In the state of Maryland, the Montgomery County Board of Education has denied parents' appeal to be able to reinstate an opt-out policy for LGBTQ curriculum in public schools. Parents are fighting back on this appeal, stating that this decision is a violation of their constitutional right towards freedom of exercise as well as the religious instruction of their children. The books are taught to children from pre-k all the way through eighth grade which are used to teach inclusivity in an attempt to promote an environment where students are free to be themselves as well as learn from an early age the acceptance and inclusion of others. The books in question discuss pride parades, gender transition, pronoun preference, etc. Teachers lead class discussions using words such as: intersex, Drag queen, and non-binary. Parents are stating that the book's taught in schools send messages which directly contradict with their sincerely held religious beliefs regarding gender and marriage. Many parents of different faiths have articulated this to the school board, such as Orthodox Christians and Muslims.
The school board’s compelling interest states diversity in their community will make it easier for children to form relationships with others and to help children understand the perspectives and experiences of others. The School Board Policy on Nondiscrimination, Equity, and Cultural Proficiency states that they will take “proactive steps to identify and redress implicit biases and structural and institutional barriers that too often have resulted in disproportionate exclusion and underrepresentation (CaseLaw).” Additionally, the school is following Maryland state law, which requires schools to provide a comprehensive health education which includes “concepts and skills related to family life and human sexuality.” Which must represent all students regardless of “ability, sexual orientation, and gender expression (CaseLaw).”
Tamer Mohamed who is a Muslim and practices Islam, has objected to the school policy on the grounds that they have “a sacred duty” to teach their children their faith, “including religiously grounded sexual ethics.” He argues that this goes directly against his and his family's faith. In the Islam faith, it states that the Quran prohibits: “prying into others private lives and discourages public disclosure of sexual behavior (CaseLaw).”
While the school board does not allow opt outs for anyone, this could potentially look like a neutral law at face value. The school board is not discriminating against any one type of religion if they do not allow opt-outs for anyone regardless of their religion or faith. A “facially neutral and generally applicable law that has the incidental effect of burdening religious exercise is subject to rational basis review (CaseLaw).” Therefore, this law is subject to strict scrutiny as it affects people’s decision to choose between their religion and the other benefits of sending their children to public schools. The opt-out policy would potentially be the most beneficial as it would provide a neutral stance on the LGBTQ curriculum—students who chose to learn about the inclusivity curriculum can stay, and those whose sincerely held religious beliefs are being affected by this can choose a different class to attend.
While claiming that opt-outs for no one regardless of religion could potentially decrease the risk of religious violations as it is not discriminating against any one religion, the question of coercion comes into play. Where is the line drawn between that and religious families who fear their children may be coerced or forced to learn from a young age about LGBTQ lifestyles that do not align with their sincerely held religious beliefs? The school board determined that “the plaintiffs are not likely to suffer imminent irreparable harm, and the balance of the equities and the public interest favor denying an injunction to avoid undermining the Schools Boards legitimate interests in the no-opt-out policy (National Review).” While the school board may have an interest, is there a compelling state interest for the state of Maryland to enforce this rule in public schools?
The Supreme Court has held that children are not “wards of the state” and their parents have the fundamental right to have the ability to make key decisions about the education of their children on such critical matters concerning religious rights (BeckettLaw.)” This has been determined and set as a precedent in the case Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972). Which determines that the overarching goals of fundamental religious rights can override a compelling state interest. In this case, I believe that due to the precedents which have been established in Wisconsin v.Yoder, families should have the right to determine whether or not their children should have the ability to be involved in the LGBTQ curricula that is taught in Maryland Public Schools.
Sources:
Hi Hayden! I find your chosen case fascinating and I agree with your analysis overall as to how it should be legally decided. The case facts show that there is strong personal interests for parents to protect their children from indoctrination that may be threatening to their religions. There is historical evidence that shows these values are ingrained in their chosen religion's doctrine. It is not a matter of personal preference in which the parents desire to opt-out simply based on personal preference. By not allowing parents to opt their children out of the program, there is an infringement on their free exercise rights. I can understand that the state and school district would have a strong interest in protecting LGBTQ students from harm and discrimination in the future by fostering an accepting environment with free discussions. But that duty to discuss LGBTQ individuals should reside with the family in their nuclear unit. It is not a responsibility for the teachers and schools to discuss because it does violate the parent's rights to have a say in their child's education. Therefore, I would argue that it is absolutely within the rights of parents to opt their children out of the program based on religious ideology and freedom of exercise.
ReplyDeleteHayden,
ReplyDeleteGreat post! I agree with your holding, and I think your reasoning was particularly compelling. Although there may be a compelling state interest, religious free exercise rights, which are fundamental rights, may overrule this compelling state interest. I also think that in terms of neutrality, yes, this law may have been neutral in that it informs all of the students of LGBTQ content. Although this may have a majority view of benefitting the children and their understanding of sexuality and identity, there is no doubt that select religions disagree with this, and the spread of this information in public schools directly violates their religious rights.
I’d love to follow this case and learn of the outcome! Super interesting.
Hi Hayden,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your analysis of this case. While the law may seem neutral at face value and there is a compelling state interest, I agree that parents should have the option to opt their children out of this curriculum. If it goes against their beliefs, then they should have an opportunity to be exempt from this teaching. Looking at a precedent case like West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette could be helpful in this scenario. The Supreme Court ruled that compelling public schoolchildren to salute the flag was unconstitutional, as it was a violation of their First Amendment rights.
I agree with the author that although this law seems neutral, it is not. Parents should have the right to not have their children's religious beliefs attacked. Protecting parents' constitutional rights and accommodating diverse religious beliefs is crucial. By allowing an opt-out, the school board could respect religious freedom while still fostering an inclusive environment. I think that yes, there is a very compelling state interest to foster diversity in this instance, but I think if the case is decided the other way it would create a slippery slope in future cases.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your conclusion that the parents whose religious beliefs did not support these teachings of LGBTQ ideas rights were violated due to the Free Exercise Clause. I understand that there is a compelling state interest to teach inclusivity and promote an environment of comfort. However, I do not see that this compelling state interest is strong enough to not allow parents to opt their children out of the teaching. Allowing students to opt out of the LGBTQ teachings does not mean there will be no inclusivity in the classroom. I believe that there are other methods that the school district can promote this state interest of inclusivity. The parents are not removing their children because of their personal beliefs but because of their strong religious beliefs. Parents should not have to choose between their religious beliefs and educating their students in a public school.
ReplyDeleteHi Hayden,
ReplyDeleteNice job on this post. I agree that there are often complications between school curriculums and religious/sexual beliefs. While looking at Wisconsin v. Yoder, we see that the courts do make academic exemptions for students who see their religious viewpoints in conflict with the government's interest in educating the body of children. While I agree with your analysis, my curiosity lies in how the courts will prevent this from becoming a slippery slope. At one moment groups are requesting exemptions from LGBTQ materials, yet at the next are they requesting exemptions from math class? There is a compelling state interest for children to be educated (and learn about opinions other than their own), yet citizens are also entitled to free exercise rights. As such, the court's ruling on this case will speak volumes about where religion lies in America.
I agree with your post as well. The Counties Board of Education trying to deny parents the option to opt-out of LGBTQ curriculum is definitely a violation. While the school board emphasizes diversity and inclusion, I think the parents are right to say it infringes on their constitutional right to religious freedom. As Kim said, With legal precedents like Wisconsin v. Yoder supporting parents' authority over their children's education, theres certainly a fine line between state interests and individual rights that would requires careful consideration on the part of any court.
ReplyDelete