As a teacher, Supreme Court siding with parents' religious freedom concerns me
My first day as a high school teacher, kids were opting out of pretty much everything I asked them to do. Too tired to read, they said. Writing made their heads ache. They had beefs with whoever I partnered them with on a project and they sure weren't about to get up in front of the class.
Most teachers quickly become accustomed to all the opting out. We wise up and toughen up to help kids toughen up. We also figure out how to know when, for the moment, it is better to leave them be.
We also get used to the exceptions that kids and their parents ask for. The first year I assigned James Baldwin's "If Beale Street Could Talk," a girl told me her parents wouldn't let her read it. Her brother had found all the f-bombs and showed their parents. The novel also contains critiques of Christian piety and hypocrisy. It was on the district approved reading list, but I didn't want to give that girl any more grief than her brother and parents already were so I let her read something else.
Even so, I am concerned about the Supreme Court's ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor, validating an assertion of religious freedom over a school district's reading program.
How religious freedom could hurt teachers' freedom of speech
The case was brought by a group of Maryland parents against Montgomery County's school board, which refused to allow the parents to opt their kids out of the reading and/or discussion of books that depicted people married to same-sex spouses, dramatized a dog at a pride parade, and told other stories whose settings included the recognition and normalization of LGBTQ+ people.
In general, I have always tried to honor the beliefs of parents ‒ not just about what to read but also about how they choose to raise their children ‒ whether or not I agree with them. I do this out of respect and also for the sake of kids who are better off without being in the middle of ideological conflict.
There are limits, however.
The most serious of these is that if I believe a parent's idea of discipline rises (or descends) to the level of physical abuse, I am compelled by law, as are all teachers, to report it to the authorities. Teachers are also mandated to report emotional abuse, elusive as it may be to detect.
The students whose emotional abuse has often been the most obvious to me are gay teenagers whose parents have shunned or humiliated them. Some of this abuse is instigated by religious beliefs and influences that make their child's sexuality a source of torment.
Another view: Schools are pushing LGBTQ+ books on kids. Supreme Court should side with parents. | Opinion
I feel for those parents, but I am far more sympathetic to the young men and women who are the subject of the condemnation and alienation. Even in cases where the level of emotional abuse isn't sufficient to file a report, and with all due respect to the parents, I am compelled to offer emotional support and a voice of acceptance.
If narrowing a child's educational experience in that way is a pillar of religious freedom, does that 'freedom' also prevent me or any other teacher from telling an LGBTQ+ student they need not be ashamed of who they are?
Perhaps not ‒ not yet ‒ but I worry, as should all educators.
How much power should parents have over their kids?
It has been nearly 100 years since the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled in John Scopes' case that the state may not criminalize the teaching of human evolution, though Darwin's theory was at odds with the Judeo-Christian Bible's version of human inception.
The parallels between Scopes and Mahmoud are far from perfect. The former challenged the academic freedom to teach science when science contradicted religious beliefs. The latter challenges the authority of a school district to override the religious beliefs (or interpretations, anyway) of parents on curricular decisions about their kids.
Even so, it doesn't take much of a leap to get from opt-outs for LGBTQ+ book references to opt-outs for the study or even mention of human evolution.
Evolution is foundational to anthropology, human history and civilization, and human biology. Preventing a student from learning about it could set the student behind their peers in their knowledge and understanding of science.
Preventing a child from understanding the world beyond their own family and experience is potentially more crippling. The world in which today's children are growing up is diverse. An inability to comprehend it and navigate it can limit their academic and professional horizons.
Some kids have two moms and some have two dads. Some kids have a transgender parent. Some are being raised by a single parent or grandparent(s) or in a blended family, some kids are being raised by someone with whom they are not related, and still others are being raised by no one at all. Refusing to allow a child to understand and normalize this diversity marginalizes those kids ‒ many of whom are already marginalized by circumstances.
This is what educators think about. We try to look out for all kids, but especially the ones who might otherwise feel out of place.
Opinion: If you had a teacher who changed your life, 'find that person, tell that person'
More urgently, books that validate all families and all kids can save the life of a child who realizes they are gay or trans and feels alone and terrified by that realization.
The imposition of those books to someone's faith seems, by comparison, trivial. Pushing back against that imposition seems utterly selfish ‒ ironic for people of faith.
At the core of this issue are two fundamental questions:
To the first question I can tell you, as a high school teacher and a parent, that parental power is ultimately mostly illusory, and quite often the tighter the parental grip the stronger the children's resistance.
I do not have the answer to the second question, but I do know that on this day, Supreme Court justices tilted us toward no.
Larry Strauss, a high school English teacher in South Los Angeles since 1992, is the author of 'Students First and Other Lies: Straight Talk From a Veteran Teacher' and "A Lasting Impact in the Classroom and Beyond," a book for new and struggling teachers.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
3 minutes ago
- NBC News
Republican-led House committee postpones Ghislaine Maxwell deposition
Congressional testimony by Jeffrey Epstein's co-conspirator and confidant Ghislaine Maxwell previously scheduled for mid-August will be postponed until at least October, the chair of the Republican-led House Oversight Committee indicated in a letter Friday. Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., said in the letter obtained by NBC News that the committee would consider next steps after the Supreme Court in late September decides whether it will review Maxwell's conviction as a sex offender. The committee subpoenaed Maxwell for a deposition last month and scheduled it for Aug. 11, citing the "immense public interest and scrutiny" surrounding her case and Epstein's. In Friday's letter, Comer reiterated his desire to interview Maxwell, calling her testimony "vital to the Committee's efforts regarding Mr. Jeffrey Epstein, including the 2007 non-prosecution agreement and the circumstances surrounding Mr. Epstein's death." "These investigative efforts may be used to inform potential legislation to improve federal efforts to combat sex trafficking and reform the use of non-prosecution agreements and/or plea agreements in sex-crime investigations," he wrote. Maxwell's lawyers, David Oscar Markus and Melissa Madrigal, said in a statement they "appreciate the Committee's willingness to delay" the deposition and "will continue to engage with Congress in good faith to find a way for Ms. Maxwell to share her information without compromising her constitutional rights." Maxwell's attorneys previously indicated that she planned to invoke her Fifth Amendment rights during the deposition unless the committee granted her immunity, telling Comer in a letter on Tuesday that absent the legal protection Maxwell's testimony "could compromise her constitutional rights, prejudice her legal claims, and potentially taint a future jury pool." The Oversight Committee in its letter Friday said it remains "unwilling" to grant Maxwell congressional immunity, but will "continue to engage in good faith negotiations" regarding the particulars of the deposition. Maxwell for months has been pleading with the Supreme Court to overturn her 2021 conviction on federal sex trafficking charges and subsequent 20-year prison sentence, arguing that her conviction violated a non-prosecution agreement prosecutors in Florida made with Epstein in 2007 that extended to several of his co-conspirators. Federal prosecutors have argued that the 2007 agreement applies only in Florida, where it was reached, and not New York, where Maxwell's 2021 trial took place. The federal judge who oversaw that trial, Judge Alison Nathan, agreed. The Supreme Court indicated Wednesday it would consider whether to review Maxwell's case during a private conference on Sept. 29. The Oversight Committee's subpoena for Maxwell was sent when the Trump administration was coming under increasing pressure to disclose more information related to Epstein, who died in jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges. His death by suicide has sparked conspiracy theories for years, some of which have been promoted by administration officials and Trump allies. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche met with Maxwell and her attorney last week for an interview that spanned nine hours across two days. The Justice Department official has made no public statements about what Maxwell said during their meeting. On Friday, Maxwell was moved to a minimum-security federal prison camp in Texas that only houses women, unlike the Florida facility where she was previously held, which houses both men and women. Trump, alongside Attorney General Pam Bondi, had pledged to release all files pertaining to the investigation, including a purported "client list" of people who benefited from Epstein's crimes. In a stunning about-face last month, the Justice Department released a memo outlining its decision to cease additional disclosures while dismissing several conspiracy theories related to the case. The memo roiled Trump's base and proved to be a rare point of contention between the president and his supporters, particularly as additional news reports emerged highlighting Trump and Epstein's past relationship. Hours after the Wall Street Journal reported last month that Trump wrote a letter to Epstein in 2003 with a drawing of a naked woman, Trump directed Bondi to seek the release of "pertinent" grand jury testimony from Epstein and Maxwell's cases. A federal judge in Florida denied the request, while another in New York has sought additional information from the government before making a ruling.
CNN
3 minutes ago
- CNN
Supreme Court tees up Louisiana redistricting case that could undercut Voting Rights Act
The Supreme Court signaled Friday that it will take a broader look at a high-profile redistricting fight over Louisiana's congressional map, subtly expanding the scope of an appeal that could weaken the landmark Voting Rights Act. In a brief order, the high court reframed what is at stake in the Louisiana appeal and said it will probe whether a state runs afoul of the Constitution when it seeks to remedy a Voting Rights Act violation. If the court answers affirmatively, it would likely bar a state from adding an additional majority-minority district to ensure that minority voters have an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the UCLA School of Law, described the move on his blog as 'a big, and dangerous, step toward knocking down' a key pillar of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court essentially punted on Louisiana's messy redistricting fight on the last day of its term in June, taking the rare step of holding the appeal for a new set of arguments. At the time, the court said it would provide clarity on exactly which question it wanted the parties in the case to address. Court watchers have been waiting for that clarity for weeks. On Friday, the justices handed down a brief order asking the parties to submit a new round of briefing by early October, when the court's new term will begin. The parties involved in the case will now submit written arguments about whether 'the state's intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution.' The Louisiana case is among the most important appeals the court will consider later this year. Election experts said the court's new framing questions whether states may fix Voting Rights Act violations without running up against the Constitution. Section 2 of the VRA requires consideration of voters' race to ensure that congressional and state legislative voting districts are drawn fairly. 'The court is asking for briefing on whether the race-based redistricting sometimes required by Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is no longer constitutional in Louisiana – and by implication, in states with similar circumstances' to those in Louisiana, said Richard Pildes, an election law expert at the New York University School of Law. The outcome of the case could have nationwide implications. To begin with, it could affect the shape of the districts – and therefore the electability – of several key GOP leaders in the House who represent Louisiana, including Speaker Mike Johnson. It could also set a standard for how much lawmakers in every state may consider race – if at all – when they redraw the lines every decade. The facts of the Louisiana case demonstrate the issue: At first, a federal court ruled the state likely violated the Voting Rights Act by drawing only one majority Black district out of six. When it tried to fix that problem by drawing a second majority-minority district, another court said it violated the Constitution by relying too much on race to meet the first court's demands. The Voting Rights Act requires that states not dilute the power of minority voters during the once-a-decade redistricting process, such as by 'packing' those voters into one district or 'cracking' neighborhoods up into many districts to spread out their influence. The law was enacted in response to decades of post-Civil War efforts – particularly in the South – to limit the political power of African Americans. And yet the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause demands that a state not draw a map predominantly based on race. If it does, the state must demonstrate that it had a compelling reason to do so and carried out the effort in the narrowest way possible. Because of that inherent tension between the Voting Rights Act and the equal protection clause, the Supreme Court has tended to give states some 'breathing room' in drawing their maps. One of the central questions in the case, Louisiana v. Callais, is exactly how much room state lawmakers should have. Now, the court appears to be preparing to debate whether states should have any breathing room at all. CNN Chief Supreme Court Analyst Joan Biskupic contributed to this report.
CNN
16 minutes ago
- CNN
Supreme Court tees up Louisiana redistricting case that could undercut Voting Rights Act
The Supreme Court signaled Friday that it will take a broader look at a high-profile redistricting fight over Louisiana's congressional map, subtly expanding the scope of an appeal that could weaken the landmark Voting Rights Act. In a brief order, the high court reframed what is at stake in the Louisiana appeal and said it will probe whether a state runs afoul of the Constitution when it seeks to remedy a Voting Rights Act violation. If the court answers affirmatively, it would likely bar a state from adding an additional majority-minority district to ensure that minority voters have an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the UCLA School of Law, described the move on his blog as 'a big, and dangerous, step toward knocking down' a key pillar of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court essentially punted on Louisiana's messy redistricting fight on the last day of its term in June, taking the rare step of holding the appeal for a new set of arguments. At the time, the court said it would provide clarity on exactly which question it wanted the parties in the case to address. Court watchers have been waiting for that clarity for weeks. On Friday, the justices handed down a brief order asking the parties to submit a new round of briefing by early October, when the court's new term will begin. The parties involved in the case will now submit written arguments about whether 'the state's intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution.' The Louisiana case is among the most important appeals the court will consider later this year. Election experts said the court's new framing questions whether states may fix Voting Rights Act violations without running up against the Constitution. Section 2 of the VRA requires consideration of voters' race to ensure that congressional and state legislative voting districts are drawn fairly. 'The court is asking for briefing on whether the race-based redistricting sometimes required by Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is no longer constitutional in Louisiana – and by implication, in states with similar circumstances' to those in Louisiana, said Richard Pildes, an election law expert at the New York University School of Law. The outcome of the case could have nationwide implications. To begin with, it could affect the shape of the districts – and therefore the electability – of several key GOP leaders in the House who represent Louisiana, including Speaker Mike Johnson. It could also set a standard for how much lawmakers in every state may consider race – if at all – when they redraw the lines every decade. The facts of the Louisiana case demonstrate the issue: At first, a federal court ruled the state likely violated the Voting Rights Act by drawing only one majority Black district out of six. When it tried to fix that problem by drawing a second majority-minority district, another court said it violated the Constitution by relying too much on race to meet the first court's demands. The Voting Rights Act requires that states not dilute the power of minority voters during the once-a-decade redistricting process, such as by 'packing' those voters into one district or 'cracking' neighborhoods up into many districts to spread out their influence. The law was enacted in response to decades of post-Civil War efforts – particularly in the South – to limit the political power of African Americans. And yet the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause demands that a state not draw a map predominantly based on race. If it does, the state must demonstrate that it had a compelling reason to do so and carried out the effort in the narrowest way possible. Because of that inherent tension between the Voting Rights Act and the equal protection clause, the Supreme Court has tended to give states some 'breathing room' in drawing their maps. One of the central questions in the case, Louisiana v. Callais, is exactly how much room state lawmakers should have. Now, the court appears to be preparing to debate whether states should have any breathing room at all. CNN Chief Supreme Court Analyst Joan Biskupic contributed to this report.
