Just started thinking about this case while taking my AP Government exam today.
While I'm usually big on religious liberty and a firm believer in the Establishment Clause, Free Exercise can be a bit shakier for me, and this case is a great example of why.
Ultimately I would have joint Justice William O. Douglas in dissenting, because the central claim about free exercise of religion went too far in this case. Of course one should be allowed to freely exercise their religion, but a line has to be drawn somewhere; otherwise religion begins to go against the laws of society. Take for example the fact that Mormons were compelled to drop the practice of bigamy because it was fundamentally at odds with societal values and America's social fabric (we as a society practice monogamy). And to me, even that question is far less clear-cut than the issue of providing children a high school education, because the marriage between two (or more, as is the case here) consenting adults shouldn't be the business of the state as it does not concern them in any way. We as a society might value monogamy, but in my view, education for all should be a higher social priority. But I digress. In the case of
Wisconsin v. Yoder, I would put the state's interest in educating the next generation, investing in them and setting them up for professional success, above their parents' oppressive religious belief (that the kid may not even hold!). It may at first glance be difficult to reconcile this with the principles of libertarianism, even if not religious freedom, but as Douglas' dissent shrewdly observes, forcing children to drop out of school in 8th grade isn't libertarian so much as it is regressive and oppressive to them (and any hopes or aspirations they may have for themselves):
While the parents, absent dissent, normally speak for the entire family, the education of the child is a matter on which the child will often have decided views. He may want to be a pianist or an astronaut or an oceanographer. To do so he will have to break from the Amish tradition.
It is the future of the student, not the future of the parents, that is imperiled by today's decision. If a parent keeps his child out of school beyond the grade school, then the child will be forever barred from entry into the new and amazing world of diversity that we have today. The child may decide that that is the preferred course, or he may rebel. It is the student's judgment, not his parents', that is essential if we are to give full meaning to what we have said about the Bill of Rights and of the right of students to be masters of their own destiny. If he is harnessed to the Amish way of life by those in authority over him and if his education is truncated, his entire life may be stunted and deformed.
Now, if the child had a say in this matter and they independently did not want to go to school, that might muddy the waters for me...I'd have a more mixed opinion at that point (on one side there's the public interest in educating everyone through high school, on the other the point about religious liberty and the fact that if a child does not want to learn, they cannot be forced to). I would probably ultimately side with the Amish at that point, but with circumstances as they were (i.e. parents making the decision for their children), I'd have ruled against them, and on the side of Wisconsin.