Parents have the right to keep their children from any instruction on LGBTQ themes in public schools, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled June 27.
The 6-3 decision found the constitutional right to free exercise of religion was violated by a Maryland school district in not allowing children to be excused from storybook lessons parents found to be objectionable.
Samuel Alito
“It must be emphasized that what the parents seek here is not the right to micromanage the public school curriculum, but rather to have their children opt out of a particular educational requirement that burdens their well-established right ‘to direct the religious upbringing’ of their children,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority in Mahmoud v. Taylor.
“We express no view on the educational value of the board’s proposed curriculum, other than to state that it places an unconstitutional burden on the parents’ religious exercise if it is imposed with no opportunity for opt outs. Providing such an opportunity would give the parents no substantive control over the curriculum itself,” he said.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the opinion “misguided” and proof that judges should not second-guess school districts when it comes to matters of curriculum.
“Today’s ruling threatens the very essence of public education. The court, in effect, constitutionalizes a parental veto power over curricular choices long left to the democratic process and local administrators,” Sotomayor wrote in her dissent joined by justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor
“That decision guts our free exercise precedent and strikes at the core premise of public schools: that children may come together to learn not the teachings of a particular faith, but a range of concepts and views that reflect our entire society. Exposure to new ideas has always been a vital part of that project, until now,” she wrote.
Furthermore, the ruling will open the floodgates of protests against any subject parents find unacceptable, Sotomayor warned. “The logic of the court’s ruling will also apply to countless other topics, interactions and activities that may conflict with a parent’s religious preferences. What of the parent who wants his child’s curriculum stripped of any mention of women working outside the home, sincerely averring that such activity conflicts with the family’s religious beliefs?”
The parents who brought the suit represent Muslim, Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox faith traditions, SCOTUSblog reported.
Among the texts in question in the 2022 curriculum were Uncle Bobby’s Wedding, a story about the same-sex wedding of a favorite uncle, and Pride Puppy, which follows the adventures of a dog lost during a Pride parade.
“Simply allowing children to learn the fundamental reality that LGBTQ people exist in the world, and to learn about their perspectives and experiences does not infringe on anyone’s First Amendment rights,” said Paul Brandeis Raushenbush, president of Interfaith Alliance. “True religious freedom is about diversity and tolerance — communities learning to live peacefully and respectfully alongside each other despite our differences.”
Raushenbush, a gay Baptist minister raising two sons, said he wants his children introduced to Islam, Judaism and other religions, people and ideas.
“Christian nationalist groups will soon seek the right to opt out from any educational content they object to.”
“There’s little doubt that Christian nationalist groups will soon seek the right to opt out from any educational content they object to. It’s a dangerous slippery slope that starts with discrimination against the gay community but doesn’t stop there,” he said.
School districts should not be deterred by the decision from adopting inclusive curricula, said Karen Loewy, senior counsel and director of constitutional law practice at Lambda Legal.
“This is particularly important for LGBTQ youth and kids of LGBTQ parents who face disproportionate discrimination and harassment. While parents with religious objections may be able to remove their children from classroom use of these storybooks, they do not get to demand that schools stop these important efforts to reflect our entire society.”
But Loewy also acknowledged the connection between the ruling and the growing anti-LGBTQ sentiment in the nation: “This decision is yet another step toward allowing those with religious objections to opt out of recognizing LGBTQ people and families as equal participants in our shared community.”
The opinion will make it harder to teach about inclusion in public schools, said Taylor Tuckerman, vice president of finance and shared services with Catholics for Choice and the parent of a toddler in the district that was sued.
“I am trying to teach my son that there are many different types of families and all the ways people grow up to be their most authentic selves,” Tuckerman said.
The LGBTQ subject matter conservatives found objectionable conveyed the values of acceptance and love, she added. “They are lessons every child needs to learn. It’s also important for children to learn that our differences — religion, sexual orientation, gender expression, race, economic backgrounds and more — contribute to a thriving community and are not something to be ashamed of.”
Related articles:
Supreme Court hears case of parents wanting to opt out of story time
Seven religion-influenced cases pending before US Supreme Court