(Note the links to Part 1 and Part 2)
On Friday, the Supreme Court delivered its opinion in Mahmoud v. Taylor, a case dealing with the right of parents to opt their children out of various LGBT+ curricula for religious reasons.
A bit of background…
In 2022, Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) introduced a number of LGBT-themed books into its ELA (English Language Arts) curriculum for students from pre-K through the 5th grade. Parents were initially allowed to have their kids opt out of lessons where these books were used, a practice consistent with MCPS’s “Guidelines for Respecting Religious Diversity.” In 2023, MCPS rescinded the option for students to opt out of classes featuring the LGBT-themed materials.
A group of parents filed suit stating that the Board’s no-opt-out policy unconstitutionally burdened their free expression of religion. Last Friday, the Court issued an opinion that found in favor of the parents and issued a preliminary injunction, remanding the case to the lower court for resolution.
Some of the Court’s findings I found interesting:
1) The Court acknowledged that “…the practice of educating one’s children in one’s religious beliefs, like all religious acts and practices, receives a generous measure of constitutional protection.” It also found that when MCPS decided to rescind opt-outs as well as notifications to parents about when such materials would be used in classrooms, it was an unconstitutional burdening of such religious expression.
This would seem going forward to set a boundary on school districts and their curriculum choices. The Court rejected MCPS’s claim that it was simply offering lessons in mutual respect and exposure, and the Court found MCPS was using indoctrination and coercion in the classroom.
2) To claims of MCPS, the lower courts, and Justice Sotomayor’s dissent that parents failed to reach a certain factual threshold in how the books would be used, the Court said that, given the First Amendment rights at stake, it needed to only ascertain whether a burden on that expression will occur.
In other words, the burden of proof falls on the government and not the people.
In this case, given the constitutional rights involved, the Court stated that MCPS’s policy needed to survive strict scrutiny. MCPS needed to demonstrate its policy “advances ‘interests of the highest order’ and is narrowly tailored to achieve those interests.” The Court held given that MCPS maintained parental opt-outs in other areas, such as sex-ed, that its policy failed to meet this scrutiny.
3) MCPS had claimed that parents’ free expression of religion was not being violated, because they could always withdraw their children from the school district and send them to a private school that respected that expression.
The Court stated that public education was a public benefit whose enjoyment cannot be conditioned on “..the parents’ willingness to accept a burden on their religious exercise.”
The Left has invested considerable effort to gain control of public institutions, but the Court states that that control is not absolute when it comes to constitutional rights and the ability to enjoy public benefits.
A proper term for what MCPS was trying to impose is “bureaucratic tyranny.”
So a few additional thoughts.
This is a big win for not just families, but for their ability to educate their children in their religious beliefs and to protect that education from predations by government. This is an extension of Wisconsin v. Yoder, and I will be curious to see whether the Court will take on future cases from states such as California dealing with school districts who hide (by law) from families the gender identity of their children.
Second, this decision hasn’t gotten as much light as others due to its being part of the Court’s usual opinion-palooza at the end of a term. However, I would like to pose a general question to those who defend MCPS’s actions. The case deals with curriculum issues affecting kids in pre-K through the 5th grade. Why does MCPS think it has a compelling need to introduce 4- and 5-year-olds to Pride Parades and same-sex marriage?
Prudence, anyone?
If you take a look at MCPS’s MCAP scores, its various elementary schools score barely 50% proficiency in English. Yet the district has focused considerable time and effort to implement and defend LGBT+ themes in the ELA curriculum. In fact, if you look at proficiency scores for both English and Math through the high school level you see a terrible level of achievement, especially for blacks and Hispanics. 13% proficiency in Math for black middle school students? Is it fair to ask whether MCPS is prioritizing resources to advance LGBT+ themes at the expense of racial equity?
Anyone?
I wish MCPS fought as hard for multiplication tables as it does for “Uncle Billy’s Wedding.”
Third, given the misplaced priorities regarding racial equity and religious freedom, perhaps it’s time to flash the bat signal for Harmeet Dhillon and the Office of Civil Rights, certainly if MCPS fails to adequately respond to the issues the Court raised (and I would be very surprised if they don’t drag their feet).
An old hobby horse of mine is school choice. My native state of Arizona not only permits inter-district registration, but has a voucher program and nearly 600 charter schools. Maryland, a state of comparable population, has only 48 charter schools (75% of which are in Baltimore), has no voucher program, and has a county-based public school system which does not allow for inter-district registration. Montgomery County is a very liberal county with a one-size-fits-all school system for 160,000 students.
We can say here the parents “won” but only after two years and because the Supreme Court was willing to take the case. There needs to be a better way.
So some suggestions for Ms. Dhillon, given her well-stated antipathy for diversity programs, if MCPS loses in the lower courts (as seems very likely) and decides to engage in some form of resistance. As a matter of protection of parents’ constitutional rights and student achievement of racial minorities, she should craft a consent decree that creates a system of school choice within Montgomery County by:
1) Breaking apart MCPS, a system of 160,000 students, into four or five smaller districts and permit inter-district registration.
and
2) Create a voucher program that provides families with the full tuition needed to send their children to a private or parochial school that has their children’s academic interests at heart.
Call it the Dhillon Punitive Expedition. Much as the Trump Administration is making an example of Harvard, make an example of MCPS.
Go on, MCPS, make our day.
If MCPS wants to play stupid games when it comes to being hostile to the very families it serves, then it’s time for it to win stupid prizes.
“right of parents to opt their children out of various LGBT+ curriculum for religious reasons.” Good.
I trust they also have the right to oppose schools displaying religious messages on their walls – the ten commandments, for instance.
Given what a rotten job many schools make of educating children it’s striking how many like to devote time to indoctrinating them instead.
From the MCPS ELA page:
Let’s apply those strategies strategically!