The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear a case that could determine whether parents can opt their children out of LGBTQ-themed storybooks in public schools.
And it’s unclear which way this is going to go…
At a Glance
- Montgomery County, Maryland parents sue school district over LGBTQ curriculum mandate
- Parents from diverse religious backgrounds claim violation of First Amendment rights
- School board removed parental opt-out option for LGBTQ-themed books
- Case has escalated to the U.S. Supreme Court after defeats in lower courts
- Decision expected to have significant implications for parental rights and religious freedom
Parents Challenge School District’s LGBTQ Curriculum
A group of parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, have taken their fight against the local school district’s LGBTQ curriculum mandate to the highest court in the land. The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in a case that pits parental rights and religious freedom against educational inclusivity.
The controversy began when the Montgomery County Board of Education introduced a series of “inclusivity” books in 2022 for pre-K to fifth-grade students. These books, which include titles like “Pride Puppy” and “Jacob’s Room to Choose,” cover topics related to gender and sexuality. Initially, parents were allowed to opt their children out of these lessons, but the school board later revoked this option.
The decision to remove the opt-out provision sparked outrage among many parents, particularly those from Muslim, Christian, and Jewish backgrounds. These parents argue that the curriculum conflicts with their religious beliefs and violates their First Amendment rights.
“The School Board has pushed inappropriate gender indoctrination on our children instead of focusing on the fundamental areas of education that they need to thrive,” Grace Morrison said.
Morrison, a Catholic mother of a child with special needs, is one of the plaintiffs in the case. She and her husband were forced to withdraw their daughter from public school and begin homeschooling, incurring additional costs for therapy and academic services.
School District Defends Curriculum
The Montgomery County School Board, which serves over 160,000 students, maintains that the books are age-appropriate and essential for developing critical reading skills. They argue that the curriculum is designed to represent the diverse student body and that exposure to these materials does not infringe on religious rights.
“Cramming down controversial gender ideology on three-year-olds without their parents’ permission is an affront to our nation’s traditions, parental rights, and basic human decency,” Eric Baxter, Vice President and Senior Counsel at Becket, the legal group representing the parents, said.
He’s not wrong, is he?
The school board contends that parents who choose to send their children to public schools should expect exposure to a variety of viewpoints, even those they may find objectionable. They argue that allowing opt-outs could lead to increased absenteeism and social stigma for students represented in the books.
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case could have far-reaching implications for parental rights and religious freedom in public education. It will likely address the delicate balance between respecting diverse religious beliefs and promoting inclusivity in schools.
“Particularly here, when you’re talking about three-year-olds, four-year-olds, children who have special needs, children who are in elementary school, this is a highly impressionable time when children implicitly trust their teachers. And you’re going to matters that really strike at the heart of parental authority because they go to the heart of who the child is,” William Haun, Senior Counsel at Becket, said.
As the nation awaits the Supreme Court’s decision, expected in the spring, the case continues to highlight the ongoing tension between traditional values and progressive education policies. The outcome will likely shape the future of parental involvement in public school curricula across the country.
