535 ‘‘THERE ARE NO HOUSEWIVES ON STAR TREK ’’: A REEXAMINATION OF EXIT RIGHTS FOR THE CHILDREN OF INSULAR FUNDAMENTALIST PARENTS Paula McAvoy Spencer Foundation Abstract. In this essay, Paula McAvoy addresses the problem caused by the liberal state’s necessary tolerance of insular fundamentalist groups and the concern that children raised in such groups do not have a fair opportunity to evaluate their inherited beliefs. This tension comes to the fore around disagreements over schooling and requests for religious accommodation. Often, these requests are treated as straightforward dilemmas — either the state accommodates the group at the expense of the child’s future interest in autonomy, or the state must use its power to coerce the group into compliance. McAvoy argues for a principled middle ground between these two views. Using William Galston’s conditions for securing the right to exit (set out in his 2002 book Liberal Pluralism) and evidence from Anabaptist apostates, McAvoy shows that insular groups cannot satisfy these conditions. Consequently, when accommodation is necessary, the state must mitigate the foreseeable costs to children by enacting policies that ‘‘facilitate entrance’’ for those who later choose to exit. Religious fundamentalism poses a particular challenge to liberal societies. In short, liberalism rests upon the idea that there are multiple and competing ‘‘good lives’’ and that individuals ought to be allowed to choose among these good lives with little intervention from the state. Fundamentalists, on the other hand, believe that there is one divinely prescribed good life and that movement away from the way puts one, and perhaps one’s family, at risk of eternal suffering. Such a belief system is allowable under liberal theory, but liberals disagree about how to secure the future rights of children raised by fundamentalist parents. Liberals recognize that parents have a right to raise children within a particular belief system, but eventually children ought be allowed to evaluate those beliefs and decide if they are good for them — a choice they have difficulty making when they are taught that all other ways of living are morally wrong. This conflict over the rights of children often comes to the fore around questions of schooling and requests for religious and cultural accommodation. In such cases, policymakers are asked to decide to what extent parental interests should be accommodated and when, if ever, the state is justified in enacting policies that secure what Harry Brighouse calls a child’s ‘‘future interest in autonomy’’ against the wishes of his or her parents. 1 On one side of the debate are group rights advocates who argue that encompassing cultural and religious groups, such as Hasidic Jews, Mormon polygamists, Islamic and Christian fundamentalists, and the Amish, deserve state protections against policies that infringe on certain beliefs and practices. 2 According to these theories, the state cannot interfere 1. Harry Brighouse, ‘‘How Should Children Be Heard?’’ Arizona Law Review 45, no. 3 (2003): 691–711. 2. See William Galston, Liberal Pluralism: The Implications of Value Pluralism for Political Theory and Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002). This work will be cited in the text as LP EDUCATIONAL THEORY Volume 62 Number 5 2012  2012 Board of Trustees University of Illinois