NHSEB Case 9 “Pulled to Protect” pits parents’ rights to raise their children how they think best against society’s responsibility to ensure all kids enjoy an adequately supportive childhood. As the case analogizes, we’d intervene if parents allowed a child to play with fire (imagine your neighbor’s 9-year-old mixing gasoline with fireworks – you’d call somebody!). But the question here is whether we should similarly intervene when parents fail to ensure their kids are adequately educated, which sometimes can be motivated by understandable reasons, such as the desire to preserve their way of life (example: the Amish).
I’ve actually been using an ethics journal article to cover a similar, overlapping issue in my college ethics classes since 2020. “Sport, Parental Autonomy, and Children’s Right to an Open Future” by Nicholas Dixon is ultimately about parents appropriately supporting their kids’ athletic interests (not living vicariously through them, exposing them to various options to see what resonates, and only pushing extended time and effort when they love a sport and are truly great at it). But he touches on the exact issue and Supreme Court case as this Ethics Bowl case, “Pulled to Protect.”
What’s more, coach Michael Andersen’s team just covered this case, he shared his awesome-as-always study guide (which includes multiple bonus resources), and it and my 9-minute lecture on the Dixon article are below. Enjoy!