Latest news with #MontgomeryCountyPublicSchools
02-07-2025
- Politics
LGBTQ book opt-out ruling triggers national response from parents, educators, advocates
After the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Friday that parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, must be allowed to opt their children out of LGBTQ-themed elementary school lessons, reactions were swift and sharply divided. The case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, stemmed from Montgomery County's 2022 decision to incorporate LGBTQ-inclusive books into elementary classrooms. Titles included "Uncle Bobby's Wedding," which features a same-sex couple, and "Born Ready," which tells the story of a transgender child. The school district initially allowed parents to opt out their children from exposure to the books but later reversed that policy, citing administrative burdens and in an effort to foster inclusion. In a press briefing shortly after the decision, U.S. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche praised the ruling. "Restoring the right of parents to make decisions about their children's education might seem like common sense," Blanche said, "but it took the Supreme Court to set the record straight." For some, however, the ruling felt like a step backward. "I think the ruling is a huge setback," Beth Hoffman, a Maryland-based mom of two, whose children attend public school in Frederick County, told "GMA." "Public schools should be an inclusive space. I hope that this isn't an end-all be-all. We need to celebrate our differences and educate our youth to accept people for who they are." The Frederick County Public School District, like Montgomery County, allows parents to opt children out of its Family Life Education curriculum, part of its "Comprehensive Health Education for students in grades 5-12," according to a spokesperson. Bill Horn, a gay father of two based in Los Angeles, whose kids will be attending public school in the fall, said his initial reaction was sadness. "I feel sorry for any young person whose family takes them out of an LGBTQ+ inclusive lesson, because ultimately that lesson might save their lives," he told "GMA" in an email. Debate intensifies over parental rights and LGBTQ inclusion in public schools Mahmoud v. Taylor was brought by brought by a group of Christian, Muslim and Jewish parents who argued the district's curriculum opt-out change violated their religious freedom. The Supreme Court's conservative majority agreed and upheld a preliminary injunction that requires schools to notify parents and permit opt-outs when such content is used. Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, saying exposure to diverse ideas does not amount to government indoctrination but is instead the purpose of public education. While the decision applies directly to Montgomery County, it sets a precedent for similar lawsuits and policies nationwide. In a statement following the ruling, Montgomery County Public Schools reaffirmed its commitment to diversity and inclusion, while expressing disappointment in the outcome. "Although not surprised, we are disappointed in today's ruling. This decision complicates our work creating a welcoming, inclusive and equitable school system. It also sends a chilling message to many valued members of our diverse community," the district said. "Montgomery County Public Schools remains a welcoming and inclusive school system that embraces and celebrates each and every one of our students," the statement continued. "We will maintain an environment where all students feel valued and supported. Equity is one of our core values and is foundational to who we are as a system that serves one of the most diverse communities in the United States of America." MCPS added that it is reviewing the Supreme Court's decision and developing a plan for implementation that honors both the legal directive and the district's mission. "We will continue to analyze the Supreme Court decision and develop next steps in alignment with today's decision and, as importantly, our values. Schools and families will receive further guidance prior to the start of the upcoming school year," the statement read. "MCPS will continue to have inclusive books, which reflect the rich diversity of the students and families that we serve in Montgomery County." Supporters have hailed the court's decision as a long-overdue affirmation of family values. "The Supreme Court sent a powerful message today: parents do not take a back seat to anyone when it comes to raising their kids," Grace Morrison, a board member for Kids First, a parental rights advocacy group, said in an official statement. "I am deeply grateful to have been part of this historic triumph for parental rights nationwide." Critics, however, warn that the decision could mean further marginalization of LGBTQ students and could undermine efforts to build more inclusive classrooms moving forward. Sari Beth Rosenberg, a U.S. history and AP U.S. history teacher in New York City, said the ruling could make it significantly harder to create welcoming spaces for all students. "It sends a message to LGBTQ students and families that their identities are controversial or unwelcome, which completely undermines my efforts to build a respectful, supportive learning environment," Rosenberg said. "Our schools are supposed to prepare students to participate in a diverse democracy, and we can't do that if we're forced to erase entire communities from the curriculum." Differing views on liberty and inclusion Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented the plaintiffs in the case, called the ruling "a historic victory for parental rights" in an official statement. "Today, the Court restored common sense and made clear that parents -- not government -- have the final say in how their children are raised," he added. But LGBTQ advocates say the ruling allows families to exempt their children from learning about diverse identities, sending harmful messages to students whose families reflect those very realities. "Every child deserves to see themselves reflected in the stories they read and to be celebrated in their classrooms for who they truly are," said Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign. "This ruling not only tells LGBTQ+ students that they don't belong, but that their experiences and existence are less worthy of respect. It's wrong, it's dangerous, and it's cruel, plain and simple." Ruling on online access raises censorship concerns In a separate 6-3 decision Friday, the court upheld a Texas law requiring websites with significant sexual content to implement strict age-verification systems. The law mandates that adult sites where more than one-third of content is deemed "harmful to minors" must verify users' age using secure identification before granting access. The court's decision only affects the Texas law and not similar laws instituted in other states. Titania Jordan, chief parent officer at Bark Technologies, a parental controls company that helps parents protect their children online, said enforcing such a requirement at scale poses major technological and financial challenges, particularly for smaller platforms. "Sites would need to integrate reliable identity providers or build their own verification systems, which can be expensive and technically complex," Jordan told "GMA." "Implementing biometric checks or secure document scans requires strict anti-fraud measures." Still, she said she supports the overall goal of the law. "Let's not lose focus of what's important here: keeping kids safer online," she said. "To protect both children and digital freedoms, any legislation should be narrowly tailored and paired with rigorous oversight to maximize data privacy." Legal experts say the ruling raises new questions about internet censorship, particularly if definitions of "sexual" content expand. Austin-based criminal defense attorney Sam Bassett noted that while the court backed Texas, it rejected the Fifth Circuit's earlier rationale. "The Fifth Circuit applied the rational basis test -- the least rigorous standard used to evaluate constitutional challenges -- agreeing with Texas that the ID requirement didn't implicate a fundamental right, since it only applied to minors," he told "GMA." "The Supreme Court decision did not agree with the Fifth Circuit's 'rational basis' application of First Amendment protections, yet it also rejected the higher 'strict scrutiny' standard of analysis," he continued. "The basis for their decision seems to be largely based upon an analysis that the Texas age-verification statute was targeted at limiting access only to those under the age of 18, and we have many laws which prohibit access to minors." Still, Bassett warned that if the law were applied more broadly to restrict access to non-explicit but sensitive material, such as information about gender identity or sexual orientation, it could raise serious constitutional issues. "A prohibition of access to those types of websites, in my view, would likely face a 'strict scrutiny' analysis under the First Amendment, as there is no recognized precedent to bar minors from information regarding those topics," he said. Together, the two rulings reflect a growing legal and political divide over who gets to decide what young people can see, learn and access, whether in a classroom or on the internet. Although the LGBTQ+ book ruling currently applies only to Montgomery County, legal analysts say it could shape broader education policy and religious liberty claims across the country in the years to come.
USA Today
02-07-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
They battled for parental rights decades ago. How they now view a big Supreme Court ruling
More than three decades ago, these parents battled unsuccessfully in the courts for parental rights in their public schools. Now, they weigh the high court's ruling in a key Maryland case. On April 8, 1992, Suzanne Brown asked her son, Jason Mesiti, about his day at school. 'He said, 'probably the worst in my life,'' Brown recalled. While she said the remark was 'somewhat dramatic,' she, too, was disturbed by what her son, a high school sophomore at the time, described. Mesiti had to attend an assembly about sex and AIDS prevention at his school in Chelmsford, Massachusetts. He described the program's use of 'profane, lewd and lascivious language' and how at one point a demonstration included a female student pulling a condom over a male student's head. Mesiti said such actions made it feel 'like you were being Punk'd,' and Brown said she was 'totally shocked' upon reviewing a transcript of the program. His family unsuccessfully sued, with the religious beliefs of parents a key part of the case. Brown said she should have been notified about the content of that program and had the opportunity to opt out. Now, more than three decades later, parents have that right, thanks to a June 27 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, which sided with a group of Maryland parents who wanted to opt their children out of English language arts curriculum with LBGTQ+ characters. Montgomery County Public Schools initially allowed opt-outs but later ended such accommodations because they threatened to cause 'significant disruptions.' A group of parents sued, and the case before the high court was one of the most high profile this year with sweeping ramifications for public school districts across the nation. In the 6-3 decision, the court said the school district violated the parents' First Amendment rights to the free exercise of religion by not allowing them to opt out from having their children read books with LGBTQ themes at school. Justice Samuel Alito said parents have an established right to direct their children's religious upbringing. The books in the Maryland case, he said, "unmistakably convey a particular viewpoint about same-sex marriage and gender." The three liberal justices disagreed. Public schools have the 'core premise' of introducing students to a 'range of concepts and views that reflect our entire society,' Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote. 'Exposure to new ideas has always been a vital part of that project, until now,' she wrote. Sotomayor said the ruling could result in 'chaos' for the public school system and have a chilling effect on disadvantaged public schools that may be wary of introducing curriculum with the potential to invite lawsuits or create logistical challenges. Looking at things now, Brown said she doesn't believe allowing parents to opt out places an 'overwhelming' burden on schools. 'If the parents don't care ... that's up to them, but if a parent does have beliefs and truths they want to stick to for their children, I think they should have the right to do that,' Brown said. Opt-outs may only provide 'myth of control,' defendant says Suzi Landolphi, who created the program Mesiti attended and was named in the lawsuit that followed, acknowledged that her tactics were unorthodox and could even be 'traumatizing' for some students. But she said school officials wanted students to attend the program given the AIDS epidemic that was, at that time, killing tens of thousands of Americans each year. She said schools could have decided whether to require parent permission for students to attend her program but that Chelmsford High School opted not to do so. USA TODAY reached out to the school for comment. Though she 'would've absolutely preferred" students to have parental permission to attend her program, Landolphi moved forward with the goal of using humor and theatricality to spread awareness of serious issues among high school students. 'The last thing in the world I want to do is stand up there and lecture and, first of all, not have any young people come in to the performance or to the presentation, and then I don't want them to tune out, because this is important, life-saving information,' she said. Landolphi, who now works as a therapist, said she has 'no trouble' with parents wanting to prevent their children from being exposed to certain content. But she said that such measures may only support the 'myth of control." Parents can't expect to shield their children from everything they find objectionable in the age of smartphones and social media, she said. Brown described her family as Christ followers but said her objection to Landolphi's program more than three decades ago was driven primarily by 'common sense.' A district court dismissed her lawsuit in 1995. The decision was later upheld by the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Landolphi told USA TODAY there have been times when she disagreed with her children's curriculum. Those occasions prompted conversations that "allowed for deeper understanding and connection," but she said she "never felt burdened" by such incidents. Mesiti, like his mother, told USA TODAY that parents 'have a right to do what they want' as it relates to their children. At the same time, he disagrees with book bans and thinks students benefit from exposure to diverse beliefs and lifestyles. "I believe schools should distinguish between potentially harmful, age-inappropriate content and lawful, necessary civil-rights education," Mesiti said. "The former may justify opt-outs, and the latter should remain mandatory for informed citizenship and workplace readiness." But Mesiti said he is concerned about public schools "playing it safe" in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor, the Maryland case, and "limiting essential, factual curriculum." Likewise, Zach Schurin, an attorney with expertise in education law, echoed Sotomayor's concerns. Public school districts may now 'think very long and hard about including curriculum that is controversial in nature,' he said. Based on the court's ruling, a school that still seeks to mandate such material without allowing opt-outs must prove that it has a compelling interest in doing so that overrides the burden on parents' free exercise of religion, he said. But he said the details of the ruling suggest it 'would be hard to meet that standard.' Tennessee case was a 'proxy war' in the 80s The multitude of perspectives on parents' rights speaks to the "fundamental, touchy nature" of public education, said Stephen Bates, a University of Nevada, Las Vegas, professor and author of the book 'Battleground: One Mother's Crusade, the Religious Right and the Struggle for Control of our Classrooms.' The book is based on Mozert v. Hawkins County Board of Education, a 1987 case in Tennessee that has parallels to the recent Maryland case. It involved a group of evangelical parents who felt that requiring students to read material that conflicted with their religious beliefs was a violation of their First Amendment rights. A judge ruled in 1986 that the parents had a right to opt their children out of the district's reading program 'with appropriate provisions for home instruction' while still having them attend public school for other subjects. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that ruling the following year and sent the case back to the lower court with 'directions to dismiss the complaint.' It was ultimately a 'political story,' Bates said. Though the case originated as a local issue, it attracted attention from national groups and became 'kind of a proxy war." The parents were backed by Concerned Women for America, for example, while the civil liberties group People for the American Way supported the school on the grounds that a ruling in the parents' favor 'could have caused chaos in public education across the country.' The Maryland case has similarly involved national players. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty represented the Maryland parents, who also had support from the Southeastern Legal Foundation and Regent University's Robertson Center for Constitutional Law. The school district, however, had backing from groups like the American Civil Liberties Union, the Freedom From Religion Foundation and GLAAD. Bates supported the Supreme Court's ruling and said classrooms benefit from accommodating students from a variety of perspectives. 'The public school is one of the last places in American life where people from different backgrounds mix,' he said. 'In our polarized times, that kind of exposure matters.' He noted that some families left Montgomery County Public Schools over the ban on opt-outs, meaning a 'curriculum designed to promote diversity ended up making the schools less diverse.' 'Behind every case are families doing their best' Corky Leebaert was in seventh grade when his father, Turk Leebaert, objected to his mandatory health class in 1998. The course covered topics including drugs, alcohol and sex. Though a Connecticut law allowed parents to opt their children out of lessons related to family life, such as sexuality and family planning, Turk Leebaert sought to remove his son from the course altogether. Corky Leebaert failed the course due to lack of attendance. His father later sued school officials and the town of Fairfield, Connecticut in 2002 on First and Fourteenth Amendment grounds. 'I believe that God has empowered human beings with the right to bring their children up with correct moral principles in dealing with the issues taught in this course, not the school system,' Turk Leebaert wrote in an affidavit referenced in the lawsuit. Corky Leebaert told USA TODAY he didn't 'fully grasp the legal significance of what was happening' at the time given his young age but felt a 'quiet tension' from faculty and staff. 'I wouldn't describe it as overt mistreatment, but there was definitely a sense that I was 'part of something' that made people uncomfortable,' he said. 'It was subtle – hesitations in conversation, brief looks – but it was there.' He didn't have a personal objection to the material but respected his father's beliefs and decision to pursue legal action. Though he said he understands schools "have an obligation to provide consistent education," which was among a district court judge's reasons for ruling against his father, he also believes parents should have a right to opt their children out of curriculum they find 'unethical or morally inappropriate.' In cases like the one in Maryland, he supports schools having inclusive books in the curriculum but allowing parents to opt out. If the majority do, he said the school should find alternative material. At the same time, he's 'cautious about broad opt-out rights.' 'If we allow opt-outs for every issue that makes someone uncomfortable, we risk eroding the integrity of public education,' he said. Now a father himself, Leebaert said he keeps tabs on his children's curriculum, 'not because I'm looking for things to reject, but because I believe engagement is part of responsible parenting.' He ultimately thinks students are best served when parents and schools build a partnership in which there is room for 'flexibility and accommodation.' 'Leebaert v. Harrington taught me that legal systems often move impersonally, but behind every case are families doing their best to navigate difficult questions,' he said. BrieAnna Frank is a First Amendment Reporting Fellow at USA TODAY. Reach her at bjfrank@ USA TODAY's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.
Los Angeles Times
28-06-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
The 9 LGBTQ+ children's books targeted in high court ruling upending education policy
Picture books are not usually the stuff of Supreme Court rulings. But on Friday, a majority of justices ruled that parents have a right to opt their children out of lessons that offend their religious beliefs — bringing the colorful pages of books like 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding' and 'Pride Puppy' into the staid public record of the nation's highest court. The ruling resulted from a lawsuit brought by parents in Montgomery County, Md., who sued for the right to remove their children from lessons where LGBTQ+ storybooks would be read aloud in elementary school classes from kindergarten through 5th grade. The books were part of an effort in the district to represent LGBTQ+ families in the English language arts curriculum. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that schools must 'notify them in advance' when one of the disputed storybooks would be used in their child's class, so that they could have their children temporarily removed. The court's three liberals dissented. As part of the the decisions, briefings and petitions in the case, the justices and lawyers for the parents described in detail the story lines of nine picture books that were part of Montgomery County's new curriculum. In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor even reproduced one, 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' in its entirety. Here are the nine books that were the subject of the case: Pride PuppyAuthor: Robin Stevenson Illustrator: Julie McLaughlin 'Pride Puppy,' a rhyming alphabet book for very young children, depicts a little girl who loses her dog during a joyful visit to a Pride parade. The story, which is available as a board book, invites readers to spot items starting with each of the letters of the alphabet, including apple, baseball and clouds — as well as items more specific to a Pride parade. Lawyers representing the parents said in their brief that the 'invites students barely old enough to tie their own shoes to search for images of 'underwear,' 'leather,' 'lip ring,' '[drag] king' and '[drag] queen,' and 'Marsha P. Johnson,' a controversial LGBTQ activist and sex worker.' The 'leather' in question refers to a mother's jacket, and the 'underwear' to a pair of green briefs worn over tights by an older child as part of a colorful outfit. The Montgomery County Public Schools stopped teaching 'Pride Puppy' in the midst of the legal battle. Love, VioletAuthor: Charlotte Sullivan WildIllustrator: Charlene Chua The story describes a little girl named Violet with a crush on another girl in her class named Mira, who 'had a leaping laugh' and 'made Violet's heart skip.' But every time Mira tries to talk to her, Violet gets shy and quiet. On Valentine's Day, Violet makes Mira a special valentine. As Violet gathers the courage to give it to her, the valentine ends up trampled in the snow. But Mira loves it anyway and also has a special gift for Violet — a locket with a violet inside. At the end of the book, the two girls go on an adventure together. Lawyers for the parents describe 'Love, Violet' as a book about 'two young girls and their same-sex playground romance.' They wrote in that 'teachers are encouraged to have a 'think aloud' moment to ask students how it feels when they don't just 'like' but 'like like' someone.' Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named PenelopeAuthor: Jodie Patterson Illustrator: Charnelle Pinkney Barlow In 'Born Ready,' 5-year-old Penelope was born a girl but is certain they are a boy. 'I love you, Mama, but I don't want to be you. I want to be Papa. I don't want tomorrow to come because tomorrow I'll look like you. Please help me, Mama. Help me be a boy,' Penelope tells their mom. 'We will make a plan to tell everyone we know,' Penelope's mom tells them, and they throw a big party to celebrate. In her dissent, Sotomayor notes, 'When Penelope's brother expresses skepticism, his mother says, 'Not everything needs to make sense. This is about love.' ' In their opening brief, lawyers for the families said that 'teachers are told to instruct students that, at birth, people 'guess about our gender,' but 'we know ourselves best.' ' Prince and Knight Author: Daniel Haack Illustrator: Stevie Lewis 'Prince and Knight' is a story about a prince whose parents want him to find a bride, but instead he falls in love with a knight. Together, they fight off a dragon. When the prince falls from a great height, his knight rescues him on horseback. When the king and queen find out of their love, they 'were overwhelmed with joy. 'We have finally found someone who is perfect for our boy!' ' A great wedding is held, and 'the prince and his shining knight would live happily ever after.' 'The book Prince & Knight clearly conveys the message that same-sex marriage should be accepted by all as a cause for celebration,' said Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the majority opinion, a concerning message for Americans whose religion tells them that same-sex marriage is wrong. 'For young children, to whom this and the other storybooks are targeted, such celebration is liable to be processed as having moral connotations,' Alito wrote. 'If this same-sex marriage makes everyone happy and leads to joyous celebration by all, doesn't that mean it is in every respect a good thing?' Uncle Bobby's WeddingAuthor: Sarah S. Brannen Illustrator: Lucia Soto In 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' a little girl named Chloe learns that her beloved uncle is engaged to his partner, a man named Jamie. At first, she worries that the marriage will change her close bond with her uncle. But she soon embraces the celebration and the joy of getting another uncle through the union. In the majority opinion, Alito wrote that the book sends children the message that 'two people can get married, regardless of whether they are of the same or the opposite sex, so long as they 'love each other.' ' That viewpoint is 'directly contrary to the religious principles that the parents in this case wish to instill in their children.' Parents ability to 'present a different moral message' to their children, he said, 'is undermined when the exact opposite message is positively reinforced in the public school classroom at a very young age.' In her dissent, Sotomayor includes the entire book, writing that, 'Because the majority selectively excerpts the book in order to rewrite its story.' The majority's analysis, she writes, 'reveals its failure to accept and account for a fundamental truth: LGBTQ people exist. They are part of virtually every community and workplace of any appreciable size. Eliminating books depicting LGBTQ individuals as happily accepted by their families will not eliminate student exposure to that concept.' Jacob's Room to ChooseAuthor: Sarah Hoffman and Ian HoffmanIllustrator: Chris Case 'Jacob's Room to Choose' is a follow-up to 'Jacob's New Dress,' a picture book listed as one of the American Library Assn.'s top 100 banned books of the last decade. Jacob wears a dress, and when he tries to use the boy's bathroom, two little boys 'stared at Jacob standing in the doorway. Jacob knew what that look meant. He turned and ran out.' The same thing happens to his friend Sophie, who presents as a boy and is chased out of the girl's bathroom. Their teacher encourages the whole class to rethink what gender really means. The class decides everyone should be able to use the bathroom that makes them feel comfortable, and makes new, inclusive signs to hang on the bathroom doors. 'After relabeling the bathroom doors to welcome multiple genders, the children parade with placards that proclaim 'Bathrooms Are For Every Bunny' and '[choose] the bathroom that is comfy,' ' lawyers for the parents wrote. IntersectionAllies: We Make Room for All Author: Chelsea Johnson, LaToya Council and Carolyn Choi Illustrator: Ashley Seil Smith 'IntersectionAllies,' written by three sociologists, is a story about characters with different identities, including one who uses a wheelchair, and another, Kate, who identifies as transgender. One page shows Kate in a gender-neutral bathroom, saying, 'My friends defend my choices and place. A bathroom, like all rooms, should be a safe space.' In the majority opinion, Alito describes a discussion guide included with the book that he said asserts: 'When we are born, our gender is often decided for us based on our sex . . . . But at any point in our lives, we can choose to identify with one gender, multiple genders, or neither gender.' The guide asks readers, 'What pronouns fit you best?' Alito wrote. What Are Your Words?: A Book About Pronouns Author: Katherine LockeIllustrator: Anne Passchier 'What Are Your Words' is a picture book about a child named Ari whose pronouns are 'like the weather. They change depending on how I feel. And that's ok, because they're my words.' Ari's Uncle Lior (who uses they/them pronouns) is coming to visit, and Ari is struggling to decide which words describe them. 'The child spends the day agonizing over the right pronouns,' the lawyers for the parents wrote. At the end, while watching fireworks, Ari says, 'My words finally found me! They and them feel warm and snug to me.' My RainbowAuthor: DeShanna Neal and Trinity NealIllustrator: Art Twink 'My Rainbow' tells the true story of a Black child with autism who self-identifies as a transgender girl. Trinity wants long hair, just like her doll, but has trouble growing it out. 'The mother decides that her child knows best and sews him a rainbow-colored wig,' lawyers for the parents wrote. The Montgomery County Public Schools also stopped teaching 'My Rainbow' during the course of the lawsuit. This article is part of The Times' early childhood education initiative, focusing on the learning and development of California children from birth to age 5. For more information about the initiative and its philanthropic funders, go to
USA Today
27-06-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
Parents can opt kids out of LGBTQ+ lessons after court decision: What it means for schools
The nation's highest court has spoken, but the debate over kids' exposure to LGBTQ+ literature and culture in America's schools is far from over. Religious and conservative parents' rights groups are rejoicing while teachers, authors and civil rights advocates sound an alarm that schools could soon become less inclusive after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to allow parents to pull their children out of classes with material they object to on religious divided court sided with a group of Maryland parents who complained that their school district refused to allow them to opt out their kids of English language arts classes when books with LGBTQ+ characters are included. Parents from Montgomery County Public Schools – which include Muslims, Roman Catholics and Ukrainian Orthodox followers – argued the district's policy banning them from opting out intruded on their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religious beliefs. On June 27, the Supreme Court agreed with them in a 6-3 decision, saying American parents should be able to remove their kids from the lessons to protect their families' religious ideologies. Books with LGBTQ+ teachings and characters "unmistakably convey a particular viewpoint about same-sex marriage and gender," Justice Samuel Alito wrote on behalf of the court's majority. The court has long recognized the rights of parents to direct their children's religious upbringing, he said. The American Civil Liberties Union, which has backed the Maryland school district's policy, said the school district's curriculum, which began to include storybooks for elementary schools with LGBTQ+ characters in 2022, is secular, age-appropriate and designed to be inclusive. The ACLU called the decision "deeply disappointing." "This decision complicates our work creating a welcoming, inclusive and equitable school system," Liliana López, a spokesperson for the district, said in an email to USA TODAY on behalf of the school district and the Montgomery Board of Education. "It also sends a chilling message to many valued members of our diverse community. Public schools are facing heightened scrutiny over what's taught in their classrooms, increased pressure from conservative parents and additional surveillance over the programs and curriculum they offer to LGBTQ+ youth they serve. The court's decision represents the celebration and panic for parents across the political spectrum. The Supreme Court's decision advances President Donald Trump's and several conservative parent rights groups' disdain against LGBTQ+ programming in schools. The Trump administration has backed the Maryland parents in the case, saying the schools had put 'a price on a public benefit of public education at the expense of foregoing your religious beliefs.' GOP leaders: Are calling for religion in public schools. It's not the first time. What could it mean for school culture? Fears of an unwelcoming environment in public schools for LGBTQ+ students erupted after the decision. LGBTQ+ students already face a high chance of rejection, bullying, discrimination and violence at school. These students are at high risk of mental health challenges like depression, anxiety and attempts of suicide, according to data from Child Mind Institute. Attorneys from the ACLU said the Supreme Court's decision could have "far-reaching consequences for public schools' ability to create an inclusive and welcoming environment that reflects the diversity of their communities." The decision advances the mission of Trump and his education department to ban programming about LGTBQ+ and other social and racial justice issues in schools. This year, the Trump administration has demanded public schools ax publicly funded programs that support diversity, equity and inclusion in schools. The DEI programming includes those that offer LGBTQ+ students support. The U.S. Department of Education cannot directly control classroom curriculum, which is in the hands of the states. But it has said it will slash their federal funding for violating a federal civil rights law if they do not comply with the order. (Thousands of schools in more than a dozen states have objected.) With the Supreme Court decision, the outcomes "could wreak havoc on public schools, tying their hands on basic curricular decisions and undermining their ability to prepare students to live in our pluralistic society," said Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. Mach called religious freedom "fundamentally important." But he said that freedom "shouldn't force public schools to exempt students from any secular lessons that don't align with their families' religious views." Parents who say schools shouldn't be the ones to teach their kids about these issues anticipate a more welcoming place for their families. 'This is a historic victory for parental rights in Maryland and across America. Kids shouldn't be forced into conversations about drag queens, pride parades, or gender transitions without their parents' permission," said Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at The Becket Fund, a nonprofit, public-interest legal and educational institute with the mission of protecting free expressions of faiths. "Today, the Court restored common sense and made clear that parents—not government—have the final say in how their children are raised." Meanwhile, teachers are bracing for how the ruling could affect their lesson plans, students and classrooms. 'By creating new, unnecessary legal rules that burden hardworking educators and disrupt their ability to teach, the Court is effectively inserting itself into the day-to-day education decisions about what students can learn and what educators can teach," according to Miguel Gonzalez, a spokesperson for the National Education Association. LGBTQ+ advocates See Trump's actions on Pride Month as 'bullying' What about religion in schools? Religious groups have applauded the Supreme Court's decision. Their support comes during a GOP wave calling for more religion in schools. Oklahoma's top education official has ordered public schools to teach the Bible. He also wanted state funding for a controversial religious charter school before that idea was shut down by the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year in a deadlocked 4-4 decision. Louisiana leaders directed schools to display the Ten Commandments, but that has been blocked by a federal court. Texas leaders proposed a curriculum that incorporates biblical lessons. Parents and faith leaders have filed a lawsuit against it. Some school administrators and civil rights advocates have fought back, saying these mandates violate students' rights. Cecillia Wang, a national legal director of the ACLU, said she is worried about the court's decision to side with parents on this case because it could affect schools' ability to implement lessons in the future that may "trigger religious objections." "For the first time now, 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," Wang wrote in an email. How about book bans? The Maryland parents who sued the school district said they don't want the books removed from schools. But Elly Brinkley, a staff attorney for free speech advocacy group PEN America, said further book bans across the nation's public schools are likely as a result of the court's decision. "By allowing parents to pull their children out of classrooms when they object to particular content, the justices are laying the foundation for a new frontier in the assault on books of all kinds in schools," Brinkley said. "This will exacerbate that devastating trend." A majority of the 16,000 books banned in schools since 2021 are LGBTQ+ themed, according to data from PEN America. The group's data shows book bans nearly tripled during the 2023-2024 school year, with over 10,000 books banned in public schools. Parents who have argued for book bans across the nation often say that the content is inappropriate for a school setting. Or they disagree with the content in the literature and don't want their kids to be exposed to it. A group of authors and illustrators named in the Maryland case said they disagree with the court's decision. Those include the authors and illustrators of LGBTQ+-themed books: "Uncle Bobby's Wedding," "Jacob's Room to Choose" and "Love, Violet." "We believe young people need to see themselves and families like theirs in the books they read; this is especially true for LGBTQ+ children and LGBTQ+ families," they wrote in an email. "And all children need to learn how to share their classrooms and communities with people different from themselves. Books can help them understand one another and learn to treat each other with acceptance, kindness and respect." United States public schools Banned over 10K books during 2023-2024 academic year, report says Contributing: Maureen Groppe, Thao Nguyen; USA TODAY Contact Kayla Jimenez at kjimenez@ Follow her on X at @kaylajjimenez.
Politico
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Politico
Senate slated to take first vote on megabill Saturday
The Supreme Court has sided with a group of parents demanding that their public schools be required to provide notices to opt their children out of certain storybook readings that conflict with their religious beliefs. Friday's 6-3 ruling, split along ideological lines, found that Maryland's Montgomery County Public Schools violated parents' First Amendment rights to religious exercise by not giving them advanced notice or an opportunity to opt their children out of certain lessons. The school board had initially allowed parents to opt out of lessons, but the board's policy reversal in the 2023-2024 school year sparked a legal challenge. The school district said it had withdrawn its opt-out notice policy because it became unmanageable and resulted in reports of high absenteeism to the school board. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion and the court's three liberal justices dissented. Alito said the school board's introduction of LGBTQ+-inclusive storybooks and decision to end its opt-out policy 'substantially interferes with the religious development of petitioners' children.' 'The books are unmistakably normative,' he wrote. 'They are designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated, and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.' The decision comes after a group of Muslim, Christian and Jewish parents sued the Montgomery County Board of Education, which oversees Maryland's largest school district, after the board refused to allow parents to pull their elementary school children from lessons with LGBTQ+ themes. Arguments in the case against the Maryland school board focused on whether requiring students to participate in lessons including LGBTQ+ themes could constitute coercion. Justices ruled that the parents suing were entitled to a preliminary injunction while the case is ongoing because they were likely to succeed in their challenge to the board's policies. The high court's conservative majority said the parents hold 'sincere views on sexuality and gender which they wish to pass on to their children.' The court also rejected the school board's argument that the lessons were used only as 'exposure to objectionable ideas' because the books 'unmistakably convey a particular viewpoint about same-sex marriage and gender.' Alito made an example of books about same-sex marriage, saying the storybooks are designed to present a viewpoint to 'young, impressionable children who are likely to accept without question any moral messages conveyed by their teacher's instruction.' He argued that the parents are not seeking 'the right to micromanage the public school curriculum' but instead to opt out of particular lessons 'that burdens their well-established right 'to direct 'the religious upbringing' of their children.'' 'Many Americans, like the parents in this case, believe that biological sex reflects divine creation, that sex and gender are inseparable, and that children should be encouraged to accept their sex and to live accordingly,' he added. 'The storybooks, however, suggest that it is hurtful, and perhaps even hateful, to hold the view that gender is inextricably bound with biological sex.' He included photos from the book 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' which celebrates a relationship between two men; 'Born Ready,' which highlights a transgender boy's journey; and several other stories on LGBTQ issues. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who sparred with Alito over the storybooks during oral arguments in the case, wrote the dissent. She said the ruling 'threatens the very essence of public education' and 'constitutionalizes a parental veto power over curricular choices long left to the democratic process and local administrators.' 'The result will be chaos for this Nation's public schools,' she wrote. 'Requiring schools to provide advance notice and the chance to opt out of every lesson plan or story time that might implicate a parent's religious beliefs will impose impossible administrative burdens on schools.'
