High Court to Discuss Possibility of Exempting Parental Notification for LGBTQ+ Literature in Elementary Schools
In the heart of a contentious dispute, Billy Moges, a devoted parent, stands against the Washington, DC-area school district over the inclusion of LGBTQ+ books in elementary school reading lists.
"We don't hold any animosity towards anyone," Moges, one of the Christian parents involved in the lawsuit against Maryland's largest school district, stated. "We simply don't wish for our kids to be exposed to these ideas at such a young age because they're not mentally prepared for it."
However, the school district, along with civil rights groups, fears that catering to Moges would create an administrative nightmare. This, they argue, would require teachers to constantly predict and notify parents of any classroom discussion that might clash with their religious beliefs.
Next week, the Supreme Court will delve into these perspectives during oral arguments. This case, considered one of the court's most significant religious cases in years, encompasses the struggle for transgender rights, the extent of parents' influence on school curriculum, and the role of faith in the public sphere.
The parents base their argument on a 1972 Supreme Court precedent, which permitted Amish families to withdraw their children from school after the eighth grade, even though a Wisconsin law mandated students to stay enrolled until they were 16.
In recent years, the 6-3 conservative Supreme Court has consistently supported religious interests, allowing a high school coach to pray on the 50-yard line and permitting public funds to be allocated for religious schools[2]. Most recently, they backed a Catholic foster care agency that refused to work with same-sex couples as potential parents[2].
Moges, the founder of a group called Kids First, emphasizes that she isn't asking schools to ban the books – only to offer an opt-out option to parents with religious objections. Many states, including Maryland, already allow parents to remove their children from sex education[1].
Montgomery County schools initially allowed opt-outs, but later concluded they were unmanageable[1].
"Some schools encountered unsustainably high numbers of absentees," the district told the justices in a brief this month. "The constant shuttling of students in and out of classrooms would disrupt the classrooms as well."
A Tale of a Prince and His Knight
As part of its English curriculum, Montgomery County endorsed several books in 2022 that are part of the controversy. One of these books, "Prince & Knight," narrates the story of a prince refusing to marry a princess and teaming up with a knight to slay a dragon, eventually falling in love[1].
Another book, "Born Ready," tells the story of Penelope, a character who enjoys skateboarding and casual clothing. When Penelope expresses his identity as a boy, he is accepted. When Penelope's brother questions his gender identity, their mother shows him and Penelope love and acceptance[1].
The school district argued that these books are no different from any others in the curriculum, being available for students to discover and teachers to incorporate into reading groups at their discretion[1].
Moges and others who oppose the policy argue that the books are not merely sitting on shelves, but are actively being used[1].
Stirring Memories of the Past
The Richmond-based 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the schools 2-1 last year, stating that the evidence on how the books were being used was insufficient to determine if the material infringed upon the religious rights of the parents at the early stage of the litigation[4].
Two judges in the majority were appointed by Presidents George W. Bush and Joe Biden, while a third, appointed by Donald Trump, dissented[4].
The parents strongly rely on the landmark 1972 Supreme Court case, Wisconsin v. Yoder, in which Amish parents challenged a state law requiring students to attend school until they were 16[4].
The Supreme Court ruled that the parents' religious beliefs overrode the state's interest in enforcing the law. However, the school district and its allies argue that mere exposure to ideas cannot possibly burden religion[4]. This is because, for such a burden to be established, the parents must demonstrate that they or their children were coerced to act or believe against their religion[4].
Reading about LGBTQ+ characters in a book, the school's allies argue, does not constitute such coercion[4].
"Schools are responsible for educating everyone, not tailoring curriculum according to each parent's religious beliefs," said Jason Walta, deputy general counsel at the National Education Association, which filed a brief in support of the school district along with other groups[4]. "This is the essence of having a pluralistic democracy."
A Pleading Coach Joins the Fray
A part of the school's supporters is frequently referencing a high-profile decision from the Supreme Court three years ago, which sided with a high school football coach who was dismissed after offering prayers on the 50-yard line[6].
In that case, the court's conservative justices lined up to reinstate Joe Kennedy, the "praying coach." The 2022 opinion has much to say about what constitutes religious coercion and what does not[6].
"Learning to tolerate various forms of speech or prayer is 'part of learning how to live in a pluralistic society,' a trait essential to a tolerant citizenry," wrote conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, referencing the importance of learning to tolerate diverse viewpoints, even those that may be offensive to some[6].
Supporters of the school district speculate that it would be challenging for the Supreme Court to reconcile this language with a decision favoring the parents.
Kennedy returned to coaching but resigned after a single game[6].
[1] Montgomery County's books selection: https://www.mcpsmt.org/departments/library-media-services/childrensbookproject[2] Recent religious cases: https://www.scotusblog.com/topics/religion/[3] Case summary: https://www.aclu.org/cases/mahmoud-v-taylor[4] Landmark 1972 Supreme Court case: https://www.oyez.org/cases/case-details/1971/70-1007[5] Additional information on the case: https://www.edweek.org/leadership/what-maks-the-supreme-court-case-about-lgbtq-books-so-important/2022/04/14/1291660[6] Opinion in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-383_6j73.pdf
- The supreme court is expected to discuss the controversy surrounding LGBTQ+ books in elementary school reading lists, with one of the books, "Prince & Knight," being a part of the dispute.
- Moges, a parent involved in the lawsuit against Maryland's school district, prefers an opt-out option for parents with religious objections, citing the 1972 Supreme Court precedent that allowed Amish families to withdraw their children from school.
- The school district argues that these books are no different from any others in the curriculum and criticizes the idea of constant shuttling of students in and out of classrooms due to opt-outs as disruptive.
- The court's decision in this case could have implications in the ongoing debate about the role of education in self-development, politics, and religious rights, with implications for general news and public policy.
