On Wednesday, January 31, 2024, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a Christian legal interest group, filed suit against Skaneateles Central School District. ADF is claiming that officials at the New York school district began treating a middle-school girl “as a boy” without her mother’s knowledge or consent. The mother of the student, Jennifer Vitsaxaki, whom ADF attorneys are representing, withdrew her daughter from Skaneateles Central near the conclusion of the 2020-2021 academic year upon learning this news.
Mrs. Vitsaxaki feels that the masculine name and third-person plural pronouns that school officials were referring to her daughter as violate her fundamental parental rights and her religious beliefs. ADF explained that the school district violated Mrs. Vitsaxaki's right to freely exercise her Christian faith, which values the teachings of human nature and gender-sex ties. Christians support this concept of two sexes and heterosexuality from the respective genders. According to Mrs. Vitsaxaki, intentionally representing oneself as a gender not aligned with their sex assigned at birth is thought to disrespect God’s creation and is, therefore, seen as a sin.
Skaneateles Central administrators, however, say they enacted this procedure to protect Mrs. Vitsaxaki’s daughter from the ongoing bullying she had received, which had begun to cause strain on her mental health. The school psychologist, who told Skaneateles Central staff to keep their actions unknown, continued to meet with the student throughout the school year - in secret.
To protect her daughter from this “social transitioning,” Mrs. Vitsaxaki had removed her from in-person schooling and chose to go remote for the conclusion of the school year. During this time, however, the school officials continued to refer to the girl using pronouns not aligned with her sex. The following school year, Mrs. Vitsaxaki enrolled her daughter into a private school in Syracuse, New York about 25 miles away from their home.
Jennifer Vitsaxaki believes that her First Amendment right of “free exercise” as well as Fourteenth Amendment parental rights have been violated by Skaneateles Central School District. As a devout Christian, Mrs. Vitsaxaki deeply upholds the idea of gender and sex alignment, and the course in which the school district chose to handle her daughter’s battle with self-identity does not align with this Christian principle. So, the question is asked:
Did Skaneateles Central School District violate Jennifer Vitsaxaki’s First Amendment right of “free exercise” as well as Fourteenth Amendment fundamental parental rights?
This case is compelling because it involves a variety of concepts: “free exercise” rights, fundamental parental rights, and societal gender norms. When considering the facts of the case, I believe that Skaneateles Central School District violated Jennifer Vitsaxaki’s Fourteenth Amendment fundamental parental right of direct involvement in her minor daughter’s mental health struggles and treatment. However, I do not believe that Skaneateles Central School District violated Jennifer Vitsaxaki’s First Amendment right of “free exercise.”
Parents and/or guardians in the state of New York, obtain the right to “be informed on a regular basis, both informally and through formal progress reports, of their child’s academic and behavior progress in school” (“Parents Bill of Rights”). The issue at hand involves the “behavioral” aspect of this parental right, and as made aware by the facts of the case, Skaneateles Central School District did not inform Mrs. Vitsaxaki of her minor daughter’s experiences with bullying, mental health struggles, and routine check-ins with the school counselor. In fact, Mrs. Vitsaxaki was intentionally withheld this information - information, in my opinion, that is important to make a parent aware of.
Mrs. Vitsaxaki’s claim of being violated her First Amendment right of “free exercise”, in my opinion, is invalid. Though it is important to consider Jennifer Vitsaxaki’s religious beliefs, I feel that they are irrelevant to this case. The “free exercise” right, of anyone, that should be taken into consideration is that of Mrs. Vitsaxaki’s daughter. It is understood that the daughter is being raised in a Christian household and could, very well be, conformed to and in support of the Christian teachings. Although, there is the possibility that the young girl does not share the same religious belief as those of her mother, and because of this, she does not hold the same profound position to gender-sex alignment. Similarly, the facts of the case do not provide any context into whether or not the minor girl preferred this sense of identity. So, there could very well be many more routes in which this contemporary case may take. I just expect and hope for some opinion or any clarification to be made by the minor.
https://adfmedia.org/case/mead-v-rockford-public-school-district
https://www.nyclu.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/2020-pamphlet-minorshealthcarerights.pdf
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/school-life/know-your-rights/parents-bill-of-rights
Interesting case, Madelyn! I also don't think the school violated the mother's right to free exercise. Although the pronouns were in conflict with the mother's beliefs, it occurred during school hours, and doesn't seem to have impeded the mother's religious exercise. Also, I think the student's physical and mental safety takes priority here. Like how we considered in the Yoder case today, parents have a right to determine their children's decisions to a certain age. In this case, however, allowing the mother to determine the child's pronouns resulted in bullying - a threat to their health and learning.
ReplyDeleteHi Madelyn,
ReplyDeleteThis was a very interesting case to read. I would have to disagree with the school actions in this case because they intentionally held information about the daughter going to the school psychologist. In the parental bill of rights, it states that the parent has a right to know how their child's health is in school and that is considered mental health. I wish this gave more detail about the wishes of the minor, but another point to make is that this minor is not even 16 yet, therefore, do they have this right even if they didn't look at it from the religious angle? Other than that, aside, I do agree with you Madelyn that from the free exercise clause that it does not violate the mother's right to free exercise.