(The Wall Street Journal requires a subscription, so I have reprinted the full article here. WSJ link.)
I almost didn’t believe it when I heard it. I thought, “This must be AI. No one would actually say this.” Yet, there he was, Samuel Moyn, a professor at Yale Law School, asserting that parents cannot be trusted because they have a “divergence of interest” with their own children.
In his view, children need to be represented by “the youngest eligible voters”—strangers to the children—lest children continue to be “hostages of their parents.”
Wow. Maybe I’m stuck in a bubble, not realizing that this point of view has any real traction. Maybe I associate too much with loving, devoted parents and not enough with folks who think parents are holding their kids hostage. In my own life, I recognize that mine and my children’s interest regularly diverge – that’s parenting. Just this week, my daughter wanted to play Uno while I was in the middle of working, a clear example of “divergence of interest.” We played Uno.
That’s what parents do. They sacrifice for their children. Immensely. For Decades. Without even considering it a sacrifice.
There are exceptions. Some parents fail in their responsibility. Our laws rightly protect children in those circumstances. But when tragic exceptions become the foundation of public policy, we inevitably create unintended consequences that are far more damaging than addressing those exceptions directly.
To whatever degree Moyn’s views represent an actual debate regarding who is in the best position to advocate for a child, the clear answer is parents. Not because parents are perfect, but because freedom requires us to begin with the presumption that parents are acting in their children’s best interests. That presumption is not rooted in some unrealistic expectation of perfection. It’s rooted in liberty and reality.
If we stop presuming parents first, someone else must take their place. Schools? Government agencies? Distant experts? Each (except the “youngest eligible voters” favored by Moyn) may possess valuable knowledge but inevitably carries their own biases. And none possesses the intimate understanding, sustained commitment, or enduring responsibility that a parent has for their child.
Utah law explicitly recognizes that parents bear the primary responsibility for educating and caring for their children. When parents enroll a child in school, they are not transferring responsibility but choosing a trusted partner to help fulfill it. In that partnership, that parent is the captain. Not because parents know everything, but because they bear the ultimate responsibility for their children’s education and well-being. Authority should follow responsibility.
Teachers bring professional knowledge. School leaders bring experience. Parents bring something neither can: an intimate knowledge of their own child and a lifelong commitment to that child’s flourishing.
For children and schools to succeed, educators and parents should be on the same team, each fulfilling their role for the benefit of every child. We need to be clear that it’s not the school’s team. Schools are on the parents’ team. That simple principle should shape every education debate.
This does not diminish educators. It elevates them. The strongest schools understand they are joining families in a shared mission, not competing for influence or authority. They earn parents’ confidence through partnership, communication, and excellence.
Educational choice matters because one child may thrive in a highly structured classroom, while another flourishes in a school built around the arts, project-based learning, or career and technical education. No single option will be the best for every child, and no statewide system can know those children the way their parents do.
It’s true in broader public policy and society as well as in education. If we want children to thrive, society needs to be on the parents’ team.
Trusting parents is not naïve. It’s an acknowledgment of a simple truth: no government official, no school administrator, no distant expert, no random young voter, will ever match a parent’s depth of understanding, love, or willingness to sacrifice when navigating the inevitable “diverging interests” between parent and child.
The role of public policy is not to replace parents. It is to empower them. When responsibility and authority remain together, children flourish, and both families and society grow stronger.