Teaching Transgender Topics to First-Graders: Restriction of Free Exercise?

    Megan Williams is a public school teacher currently employed by the Mt. Lebanon School District in Pennsylvania.  During the previous school year (2021-2022), Williams taught first grade.  During this same year, Williams’ transgender child was also in first grade.  Throughout the school year, Williams made a clear and consistent effort to educate the first graders on transgender and LGBTQ+ topics, despite the complete lack of this information within the district’s elementary curriculum. Williams received questions and complaints from parents throughout the year, but continued without regard for their concerns.  Instead, she responded by stating that she “ “has an agenda” and intends to teach “right on the edge.” Williams told one concerned parent, “as long as I am on this earth, I am going to teach children what I feel they need to learn”. 

    And that she did.  On March 31 (Transgender Day of Visibility), Williams devoted the majority of class instruction time to discussion of gender dysphoria and the transitioning process with the six- and seven-year-olds in her class.  However, this content was not contained to a single day.  Rather, throughout the school year, Williams brought up these topics and showed various transgender materials, including the video Jacob's New Dress and reading picture books such as When Aiden Became a Brother and Introducing Teddy.  These materials were intentionally designed to educate on transgender issues and were not a part of the curriculum.  No advance notice was given to parents.  

    Throughout the year, she became invested in one student in particular and had many one-on-one conversations in which she encouraged him to wear dresses and grow his hair long.  Williams continually mentioned similarities between this student and her son, and despite discomfort expressed by his parents, often told the boy that, “he could be like her transgender child”.  The boy’s parents claimed that Williams’ intent was to groom the student into acting and dressing like her own son.  In general, Williams prompted all of her students to question their gender identities, stating that, “sometimes “parents are wrong” and parents and doctors “make mistakes” when they bring a child home from the hospital”.  She also instructed her students not to tell their parents about their discussions.

    These behaviors are clearly inappropriate for a public school teacher to participate in.  However, for the purposes of this post, I will not be focusing on the individual instructor’s actions, but rather the district administrators’ response and role in this case. 

    The school administrators were well aware of the first-grade parents’ concerns.  Parents called the school, organized meetings, and expressed concerns throughout the year.  However, the administration supported Williams and gave her the authority to teach what she wanted.  The school adopted a ‘de facto’ policy involving the controversial material; parents were not made aware of the instruction in advance, and there was no choice for parents to opt their children out of these lessons.

    A group of parents from Williams’ 2021-2022 class filed suit against both Williams and multiple school administrators in Tatel v. Mt. Lebanon School District.  They asserted that both the ‘de facto’ policy and Williams’ resulting actions inhibit their religious free exercise and their right to raise their children as they see fit.  Specifically, it contradicted their sincerely-held religious beliefs that, “human beings are created male or female and that the natural created order regarding human sexuality cannot be changed regardless of individual feelings, beliefs, or discomfort with one’s identity, and biological reality, as either male or female”.  The parents’ religious beliefs also hold that they have a crucial role to “direct the upbringing and beliefs and religious training of their children”.  

    Therefore, the relevant question is as follows: does the Mt. Lebanon School District’s policy of denying parents the choice to ‘opt out’ their first-grade public school children from transgender instruction violate the parents’ free exercise of religion?

    On October 28th, 2022, Pennsylvania federal district court determined that yes, this was a violation of the First Amendment and allowed the case to proceed.  The school district refuted, arguing that the parents did not have any right to determine the material taught in a public school.  Nevertheless, the district court determined that the plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims were relevant. 

    By instilling the ‘de facto’ policy (which waived any requirement to notify parents of such instruction), the plaintiffs were restricted from fulfilling their religious parental roles – they were unaware of when this type of instruction would occur and had no power to stop their children from being exposed to it.  Despite claims that LGBTQ+ instruction is secular in nature, it is inherently religious to these parents because it directly contradicts the teachings of their church.  The district’s policy makes it so every child in Williams’ class will receive this instruction, regardless of the parents’ religious objections.  Thus, this policy limits the parents’ ability to raise their children as they see fit.  We can look back to the precedent set by Wisconsin v. Yoder.  In this case, the Supreme Court decided that Amish parents’ interest to internally educate their children after age sixteen took precedence over the state’s compulsory education laws.  Wisconsin v. Yoder demonstrated how the state’s compelling interest in education, though very important, can be subject to limitations when it restricts other fundamental rights; specifically, the rights “protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the traditional interest of parents with respect to the religious upbringing of their children”.  

    The effect on children in this case is another crucial element.  The first graders in this class were six and seven years old.  Introducing confusing subject matters and controversial topics at such a young age can be extremely disorienting and stressful, especially for children raised by religious families.  This type of instruction undoubtedly created many questions for children during a period in their lives when they should be focused on basic arithmetic, learning to read, and making friends.  The parents have a right to be concerned and they are justified in wanting to ensure the wellbeing of their children. 

    For these reasons, the district court decided that the plaintiffs’ claims were legitimate and allowed the suit to move forward.  Another primary reason for this was the lack of state interest in promoting the LGBTQ+ instruction.  Promoting equality and inclusion is important but was not deemed compelling enough in this case to justify the restriction of free exercise.  The court stated that, “Unless the school demonstrates that its conduct is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest, a school’s interest in promoting tolerance, while laudable, cannot override a fundamental parental right about teaching sensitive topics that go to the heart of the parents’ relationship to their young children.”

    However, some might argue that by restricting the teacher from discussing her son with her students, Williams’ own right to free exercise and freedom of speech would be inhibited.  I would refute this by stating that while Williams occupies this role in a public school setting, she is mandated to abide by the school’s curriculum and complete her role as instructed while respecting the religious freedom of her students’ parents.  While Williams is guaranteed the right to belief, she is not guaranteed the right to act based on those beliefs in every situation – especially when she is working in a public school funded by the government.  

    What are your thoughts?  Do you think that the parents’ religious exercise was, in fact, restricted by the school district? Or do you think that Williams was simply exercising her own free exercise rights and freedom of speech by instructing her class in the way she deemed appropriate?