Montgomery County Board of Education
In the fall of 2022, the Montgomery County Board of Education decided to include over 20 new "inclusivity" books into their curriculum for grades pre-k through 8th. The books' main focus was pride-parades, gender transitioning, and pronoun preferences for children. One book was asking "three- and four-year-olds to search for images from a word list that includes “intersex flag,” “[drag] queen,” “underwear,” “leather,” and the name of a celebrated LGBTQ activist and sex worker". Another book stimulated 5th graders to "discuss what it means to be “non-binary”". These are two examples of the many different ideologies that are presented to young children. Also, the new curriculum for the teachers in the Montgomery County does not allow for the children to ask questions or express independent thinking that contradicts the new "inclusivity" ideology without being told by their teachers that they are "hurtful".
When the Board first announced the addition of the "Pride Storybooks", they assured parents that they would be notified when these books would be read. These concerned parents could them decide if they want to opt their children out of these readings. "Maryland, like most of the other states across America, must notify parents and allow them to have their child opt out of any teaching that is family life or human sexuality related". The Montgomery County Board even allows for alternative assignments with a wide range of activities, readings, and discussions.
In March of 2023, everything changed. The Board issued a statement that they will no longer be notifying parents or accepting any opt out of any kind. One Board member even justified this by stating "allowing opt-outs because these books “offend your religious rights or your family values or your core beliefs is just telling [your] kid, ‘Here’s another reason to hate another person’”. Very soon after the release of the statement, an alliance of parents from varying faiths formed to help "protect their rights to direct their children's religious and intellectual education on sensitive matters such as family life and human sexuality".
Are the parents and the children having their parental rights and the free exercise of religion violated by not allowing the parents to opt out of sensitive matters that contradicts their religious beliefs?
Parents have the religious liberty to be able to decide the religious upbringing of their children while in school. The First Amendment protects every individual's right of free exercise of religion along with free speech. In the case of Wisconsin v. Yoder (1971), the Court decided that "the individual's interests in the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment outweighed the State's interests in compelling school attendance beyond eighth grade". In the present case, the Pride Storybook Mandate violates the decision made in Wisconsin v. Yoder (1971). The Mandate puts the State's interest before the individual/parent. In the case of Parker v. Hurley (2008), there were books to promote tolerance of gays and lesbians. The difference between the Parker case and the present case, Mahmoud, is that in the present case, they are required to accept the controversial ideologies that they learn about. Another case that is crucial to Mahmoud case because children are impressionable and can be influenced from authorities. The most important previous case, Florey v. Sioux Falls School District (1980), stated that "public schools are
not required to delete from the curriculum all materials that may offend
any religious sensibility. On the other hand, forcing any person to
participate in an activity that offends his religious or nonreligious beliefs
will generally contravene the Free Exercise Clause.”
Along with the religious liberties that the children have, the parents have religious liberties for their children as well. Parents have the right to decide their children's religious upbringing and should be allowed the option of opting out of sensitive matters such as family life and human sexuality.
Therefore, I believe that the parents are having their First Amendment Rights violated along with the parents having their rights violated as well. I think by restricting the parents' rights to basically none in this specific case, there is a substantial burden placed upon the parents because they have no say in their child's religious beliefs. When comparing the State's interest compared to the individual's rights, the State interest is not compelling enough to be considered the top priority over the individual's right of free exercise of religion which includes religious beliefs or practices. The parents are just asking to be able to opt out their children because of their religious beliefs and to have them do another assignment that does not contradict their religious beliefs. They are not saying that the school cannot do it, but rather, just to have their children not do it. Also, it is from a wide variety of religions not only one specific religion. I think that previously before, they were keeping it less restrictive by having the children do a different assignment instead of the Pride Storybook Assignment. I think if they were trying to promote inclusivity and acceptance of everyone, the school would also accept that there is a group of parents that may not believe all of the controversial ideologies that they are trying to teach the children, and they would respect the parents' wishes.
References
9 comments:
Abby,
This post was super interesting! I was initially shocked with the new curriculum in Montgomery County that does not allow children to “ask questions or express independent thinking that contradicts the new ‘inclusivity’ ideology”. To me, this seems like a blatant violation of the children’s free exercise rights, and a scenario where they are being taken advantage of because of their age. I believe that the outrage of the parents from the announcement that they would no longer be notified or given an opt out option for their child when these books were read to them was fair, given a lenient and flexible policy prior to this. Ultimately, I agree with your holding that the state interest for teaching these children about inclusivity via books is not compelling enough to trump the individual liberties of the children and parents in this case.
Abby, this is a very interesting case. I agree with you that the state did not argue a compelling enough interest to outweigh the burden placed on the religious liberties of the parents and children. Although this burden on religious free exercise is indirect, it is nevertheless still important. Since the school was able to previously accommodate the religious needs of parents/students by granting them alternative assignments, it seems to me that the Montgomery County Board of Education needs to now prove that continuing to grant these exemptions places an undue hardship on school officials as well as more thoroughly describe any other factors that have led to this change in policy.
Abby,
This is a great post. I agree with the other commenters that prohibiting children from "asking questions" and thinking independently is highly controversial, particularly when considering that schools should serve as a space to engage in critical discourse. Much of what this argument concerns regards the state's critical state interest in education. However, based on their preexisting policy on content regarding sexuality, I believe you are correct in your analysis that parents should be allowed to opt out of this educational program. While there is the potential for a slippery slope to occur, I believe the facts of this case to be narrow enough that parents can safely opt their children out of such a program.
Great post on a very interesting topic! I agree with the commenters, and this very much does remind me of the Yoder case as you noted which was decided in favor of Yoder. I can see where the school and the district would want all children to participate in this education, as it is an important part of the curriculum. But, even if it is important, there should be religious exemptions still, because if there wasn't, like as shown in this case, that would be unconstitutional. Therefore, I agree with your argument that the Montgomery County Board of Education should grant families and students exemptions bases on their religious beliefs and practices.
Abby,
This was a really interesting post! I agree with you that this new policy from the Montgomery County Board infringes on free exercise. In particular, I think it is concerning that one member of the board essentially said that an offense to religious rights is not a good enough reason to opt-out of this program. This kind of attitude only breeds religious intolerance and is contrary to the purpose of the First Amendment. Although everyone may not all agree on these religious beliefs and some may find them hateful, we must protect the right to free exercise, which the Montgomery County Board has failed to do.
Hi Abby,
This is a fascinating post. The Montgomery County curriculum change, restricting questions and independent thought on "inclusivity," is concerning. While the state has a compelling interest in education, based on their past policy regarding sensitive content, parental opt-out rights seem justified. The potential for a "slippery slope" argument exists, but the specific nature of this program allows for a safe opt-out option. I agree with your conclusion. The state's interest in promoting inclusivity through these books doesn't outweigh the individual liberties of children and parents. Schools should foster critical thinking, not suppress it.
Abby,
I think this is a great topic to bring to light concerning constitutional rights and individual liberties - it is certainly a topic of ongoing debate in the public eye. I agree with your holding on this case. It is beyond the scope of the state to mandate material that is not religiously neutral. As mentioned by some of the earlier comments, there is not a compelling enough argument for the state to supercede the individual rights of both students and parents - especially regarding ideas of family life and sexuality that constitute as religious ideals in many religions. This is a case of secular ideals being given favor in a government-sponsored environment and I would argue that it is hostile to religion. It is my opinion that if the public education system continues to mandate these sorts of teachings, then parents with religious ideals (who are not seeking the teaching of their beliefs in the system, but rather equal treatment under the law to freely exercise their religion) will be forced to accept the burden of paying for private education. This does not seem fair as the education system is one which should be accomodating to all. As proven by the precedent case mentioned, exemptions MUST be granted for these teachings if they are to be deemed constitutional within the education system! Great post!
This was a intriguing topic. I 100% believe that these parents are having their first amendment rights violated. The state can 100% not mandate these books that are not neutral. Parent shave a strong right to opt out of these reading based off religious reasons. There is as you said no state interest that outweighs parents reasons for opting out their kids. If stuff like this is allowed then I think a slippery slope is opened and what's to stop schools from teaching dangerous material that could be harmful to children's developing brains. Such as racist themes or other dangerous themes. Your precedent speaks for itself, exemptions must be given.
Hi Abby! Great post about a contemporary issue that is a hot topic in political debates today. As our peers have stated, the First Amendment rights of both the parents and children are being violated with this policy. I do recognize that there is a compelling state interest to promote DEI curriculum to teach people to treat others with respect. However, I personally believe that this type of discussion does not need to take place at such a young age for school children. There are other methods to teach these principles. It is a discussion that should take place later in the development of a student's journey. Therefore, the interest of parents to opt their children out of such instruction is more compelling. When individual religious ideology is not neutral to secular ideology, then it is a hostility to religion.
Post a Comment