Latest news with #EricBaxter
Time of India
02-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Religious Beliefs vs LGBT books: How conservative parents won bigly
The US Supreme Court has ruled that parents can generally stop their children from attending school lessons that go against their religious beliefs, The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday. This case came from Maryland, where some parents objected to LGBTQ-themed books being taught in elementary schools. The court sided with the parents, saying they have the right to decide what their children learn if it clashes with their religion. Conservative groups see this as a big win. Eric Baxter, lawyer for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said public schools should serve parents, not force children 'into conformity.' However, progressive parents and many teachers worry this will hurt schools' ability to teach tolerance. Erica Watkins, who runs a progressive parent group in Oklahoma, said ''parents' rights' has been overused and weaponized to undermine teachers.' How did this movement grow? The push for parental rights took off in 2021 when Terry McAuliffe, a Democratic candidate for Virginia governor, said in a debate, 'I don't think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.' by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 코인 투자금 300만원 있다면 '이렇게'해라 나스닥터 더 알아보기 Undo His Republican rival, Glenn Youngkin, used this to win the election, sparking a nationwide conservative movement demanding more control over schools. Groups like Moms for Liberty, formed in Florida in 2021, grew quickly. They trained school board candidates and wore shirts reading 'We do not co-parent with the government.' Co-founder Tiffany Justice told WSJ that parents are becoming 'more emboldened.' What happens next? Former President Donald Trump backed Moms for Liberty during his 2024 campaign, saying, 'I'm for parental rights all the way.' He also praised Friday's court ruling. Conservative lawyers believe the ruling will help parents fight other school policies, such as rules about students' pronouns and names. Luke Berg from Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty said it's hard to see how parents will lose such cases if they cite religious reasons. But school officials are worried about how to handle students who opt out. Zachary Schurin, a lawyer for Connecticut schools, said teachers will have to find staff to supervise these students during lessons they skip. Could progressives use this too? Some progressive parents are using parental rights laws to opt out of lessons they disagree with. In Oklahoma, Erica Watkins encouraged parents to pull their children out of new social studies classes that question the 2020 election results. In another case, parents argued that bans on gender-transition care for minors violate their rights to raise their children as they see fit. The Supreme Court rejected one such case in Tennessee but did not rule directly on parental rights. 'As a parent, I know my child better than any government official ever will,' said Samantha Williams, a mother involved in the Tennessee lawsuit. Is your child ready for the careers of tomorrow? Enroll now and take advantage of our early bird offer! Spaces are limited.
Los Angeles Times
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
California law faces re-write as high court allows parents to ‘opt out' of LGBTQ school stories
California officials must quickly confront a re-write of state policy in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision on Friday that supporting families that wish to opt their children out of lessons with LGBTQ+ characters and pro-LGBTQ+ themes. The case involved new 'LGBTQ-inclusive' storybooks used in pre-kindergarten to 5th-grade classes in Montgomery County, Md., a suburb of Washington. The potential implications go well beyond storybooks and touch on California's approach to education. California law requires students to learn and be provided age-appropriate instructional materials at all grade levels that explain and incorporate the 'role and contributions' of, among others, 'lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans.' In some important respects, the California approach to LGBTQ+ inclusion appears untouched. In representing the parents before the Supreme Court, Eric Baxter, an attorney for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said they 'were not objecting to books being on the shelf or in the library. No student has a right to tell the school which books to choose,' he said. Under the Supreme Court's ruling, which appeared to follow this reasoning, California's learning goals can remain unchanged — and they could still remain mandatory policy for local school boards. However, LGBTQ-inclusive lessons would no longer be required material for any particular family that objected to the content. In opposing the Maryland parents, Alan Shoenfeld, an attorney for the Maryland school board, had argued to the justices that the goal for the storybooks was 'to foster mutual respect. The lesson is that they should treat their peers with respect.' However, writing for the high court and the six-justice majority, Justice Samuel Alito concluded that the school district's practices were a form of attempted indoctrination that could conflict with constitutionally protected religious belief. As an example, he wrote that many Americans oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds, and yet 'the storybooks ... are designed to present the opposite viewpoint to young, impressionable children who are likely to accept without question any moral messages conveyed by their teacher's instruction. The storybooks present same-sex weddings as occasions for great celebration and suggest that the only rubric for determining whether a marriage is acceptable is whether the individuals concerned 'love each other.'' This reasoning aside, the ruling could leave intact much of California's approach, although no particular family would be forced to learn the state's intended message through its LGBTQ-inclusive content. The ruling raises a score of related issues, such as how an opt-out would apply at different ages. State guidelines note that second-graders, by studying the stories of 'a diverse collection of families,' including those 'with lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender parents and their children ... can both locate themselves and their own families in history and learn about the lives and historical struggles of their peers.' Storybooks in elementary school are one thing, but what about social studies in high school? The California education code requires that instruction in social sciences include the role and contributions of 'lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans,' among other groups, 'to the economic, political, and social development of California and the United States of America, with particular emphasis on portraying the role of these groups in contemporary society.' The new rules of the road could be challenging to administer, as the previous experience of the Maryland district bore out. That school system had originally allowed families to opt out of lessons with LGBTQ-themed storybooks, but so many families did so that the policy was reversed. 'Given the great diversity of religious beliefs in this country, countless interactions that occur every day in public schools might expose children to messages that conflict with a parent's religious beliefs,' Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent. 'The result will be chaos for this Nation's public schools.' How far the objections could go is another question for California. A group of parents in Los Angeles protested a story book that briefly noted: 'Some children have two mommies or two daddies.' The L.A. school board essentially ignored their objections and then-board president Jackie Goldberg read the entire storybook aloud at a televised Board of Education meeting. 'A great book,' she said after closing the cover. 'I recommend it.' Strong reaction Reaction to the Supreme Court decision arrived quickly from many quarters, including from President Trump, who called it a 'great ruling for parents.' Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, called the decision 'a drastic break from decades of precedent. 'For the first time now,' she said, 'parents with religious objections are empowered to pick and choose from a secular public school curriculum, interfering with the school district's legitimate educational purposes and its ability to operate schools without disruption – ironically, in a case where the curriculum is designed to foster civility and understanding across differences.' Louisiana Republica Senator Bill Cassidy, chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions praised the decision: Students should not be forced to learn about gender and sexuality subject matter that violates their family's religious beliefs.' Supporters of LGBTQ+ rights spoke of another attack from the political right. 'This decision is another wolf in sheep's clothing from a Court that has entirely lost the plot on the separation of church and state,' said Kimberly Inez McGuire, executive director of URGE (Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity). 'The objections of a few religious fundamentalists are being used to override school curriculum selected by an inclusive process driven by educators and experts. This ruling could allow the petty bigotries of any one parent to degrade the education available to all.' But Julianne Fleischer, a Murrieta-based attorney with the law group Advocates for Faith and Freedom, called the decision a 'win for religious liberty.' 'Parents — not the state — are best equipped to make decisions about what their children are taught, especially on sensitive matters involving gender and sexuality,' Fleischer said. 'The government doesn't own our children and this decision rightfully reflects not only the sacred, but legal right of parents to direct their children's religious education. Families should not be forced to choose between their sincerely held religious convictions and participation in public education.' The precedent of sex ed There is an obvious precedent for the opt-out approach: sexual education. In sex ed in California, the curriculum must recognize that people have different orientations and be inclusive of same sex relationships and also teach about gender identity and explore the harm of negative gender stereotypes. At the same time, California, like nearly every other state, allows parents to opt out of sex education classes for their children. In California that has meant families already had the option of avoiding LGBTQ+ content when it came up within the context of sex ed. However, up until now at least, parents could not opt children out of LGBTQ+ content as a standalone topic outside of sex ed. Divided religious communities The Maryland case, Mahmoud vs. Taylor, was pursued by a group of Muslim, Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox parents, who sought an order allowing their children to be removed from class during the reading lessons. They said the books conflicted with the religious and moral views they taught their children. A federal judge and the 4th Circuit Court refused to intervene. Those judges said the 'free exercise' of religion protects people from being forced to change their conduct or their beliefs, neither of which were at issue in the school case. The issue has divided religious communities in California, including within the Muslim community, a key constituency in pursuing the Maryland case. 'If books of LGBTQ+ themes are the excuse for the desire to opt out, then who's to say books depicting Black, Jewish and Muslim children and their traditions would not be included to be 'opted out' at a later date?' said Ani Zonneveld, the founder of Muslims for Progressive Values, a Los Angeles-based organization that was part of an amicus filing in the case opposing opt-outs. 'We are not a theocracy. Discrimination should therefore not be permitted in the name of religion.' Tarik Ata, an Orange County-based sheikh, said he supported 'parents' rights to guide their children's moral and religious education.' 'As a member of the American Muslim community, our core values — rooted in religious freedom, family, and respect for differing beliefs — guide our stance on this Supreme Court case,' said Ata, who is a board member of the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California, which issues guidance on religious issues to Muslim communities. 'In our tradition, parents bear the responsibility for their children's spiritual growth, and when classrooms introduce topics that conflict with deeply held convictions, families should have the right to make choices without penalty or stigma.'
New York Post
22-04-2025
- Politics
- New York Post
Supreme Court signals support for parents who object to LGBTQ books in Maryland school system
The Supreme Court indicated Tuesday it would rule in favor of a group of parents who sued a suburban Maryland school board over its refusal to allow parents of elementary school children to opt out of classes with LGBTQ-themed storybooks. Plaintiffs argue that the school system in Montgomery County, just outside Washington, DC, cannot require children to sit through lessons involving the books if their family has religious objections. 'The [school] board does not dispute that under its theory, it could compel instruction using pornography, and parents would have no rights,' argued Eric Baxter, an attorney for parent Tamer Mahmoud. Advertisement 'The First Amendment demands more. Parents, not school boards, should have the final say on such religious matters.' Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) approved certain LGBTQ-themed curriculum books in late 2022. Initially, MCPS allowed an opt-out for parents with religious concerns, but by March of 2023, it reversed course, citing concerns about absenteeism and administrative burdens. 4 Parents sued Montgomery County Public Schools over its decision to scrap the opt-out. Courtesy of Grace Morrison Advertisement A group of parents from Muslim, Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox faiths, sued the school district, arguing the lack of an opt-out system trampled upon their religious rights as parents. Both a federal judge and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals previously backed the school board in denying a preliminary injunction sought by the parents. The 4th Circuit concluded the plaintiffs needed to show that their children were being coerced to act differently than their religious beliefs. 'We don't have to decide whether you get the opt-out,' conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett mused at one point. 'We just have to decide if the 4th Circuit accurately defined what a burden is.' Later, Barrett expressed concerns that the LGBTQ-laced classroom instructions aren't merely trying to expose students to different ideas, but are about trying to impress upon students that 'this is the right view of the world' and 'how you should think about things.' Advertisement At times, some of the conservative justices sounded uneasy about the content of some of the books in question. 4 Supreme Court justices referenced some of the books in question during oral arguments. Simon & Schuster 'That's the one where they were supposed to look for the leather and bondage things like that,' Justice Neil Gorsuch asked about the 'Pride Puppy' book for pre-K students, which was later removed from the curriculum by the board. 'Do you think it's fair to say that all that is done in 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding' is to expose children to the fact that there are men who marry other men?' Justice Samuel Alito asked Baxter, before answering his own question. Advertisement 'The book has a clear message, and a lot of people think it's a good message, and maybe it is a good message, but it's a message that a lot of people who hold on to traditional religious beliefs don't agree with.' MCPS attorney Alan Schoenfeld argued that the school system already provides parents with ample opportunity to provide input. 'The school board here is democratically elected,' he contended. 'The entire process of adopting this curriculum is open and transparent. These books are on review for 30 days before they're even made part of the curriculum. There's then a multi-level appeal process. 'There's plenty of opportunity for parental insight.' 4 Activists in the Christian and Muslim communities argued that the lessons violated their religious rights. MICHAEL REYNOLDS/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock Justice Brett Kavanaugh said at one point that he was 'a bit mystified, as a lifelong resident of the county, how it came to this.' 'The other Maryland counties have opt-outs for all sorts of things,' the justice added. Schoenfeld explained that there had been 'dozens of students walking out' of classes and that schools were struggling to figure out the logistics of alternative spaces and supervision for them. Advertisement 'They don't do it for all sorts of other opt-outs,' the attorney countered. 'There's a limited universe of things that students can opt out from.' 'The plaintiffs here are not asking the school to change its curriculum,' Alito rejoined. 'They're just saying, 'Look, we want out.' Why is that not feasible? What is the big deal about allowing them to opt out of this?' 4 Protesters on both sides of the issue demonstrated outside of the Supreme Court. FOX NEWS Schoenfeld sought to impress upon the high court that schools across the country teach a variety of lessons that conflict with parents' beliefs. Advertisement 'Children encounter real and fictional women who forego motherhood and work outside the home,' he said. 'Children read books valorizing our nation's veterans who fought in violent wars. Each of these things is deeply offensive to some people of faith.' Liberal justices seemed particularly concerned about redefining the 'burden' definition. 'How do we make very clear that the mere exposure to things that you object to is not coercion?' Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Baxter at one point. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stressed that parents 'can choose to put their kid elsewhere' and are not required to send their children to public schools if they disagree with what is being taught. Advertisement 'I guess I'm struggling to see how it burdens a parent's religious exercise if the school teaches something that the parent disagrees with,' she admitted. 'You have a choice, you don't have to send your kids to that school.' Jackson also listed a series of hypotheticals — such as a gay teacher talking to children about their spouse or transgender students — and got Baxter to admit that he probably would not support an opt-out in those scenarios. Justice Elena Kagan suggested attorneys for the parents 'did not want to draw lines' on where an opt-out would not be honored. Advertisement 'You're still not giving me anything other than if it's in a school and a sincere religious parent has an objection, that objection is always going to result in an opt-out, no matter what the instruction is like,' she vented. The Supreme Court is expected to hand down a decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor by the end of June.
