(The Lion) — Where do parents’ rights begin and end in public-school classrooms?
The Supreme Court will consider this and other questions in Mahmoud v. Taylor, a case in which Maryland parents have requested their children be excused from school lessons involving LGBTQ themes.
The high court is expected to rule in the case later this month or perhaps in July.
“As someone who teaches education law, I believe this is perhaps the court’s most significant case on parental rights since (1925),” wrote Charles J. Russo in a commentary for The Conversation. “Mahmoud raises questions not only about religious freedom, but also about educators’ ability to determine curricula, and public education in a pluralistic society.”
Russo, the Joseph Panzer Chair in education and research professor of law at the University of Dayton, referenced a 100-year-old court decision still quoted today.
“The majority opinion in Pierce v. Society of Sisters of the Holy Name of Jesus and Mary included a now-famous dictum about parents’ rights to shape their children’s upbringing. According to the court, ‘the child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.’”
Objections on religious grounds
The state’s largest school district, Montgomery County Public Schools, introduced LGBTQ-themed storybooks into English language arts for preschool and elementary students in the 2022-23 school year.
Parents protested many of these materials, including a picture book called Pride Puppy! and narratives concerning “same-sex marriage, a transgender child and nonbinary bathroom signs,” Russo noted.
“Initially, officials agreed to allow opt-outs for elementary schoolers whose parents objected to the materials. However, a day later they changed their minds. Since then, school officials cited concerns about absenteeism, the feasibility of accommodating opt-out requests, and a desire to avoid stigmatizing LGBTQ+ students or families as reasons for their policy.”
However, the parents – representing multiple faith backgrounds such as Muslim, Orthodox Christian and Catholic – have argued their children’s required participation is compelling or coercing them to go against their family’s religious beliefs.
Although the U.S. 4th Circuit rejected the parents’ appeal 2-1, the dissenting judge agreed First Amendment rights had been violated.
Mandatory class participation “forces the parents to make a choice – either adhere to their faith or receive a free public education for their children,” wrote Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr. “They cannot do both.”
Quattlebaum also took issue with the school board’s refusal to create opt-out procedures, noting the state allows children to be excused from sex-ed classes.
“Even though not taught in a sex-ed class, the books the board required be used with K-5 children to promote diversity and inclusivity to the LGBTQ+ community involve issues of family life and human sexuality,” he wrote.
“I see nothing in the Maryland regulations that would permit the board to avoid the requirement to permit opt-outs for family life and human sexuality just by adding instruction in that area to other classes.”
The majority of the Supreme Court also appeared sympathetic to the parents’ concerns during oral arguments in the case April 22, writes Supreme Court news site SCOTUSblog.com in an article headlined “Supreme Court likely to rule for parental opt-out on LGBTQ books in schools.”
