In the DeJonge case,
> the court carved out a limited exception where family religious
> convictions forbid use of certified teachers.
>
> The Bennett Case
>
> Dissatisfied with the public school system in the Detroit area,
> John and Sandra Bennett withdrew their children and began teaching
> them at home. The Bennetts enrolled their children in a home based
> education program (HBEP) sponsored by Clonlara, Inc. of Ann Arbor,
> Michigan. The Bennetts occasionally traveled to Ann Arbor where
> their children were instructed by certified teachers about four to
> six hours per month on Conlara's campus. The Bennetts held classes
> five hours per day, made monthly attendance reports, prepared
> individualized curricula for each child, and administered standardized
> achievement tests for each of their four children.
> Despite these activities, the Bennetts were tried and convicted
> of failing to send their children to school in violation of
> Michigan's compulsory education laws. The trial court held that the
> Bennetts failed to utilize the services of a certified teacher for
> at least a substantial portion of the school day, and also failed to
> maintain certain attendance and curriculum records. The Bennetts
> appealed their convictions to the appellate court and then to the
> state supreme court.
>
> No Fundamental Right
>
> Although the Bennetts did not contend they had withdrawn their
> children from the public school system for religious reasons, they
> nonetheless argued to the supreme court that parents' right to
> direct the education of their children should be classified as a
> "fundamental" right. Such a favored classification would then
> subject any attempted state regulation of such a fundamental right
> to a "strict scrutiny" test. This test would shift the burden to
> the state to prove that teacher certification, for example, is the
> "least intrusive means" of attaining the state's compulsory
> education goals.
> Regrettably, the court disagreed. Although the majority grudgingly
> recognized the parental right to direct the education of one's
> children, the court stopped short of calling it a "fundamental"
> constitutional right.
> Accordingly, having found the absence of a fundamental right, the
> court held that the state's teacher certification requirement need
> only satisfy the "minimal scrutiny" test -- whether the regulation
> is "reasonably related" to a legitimate state interest. The court
> held:
>
> "...it was incumbent upon the Bennetts to show the unreasonableness
> of the certification requirement, and they have been unable to do
> so. We are simply unconvinced that there is any reason to find
> that the teacher certification requirement is anything but at
> least reasonably related to the state's legitimate interest [in
> compulsory education]."
>
> Finally, the court determined the Bennetts' convictions should be
> overturned and vacated because they were not afforded a proper
> hearing prior to their prosecutions. The court then ordered the state
> superintendent of education to determine whether the Bennetts' home
> school met state education laws.
> In conclusion, the court obstinately refused to jettison the teacher
> certification requirement for home schools, even the this questionable
> regulation is used in only two other states in the U.S. Even more
> regrettably, the court refused to recognize the parental right to
> educate [their own] children as a protected fundamental constitutional
> right.
>
> DeJonge Case -- Religious Exemption
>
> In the companion case of People v. DeJonge, however, which was
> decided the same day, the court did carve out a special exemption
> to teacher certification for "families whose religious convictions
> prohibit the use of certified instructors."
> Mark and Chris DeJonge of Allendale, MI taught their children at
> home since 1984 because of their desire to provide them with a "Christ
> Centered education." They likewise enrolled their children in a
> HBEP administered by the Christian Liberties Academy in Illinois.
> Nevertheless, because neither of them were certified teachers, the
> DeJonges were convicted, fined $200, and sentenced to two years
> probation. On appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court the DeJonges
> contended that the certification requirement violated their First
> Amendment right of free exercise of their religion.
> A split court (4-3) ruled in the DeJonges' favor, creating an
> exception where certification would violate a parent's religious
> beliefs. Mark DeJonge had apparently testified at trial that it was
> his sincerely held religious belief that it is sinful for anyone
> other than parents to teach their children.
>
> Strict Scrutiny Test
>
> Writing for the majority, Justice Dorothy Riley held that, because
> (unlike the Bennett case) the DeJonges' religious beliefs were being
> burdened, the First Amendment requires the "strict scrutiny" test to
> be applied. Accordingly, the application of this test shifted the
> burden to the state to prove that teacher certification is the "least
> restrictive means of achieving the state's interest" in education.
> Applying the strict scrutiny test, Justice Riley opined that teacher
> certification is an "archaic notion," noted that the "nearly universal
> consensus of [other] states is to permit home schooling without
> demanding teacher certified instruction," and further noted that over
> twenty states have already repealed teacher certification requirements
> for home schools.
> Accordingly, the DeJonges' conviction was vacated and the court held
> that, although Bennett stands for the general principle that home
> schools are subject to teacher certification requirements, DeJonge
> carves out a specific exemption or exception for families whose
> religious convictions forbid the use of certified teachers.
>
> Shallow Victories
>
> Although the Home School Legal Defense Association, the secular press,
> and Michigan home schoolers quickly declared a victory in the Bennett
> and DeJonge cases, a close reading of the court opinions demonstrates
> otherwise. Even thought the Bennetts' and DeJonges' convictions were
> overturned, these cases accomplished little if anything for the home
> school movement, and may have signaled a setback for parental rights
> in Michigan. There are several reasons for this.
> First, the central important issue in the Bennett case was whether
> parents' right to direct the education of their children is a
> "fundamental" constitutional right enjoying favored status over
> state regulatory schemes. The court unequivocally ruled to the
> contrary, declaring that such state regulations over parental education
> need only pass a minimal "reasonableness" test. This ruling is
> clearly a loss for all non-public school parents sensitive to control
> over their children's education.
> Secondly, in the Bennett case the Supreme court stubbornly retained
> the teacher certification requirements for both home schools and all
> non-public schools. Teacher certification, then, is regrettably
> still alive and well in Michigan. This adverse ruling, too, is a
> major defeat for all parental schools burdened with ongoing state
> bureaucratic rules and regulations, particularly the archaic teacher
> certification scheme.
> Thirdly, although the DeJonge truancy convictions were overturned,
> only three of the four majority justices ruled that the teacher
> certification law was an unconstitutional violation of the DeJonges'
> religious freedom. Accordingly, the religious freedom aspect of the
> DeJonge case has dubious precedential value.
>
> The Sin of Delegation
>
> Finally, the religious exemption to teacher certification created
> by the DeJonge case is arguably very narrow and thus will be of
> limited use to Michigan home schoolers. This is because Justice
> Riley's majority opinion restricts the exemption of "familes whose
> religious convictions prohibit the use of certified teachers." Mark
> DeJonge apparently believed it to be a sin to send his children to a
> day school (even a Reformed Christian day school with certified
> teachers) because, he insisted, the Bible teaches that only parents
> may teach their children. Consequently, it would be a sin to delegate
> teaching to a certified tutor or Christian school teacher. DeJonge
> also maintained it was a sin for him or his wife to submit to state
> authority and become certified.
> But since Mark DeJonge's unusual if not bizarre notions are shared
> by few if any home schoolers (indeed, the appellate court noted that
> DeJonge's own wife and pastor did not share these beliefs), it appears
> that the DeJonge religious exemption may be claimed by few parents.
> Accordingly, as a parental religious freedom decision, the DeJonge
> case may be of limited significance.
>
> [Reprinted from the September 1, 1993 issue of _The Standard Bearer_
> and used with permission]
>
>
>
> Message Date: Sep 6, 9:54am

--
L.T. Dillard | DSC Communications Corporation | ldillard@dsccc.com
*** standard disclaimer ***

Message 9

Subject: Re: How to Get Rich in the Protection Bus
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 93 19:56 GMT
From: Scott Somerville
To: HOME ED POLITICS

Responding to the NH experience regarding new legislation and HSLDA's involvement in that . . .

I, Scott Somerville, was the first President of the Christian Home Educators of New Hampshire (CHENH) and was one of two home schoolers who fought the Dept. of Ed. to a standstill on the Home School Rules Revision Subcommittee in 1988, the year before the new law was introduced. I depended enormously on HSLDA's help to block the bad guys' efforts to triple the regulations on home schoolers.

After experiencing the battle to defend home schoolers first hand in this way, I decided to go to law school. I was at Harvard Law from 1989-92, so I missed the fun of passing new legislation. One thing I now know about passing a law is that it always divides people. I am not surprised that HSLDA lost some friends as they worked to help New Hampshire's home schoolers get a law passed. Now that I work at HSLDA, I realize that HSLDA always loses both friends and members when there is a legislative victory. We lose friends because no one law pleases everyone. We lose members because we win the victory, and people don't need to spend their hard-earned money on legal defense any more.

As I understand the conversation so far, HSLDA is being criticized for two things: (1) terrorizing people by telling them the laws are awful, and (2) deceiving people by telling them the laws are great.

I think what we really are seeing is that some people just disagree with HSLDA's legal opinions. Instead of agreeing to disagree, however, there are those who attribute HSLDA's position to bad motives (fear-mongering, if HSLDA says the law is not OK; or selling home schoolers down the river if HSLDA says the law is better than the alternative).

The odd thing about all this is that HSLDA does not force anyone to join up, nor do we walk into a state and try to run the show. We are just lawyers, after all, not the elected leadership of the home schooling world.

Message 10

Subject: HSLDA -Reply
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 93 20:10 GMT
From: Scott Somerville
To: HOME ED POLITICS

Responding to "Have you ever picked up a brick and found an ugly spider underneath?"

I, Scott Somerville, have been in the thick of this thread, and now that the Rutherford Institute has been dragged into it, I can't seem to sit back on the sidelines.

I am an HSLDA member who went off to Harvard Law School, and spent the summer of 1990 as an intern at the Rutherford Institute, working directly with John Whitehead in Charlottesville. Because I had been the leader of a state home-school organization, and had five home-schooled kids of my own, I volunteered for the project of updating all of Rutherford's information on home schoolers. This information was originally gathered by Chris Klicka when he was an intern at Rutherford in 1985(?), before he became the first full-time employee of HSLDA. The same material was updated in 1988 by George Whitten, another intern, who then went on to work for HSLDA (he is no longer here).

Rutherford and HSLDA used to have a very warm and cordial relationship. HSLDA would defend all of their own members, and refer non-members to Rutherford. In 1990, when I was at Rutherford, a direct mail firm entered into a contract to help Rutherford build up its mailing list. To the best of my knowledge, that direct mail firm discovered that home schoolers were unusually generous donors, and that they contributed more per capita than did other segments of the mailing list. Shortly after I left Rutherford that fall, they announced that they were starting their "Home School Brief," which, for $25 per year, would help home schoolers with legal problems.

I helped to form the Harvard Law School student chapter of the Rutherford Institute, and was an active participant in Rutherford's activities there for the rest of my law school career. As graduation approached, I inquired about the possibility of a job with Rutherford, and got no response at all. I wound up working at HSLDA, and am very happy here.

I have worked with both Mike Farris and John Whitehead closely and over a sustained period of time. Both are intense, brilliant men. Both have enormous gifts, and certain weaknesses. Mike Farris, for example, can hardly ever be content with doing only one job. He is now running HSLDA and is running for Lt. Gov. of Virginia. I won't say what Whitehead's weaknesses may be, since it would only be misinterpreted.

As to one comment, that HSLDA goes into states where it "has very little influence" and submits briefs that "stir up the educational establishment." The author of that comment doesn't understand the difference between law and politics. In politics, it matters whether one has influence, and it matters whether one stirs up the opposition. In law, when a family is being criminally prosecuted by the all-powerful state, all the "influence" one needs is the law. Yes, HSLDA does "rile up" the educational establishment when it submits briefs that argue that the state's law is unconstitutional. We are sorry for the discomfort, but we have a DUTY to defend each member as best we can.

Message 11

Subject: RE: How to Get Rich in the Protection Busine (rough translation)
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 93 14:37:54 CST
From: dlhanson@amoco.com
To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com

Scott,

I for one appreciate you for personally responding to the allegory. While we are not members of HSDLA, primarily because we think we are fairly safe in Illinois, I do applaud HSDLA's efforts to help individual families out of horrible situations. (Fellow list members, I have read as many older magazines and publications as I can even though we have only been aware of homeschooling for 2 plus years. HSDLA has helped so many individual families so they continue to homeschool, so they could keep out of jail, and so their children wouldn't be taken away. HSDLA is, for individual families, a good friend of homeschooling in my opinion.)

Since, you apparently are reading this, I have to admit that I have a twinge of doubt about one part of what HSDLA does. It seems to me that HSDLA is too ready to compromise with the devil (in this case a State that is intruding into areas where it has no business). It seems to me that HSDLA takes compromising, pragmatic positions on testing and supervision, for example. To me, any State regulation of homeschooling is unacceptable, so it bothers me to see HSDLA constantly take compromising positionsn when they deal with State legislatures. (This is one reason why the unschoolers are so unhappy with HSDLA. I don't happen to agree with their education methods but I do agree with their right to use them. Testing and supervision laws make it very hard for them to do what they believe is best for their families.)

My advice to HSDLA is, that if HSDLA is going to be involved in legistlative efforts, it should not compromise with the devil. That just makes it harder in other places, where families are trying to do right.

David L. Hanson
Naperville, IL
dlhanson@amoco.com
(Have the people on the HSDLA staff read Who Owns the Children? by Blair Adams? If not, they should.)

Message 12

Subject: reply to HSLDA and protection racket
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 93 10:10:00 WET
From: doris (Doris Hohensee)
To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com

HSLDA has used its considerable clout time and again to establish laws that only they and a limited segment of the home education community can live under. Their vision of home education is very State controlled and regulated. Many families cannot comply with the laws HSLDA helps to pass.

The problem I had personally with HSLDA is that they helped draft, lobbied support for, and defended the current home education law, which is not only unconstitutional but it acknowledges Man (the State) as sovereign. How can HSLDA, a Christian organization, deny God's sovereignity? Was it deliberate or unwitting? I do not know. However, every year that I have tried to change the home education law, HSLDA publishes bulletins to its local home education groups distorting and opposing my legislative efforts. Let me explain the problem with our home education law and how HSLDA continues to interfere in New Hampshire politics.

Under common law, when you comply with a statute it is comparable to signing a legally binding contract with the State acknowledging its sovereignity.

By complying with the current home education law, parents inadvertently accept and acknowledge, in a legally binding manner, the State's authority to proscribe and limit parental rights. Courts have upheld the primary right and obligation of parents to raise and educate their children. Yet our new law recognizes only "the primary right and obligation of a parent to CHOOSE the appropriated eduational alternative for a child under his care and supervision, as provided by law." Your right to educate your children has now been reduced to a choice of State-approved State-regulated educational alternatives and then only as prescribed by law. The four little words, "AS PROVIDED BY LAW," qualify and restrict your rights with respect to the education of your children. Compliance with the law completely and irrevocably takes away all of your rights except those specifically "provided by law." State sovereignity over the education of your children denies God's sovereignity. In this way, the State repeatedly tricks people into ceding sovereignity from God to Man.

Lawyers are trained in statute law, not common law or God's law. It is not in the State's interest to license lawyers based upon their knowledge of anything but statute law. Thus most lawyers do not recognize this problem.

Private educators would never allow the department of education to define curriculums as home educators have with our new law. Censorship of curriculum may not be an obvious problem at the moment, but it is an insidious and dangerous power to grant to the State. Again: the State claims sovereignity over God's domain.

Private educators are not accountable, in law, TO ANYONE AT ALL. Home educators in this state have the dubious distinction of being unique. In any case, "evaluation" is just "curriculum approval" spelled backwards, since any evaluation pre-supposes a specific curriculum and body of knowledge. Again: who are we accountable to, Man, or God?

N.H.'s current law is, theologically speaking, a literal abomination. It is a direct challenge to God's Lordship. He does not instruct us to go along to get along in such matters. Our children are not Caesar's that we should render them unto him.

Finally, our home education law burdens the local school districts with administrative costs estimated by the department of education to be approximately $500 per child per year. As the law imposes this unfunded mandate upon local communities, which is specifically prohibited by our state constitution, it is unconstitutional.

The reason we have bad legislation here in N.H. is because home educators were manipulated and intimidated by the "take no risks, it's best we can possibly expect, don't ruin it for the rest of us" experts, like HSLDA. We were told we were "only a minority." We were warned to support this compromised legislation lest home education be outlawed entirely.

Our legislation wasn't initiated by "misguided" home educators, rather it was a power grab by the N.H. Department of Education. One family took advantage of (then-existing) local control by moving from one town to another to escape lengthy litigation. Immediately, state control became a "necessity" to the powers that be: it would ensure "equity" for all home educators, the bill's proponents promised.

Terrified home educators with the "don't rock the boat" mentality rallied to support this proposed legislation. HSLDA quickly flew to N.H., even before the first public hearing was held, for a special, private meeting with our legislature to help draft our new law. How do I know? Because I had to sit and wait for a delayed public hearing because HSLDA was still working over my legislators. New Hampshire home educators waited while out-of-state HSLDA lawyers got to promote their compromised legislation. Then HLSDA, along with the department of education, urged home educators to form organizations "in order to lobby" HARD for passage of their new bill. These compliant home school organizers were given prestige and recognition by the legislature for their "dedication and effort." It was a variation on the classic Stalinist tactic of creating and controlling your own opposition, thus co-opting and pre-empting any genuine resistance.

What was the outcome of the bill? It passed nearly unanimously, which fact, by itself, is confirmation of how little we actually got compared to what we could have gotten. *We were rolled by our own side*. The new law gave the state complete control over home education: the legislature had no problem with that. Home educators who opposed the bill were ignored because the "don't rock the boat" crowd obviously *desired* regulation. The legislature used the excuses that: "Home educators are only a minority." "Nobody understands home education." "Home educators need to trust the legislature and Department of Education and work with them for the best possible compromise." "Little by little people will come to understand home education and we will get a better law." "This proposal is probably the best home educators can reasonably expect at the present time." GARBAGE.

N.H. home educators were conned by HSLDA into working for their own demise. I overheard the bill's sponsor explain privately to another legislator that his bill was worth supporting because: "We will be able to litigate and win against homeschoolers, unlike the previous regulations which were too vague and ambiguous for the courts." Many N.H. home educators still do not realize that they were bamboozled, nor just how much they lost in 1990 with "their" home education law. HSLDA's help in this debacle was significant and very disturbing.

Parental rights are too important to be compromised. Our home education community will continue to be divided against itself until this problem is finally resolved. Home education differences surface only when someone refuses to "behave" and insists upon "rocking the boat." That is what I have done in New Hampshire for the past three years since our HSLDA-endorsed legislation passed. My understanding is that the extent one goes in defense of one's rights is still a PERSONNAL, not COLLECTIVE, decision. The "go along to get along" crowd has repeatedly told me that I shouldn't continue to defend my rights. Every year when I initiate a bill, HSLDA issues bulletins to the local home education groups to oppose my legislation by distorting the intent and purpose of the bill. It seems HSLDA's lawyers are either extremely stupid, or they simply oppose greater freedom for home educators?

Politics is war, without the physical violence. It is what civilized people do to effect change without resorting to arms. Do not underestimate the importance of individual activism. Just because previous efforts have failed doesn't mean everyone must give up, even for the time being. I am in this for the long term. As we say here in New Hampshire: Live Free or Die. There is no middle ground for compromise.

Doris Hohensee
New Hampshire Alliance for Home Education

Message 13

Subject: RE: reply to HSLDA and protection racket
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 93 09:23:52 CST
From: dlhanson@amoco.com
To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com

Doris Hohensee has given a concrete example of why I am bothered by HSLDA's (I have the acronym right this time) approach. It is one of compromise with convictions that are uncompromisable.

I still think that as a protector of INDIVIDUAL homeschool rights that they are a valuable organization. Their attorneys are experts on homeschool law who have done their research (I learned a lesson about hiring a nonspecialist attorney a few years ago. To save a few dollars, I went to a national legal chain with a real estate law problem. The lawyer that assigned to me didn't know anything about Colorado real estate law. I could have looked in the Statute books myself and saved $200.)

David

Message 14

Subject: HSLDA
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 93 19:43 GMT
From: Scott Somerville
To: HOME-ED

Responding to "HSLDA has used its considerable clout time and again to establish laws that only they and a limited segment of the home education community can live under."

As an attorney at HSLDA, I spent hundreds of hours last year challenging Pennsylvania's home school law, even though that was a law that HSLDA helped to draft and get passed. Maybe this is two-faced, but it is something that lawyers are good at. We see no problem, as lawyers, with first getting a law passed which is better for home schoolers than the alternative, and then turning right around and challenging "our" new law as unconstitutional.

One difference of opinion that I have with Doris, however, is challenging a new law by going right back to the same legislature within a very short time. A court is likely to strike down even a new law as unconstitutional, but a legislature is much more likely to take the opportunity to amend the new law by making it worse.

Message 15

Subject: Re: Scott Somerville of HSLDA
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 93 10:53:13 WET
From: doris (Doris Hohensee)
To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
CC: karen (Karen Peterson)

I appreciate Scott Somerville's frank acknowledgement that HSLDA does, in fact, lobby on behalf of unconstitutional laws, then profits by defending homeschoolers from the very same laws. With 38,000 families requesting protection at $100 a year, that nets HSLDA 3.8 million dollars. I guess Stocky Manville was correct in his assessment: this type of protection is a racket.

Now, if I understand Mr. Somerville correctly, his only problem with me, personally, is that I won't wait patiently for the *correct* time to fix New Hampshire's HSLDA-approved unconstitutional law. I'm supposed to wait for Scottie to lead me out of Egypt into the Promised Land.

I suppose I lack faith.

On a more practical level, Scott appears to believe, along with most lawyers, that the solution to any problem is a court *order*. I prefer to work through the people's representatives. In the long run we must convince those same people of the rightness of our cause. Using the courts to push them around solves nothing. Witness the devisiveness and confrontation caused by 'liberal' use of the courts to drive minority causes into the mainstream. Sorry to sound extreme, but that way lies civil war. I think it's generally better to persuade than to fight.

Doris Hohensee
New Hampshire Alliance for Home Education

Message 16

Subject: Article about Michigan homeschooling case
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 93 12:57 GMT
From: Scott Somerville
To: HOME ED POLITICS

Scott Somerville, reporting from HSLDA, regarding the article, Michigan Home Schoolers Lose Teacher Certification Case.

First, our in-house joke about this article is that this author would have reported the feeding of the five thousand as "So-Called Messiah Fleeces Food Off Little Boy."

Second, the author appears to have a very heavy bias in favor of traditional Christian schools, and seems offended that anyone would think it was a "sin" to send a child to a good Calvinist K-12 school.

Third, the author misunderstands the DeJonge's religious convictions. He thinks (and, to be honest, half the court also thinks) that the DeJonge's have some weird theological problem with certified teachers, per se. Instead, their religious convictions are that THEY must teach their own children. Since they are not certified, that translates into a religious conviction that it would be a sin to have a certified teacher (of necessity, someone other than themselves) teach their children.

If the DeJonges belonged to some weird sect that was anti-certification, the author would be right to call it a very narrow victory. Instead, well over 90% of Michigan home schoolers can claim the same constitutional right as the DeJonges.

Now, for the remaining 10%, the DeJonge victory is still a big step forward. The Department of Education is now required to hold hearings before they "disapprove" a Michigan home schooler. By the nature of a bureaucracy, we expect the Department to try to come up with a very streamlined way of processing these thousands of hearings. We do not expect this to be in any way worse for secular home schoolers than the current system.

A final word for the purists, the "no-jurisdiction" faction, as represented by Doris Hohensee and others on this list. The DeJonge case in Michigan was a major victory, on constitutional grounds, for those who can claim that God alone has jurisdiction over their home school. Do you in the no-jurisdiction camp have any objections to winning a case on First Amendment grounds, or is that another form of compromise?

Message 17

Subject: HSLDA
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 93 13:47:30 WET
From: karen (Karen Peterson)
To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com

Scott Sommerville of HSLDA writes:

Responding to "HSLDA has used its considerable clout time and again to establish laws that only they and a limited segment of the home education community can live under."

As an attorney at HSLDA, I spent hundreds of hours last year challenging Pennsylvania's home school law, even though that was a law that HSLDA helped to draft and get passed. Maybe this is two-faced, but it is something that lawyers are good at. We see no problem, as lawyers, with first getting a law passed which is better for home schoolers than the alternative, and then turning right around and challenging "our" new law as unconstitutional.

One difference of opinion that I have with Doris, however, is challenging a new law by going right back to the same legislature within a very short time. A court is likely to strike down even a new law as unconstitutional, but a legislature is much more likely to take the opportunity to amend the new law by making it worse.

I reply:

Problems arise in the home-schooling populus because of groups such as HSLDA. These people see themselves as the commisaurs of home-education where they make the laws and then fight the battles.

Am I to understand that HSLDA comes into states, drafts bills that are unconstitutional just because they are better than what they think (there is that abstract term, again) we could possibly get and then offers to protect you, for a fee, from those unconstitutional laws until they FEEL (oops, another abstract and undefinable term) the time is right to correct the law?

Who annointed this organization the commisaurs of Home Education?

Am I to live with a law, unconstitutional from its inception, because some " out of state experts" waltzed into my legislature and drafted their version of what home-schooling should be in New Hampshire?

Why did they convince all the people that that was the best they could get and hopped the next plane out of state where they would not have to subjected to the unconstitutionality of the law they helped to enact. Why do they charge a fee for protecting these people against a law they knew to be unconstituional? Why do they send bulletins to these people every year misrepresenting the proposed legislation? Legislation which would have corrected the unconstitutional areas of HSLDA's inept law.

It sounds to me like the author of "How to get rich in the protection racket" was correct. This has now been established by an HSLDA lawyer.

Am I to understand that I am not allowed to fight for my rights and to introduce legislation that would remedy this UNCONSTITUTIONAL law, because they have not given me permission. How long must we be denied our rights? When is long enough?

Our law is 4 years old! Why do they insist on thwarting every effort? It is to keep the home-educators of our state divided. It is the divide and conquer trick used over and over again. If we are united then we could go much further in getting a law which would benefit all homeschoolers as it would ensure that all their rights were respected and that the constitution was upheld with respect to the raising and educating of their children. However, if our organization was that strong we wouldn't need their services. It is to their benefit to keep us divided. Thanks to the meddling of HSLDA we will forever be divided. Divided we fall and We lose. In fact WE ALL LOSE!

The CLOCK IS TICKING...When is the time? Our Freedoms are at stake!

Karen Peterson
Parental Rights Association
New Hampshire

Message 18

Subject: Article about Michigan homeschooling case
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1993 11:03:36 -0400
From: craig (Craig Peterson)
To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com

A final word for the purists, the "no-jurisdiction" faction, as represented by Doris Hohensee and others on this list. The DeJonge case in Michigan was a major victory, on constitutional grounds, for those who can claim that God alone has jurisdiction over their home school. Do you in the no-jurisdiction camp have any objections to winning a case on First Amendment grounds, or is that another form of compromise?

I, personally, would love to win a case on First Amendment grounds which would give a solid base for religious homeschooling. I certainly don't belong in the "no-jurisdiction camp" as an athiest, as I am deeply religious in nature. I do strongly believe that this country's freedoms are given by God, and as such I would like to see the courts and legislatures acknowledge that it is a parent's fundamental right to raise and educate their children as they see fit. As a general rule parents have the children's best interests at heart, while those of a government can be in conflict with the individual child's best interest. [Boy, could this be a long discussion.]

Craig.

Message 19

Subject: Re: Scott Somerville of HSLDA -Reply
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 93 17:28 GMT
From: Scott Somerville
To: HOME ED POLITICS

Okay folks, we now have a full-fledged dog-fight between two old New Hampshirites. In the far corner, weighing in at (way too much) and representing HSLDA, is Scott Somerville! (Cheers, loud acclaim, hats in the air.) In the near corner, defending truth, justice and the American way, is Doris Hohensee! (Shouts, huzzahs, and general approval.) The bell rings, and they're off...

But seriously folks. This is Scott, responding to Doris' last shot. She says:

(1) "I appreciate Scott Somerville's frank acknowledgment that HSLDA does, in fact, lobby on behalf of unconstitutional laws..."

Let's put this frank acknowledgment in perspective, by using a very appropriate analogy. Consider a law which would prohibit all abortions except for cases of rape and incest. If you believe that personhood and life begin at conception (which I do), then this is a law which deprives a small group of persons of life without due process of law, in violation of the 14th Amendment. This is an unconstitutional law. Would I lobby for it? Yes, if it was the best I could do, because it would prevent about 1,450,000 abortions each year.

This is pragmatism which Doris may find offensive. That is okay with me -- I am not asking her to join HSLDA. But there are people who DO want to join HSLDA, precisely because we are pragmatically committed to keeping them out of jail and in their homes, teaching their own kids. Our goal, here at HSLDA, is NOT to change America's laws. Our goal is to defend each and every one of our members to the absolute maximum of our ability.

(2) "With 38,000 families requesting protection at $100 a year, that nets HSLDA 3.8 million dollars. I guess Stocky Manville was correct in his assessment: this type of protection is a racket."

Guess what, Doris. We give out a lot of scholarships to families too poor to afford our "racket." We provide discounts for local support groups. We actively litigate hard cases, like single Welfare moms fighting to keep their benefits, or the case we have in Ohio right now, where the oldest child in the family has been charged with the voluntary manslaughter of a younger sister. We provide free assistance to divorce lawyers in an innumerable number of custody cases, where the ex-husband wants to shut down the home school so he can send his ex-wife back out into the work force to cut down his own bills. We go to the mat for handicapped home schoolers, too, which is a frightfully expensive and seldom glamorous task. Now that Bill and Hillary are in office, we are spending about 10% of our annual budget gearing up to fight the Federal Government, too.

The main point is this: we make less money that Doris thinks, and we spend a lot more than she supposes. Are we broke? No, for which we routinely thank God.

Are we rich? I quit my job as a programmer, sold my house, and went without income for three years while I went to Harvard, taking my wife and five (then six) children) with me. I am being paid about 60% of what I could get in the big-city job market. If this is a for-profit protection racket, somebody is not doing his job right!

(3) "On a more practical level, Scott appears to believe, along with most lawyers, that the solution to any problem is a court ORDER. I prefer to work through the people's respresentatives... I think it's generally better to persuade than to fight."

Here, I can't figure out which side of the street Doris is working. First she hammers me for being too pragmatic and compromising, now she lauds herself for being such a persuasive peacemaker. I might agree with her if I knew what she meant by this last bit.

I hope the rest of you on the list don't mnind watching the sparks fly. New Hampshire, home of the motto "Live Free or Die," has a reputation for fierce feistiness. If it gets too hot for you flatlanders, just send us a note and we'll take this feud off into a private corner.

Message 20

Subject: HSLDA -Reply
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 93 21:07 GMT
From: Scott Somerville
To: HOME ED POLITICS

Scott Somerville, of HSLDA, responding to an obviously hot topic:

Those families that want a lawyer to defend them within the existing legal system tend to choose HSLDA. Those who want a whole new legal system may not be satisfied with HSLDA's services. If you want to blame the entire messed-up legal system on me personally, I guess I can't stop you.

But please folks, don't impugn my motives. I am a lawyer who defends home schoolers. I love what I do, and I am NOT getting rich at it.