Parents should be required to obtain a license from the government and be screened for their views on homosexuality and other issues before being allowed to raise their own biological children, argues radical academic Connor Kianpour at the far-left University of Colorado Boulder. Critics are sounding the alarm.
In his paper, headlined “The Kid’s Aren’t Alright: Expanding the Role of the State in Parenting,” the self-styled “philosopher” argues that the government should take over the primary responsibility for the raising of children. This should be no problem, because even biological parents have “no right” to raise their own children, he claims in the paper published in the Journal of Ethics & Social Philosophy.
“Individuals have no right to rear their biological children, nor do they have any interests weighty enough to justify a right to rear children generally,” writes Kianpour, a PhD candidate in philosophy, in the controversial paper. “Since these rights do not exist, regulated parenting policies cannot be said to jeopardize them.”
Because there is no right for a parent to raise his or her own children, then the state does not require any “special justification” to institute and enforce a “parental licensing scheme,” he says. In short, under Kianpour’s view, parents who do not obtain governmental approval would be faced with having the state kidnap their children.
To obtain a license from the government to rear children, Kianpour envisions a series of requirements, including testing to determine whether the prospective licensees have government-approved views on a range of issues. “Certain individuals are unfit to rear children because they are objectionably intolerant of certain backgrounds and ways of life,” he writes.
In particular, he regards unquestioned support for sodomy and homosexuality as a prerequisite for being allowed to parent. “Strongly homophobic individuals are unfit to rear children,” Kianpour claims, arguing that racists, sexists, and others who are “intolerant” should all be weeded out as parents through viewpoint testing and “parental licensing.”
Ironically, Kianpour’s words prove he is a bigot who is objectively intolerant of Christians, Muslims, Orthodox Jews, and billions of people worldwide who do not share his fringe views on homosexuality. He is also intolerant of people who might be affiliated with unnamed “organizations that would give us reason to believe they are objectionably intolerant,” and therefore, ineligible to be parents.
To determine whether parents would be allowed to raise their own children, Kianpour argues that government officials should develop “standards” for “parental competency.” The government would then evaluate whether particular individuals “meet these standards, and prevent those who do not meet these standards from rearing children.”
In a devastating takedown of Kianpour’s totalitarian fantasies, pro-family leader Kimberly Ells highlights the implications and danger of this sort of escalating extremism. “If taken seriously, Kianpour’s ideas could seismically disrupt the functioning of families and therefore, the functioning of the world,” wrote Ells, author of The Invincible Family.
Unfortunately, while it may sound unhinged to normal people, the sort of world advocated by Kianpour is closer than most would like to realize. “We are not light years away from something like this being enacted,” she explains, pointing to recent legislation in liberal states. “In fact, a potent version of this scheme is already being propelled forward by transgender activism.”
Kianpour, who appears to have been mooching off taxpayers his entire adult life in pursuit of degrees from government-funded institutions, has abhorrent views that are certainly on the fringe. However, as Ells suggests, the would-be PhD is part of a broader movement within academia to delegitimize parental rights and ultimately destroy the family.
Other more prominent totalitarians in academia are making similar arguments. Law Professor James Dwyer of William and Mary College, for instance, purports to “debunk” parental rights while arguing for the state to totally take over. “The reason that parent-child relationship exists is because the state confers legal parenthood on people through its paternity and maternity laws,” claimed Dwyer.
The push to sideline parents also comes as more and more tax-funded “academics” advocate for the “right” of children to have sex with adults. As The Newman Report documented in 2020, this abhorrent position advocating for the legalization of child rape is being openly peddled in “research” and papers by a growing number of university luminaries mooching off taxpayers. It goes back decades.
But make no mistake: These deranged individuals can be extremely dangerous. In fact, throughout human history, people trying to separate children from parents have always had evil intentions. Whether motivated by perversion such as Alfred Kinsey or by totalitarian impulses like Hitler and Stalin, these would-be tyrants represent a mortal danger to children, families, and civilization itself.
Kianpour did not respond to questions sent by email and social media: “Do you have children? Did you have bad parents and a bad childhood? Can you give an estimate of how much money taxpayers have spent to support your academic pursuits? How do you respond to accusations that evildoers (perverts, totalitarians, etc) are typically those seeking to remove children from the protection of their parents?”
Kianpour’s unhinged ramblings are powerful evidence that it is time to fundamentally rethink taxpayer funding for the grotesque farce that is modern “academia.” Without a steady flow of money looted from productive citizens by governments, totalitarians and weirdos seeking access to others’ children would have to find a productive way to make a living. Now that would help safeguard society and children.