Supreme Court sides with religious parents who want to avoid LGBTQ+ books in public schools
How did your country report this? Share your view in the comments.
Diverging Reports Breakdown
Supreme Court sides with religious parents who want to avoid LGBTQ+ books in public schools
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of parents’ right to opt out of public school curriculum. The case was brought by a group of parents who say they want their children to be able to learn about the Bible. The parents say they don’t want their kids to be forced to learn the Bible in public school. The government says the parents’ request is a violation of the Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of speech and of the right to be informed about events in the news. The judge said the parents should be allowed to opt-out if they want to, but not if they don’t like the idea of public schools teaching the Bible as a guide to children. The court ruled that the parents’ right to choose not to read the Bible is protected by the First Amendment, which protects the right of the public to know what the Bible says.
In a 6-3 decision that divided along ideological lines, the court said a Maryland public school district’s refusal to allow opt-outs burdens parents’ First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion.
They said the school must allow opt-outs while the legal challenge continues.
Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said the court has long recognized the rights of parents to direct their children’s religious upbringing.
In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the deicsion “threatens the very essence of public education.”
“The Court, in effect, constitutionalizes a parental veto power over curricular choices long left to the demoratic process and local administrators,” she wrote.
Their decision continues a recent trend of high court rulings backing claims of religious discrimination, sometimes at the expense of other values like gay rights.
The Maryland parents – who include Muslims, Roman Catholics and Ukrainian Orthodox followers – said they’re not trying to prevent other students from reading the books.
But free speech advocates argued that will be the practical effect.
And national organizations representing school administrators worried schools could face a “bewildering variety” of religious rights claims.
In classrooms across the country, children are routinely taught ideas that conflict with their family’s religious beliefs, lawyers for the Montgomery County Public Schools told the court during April’s oral arguments.
What are the controversial books?
School officials said they introduced a handful of books with LGBTQ+ characters into the reading curriculum at the start of the 2022-2023 school year as part of an effort to better reflect the community.
The school system, in suburban Washington, is one of the nation’s largest and most ethnically and religiously diverse.
The controversial books include one in which the handsome prince falls in love not with a princess, but with the knight who helps him defeat a dragon. In another, “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” Chloe’s favorite uncle gets married to another man.
The book “Intersection Allies” features nine kids from different backgrounds, including Alejandra, who uses a wheelchair while playing basketball; Adilah, who wears a hijab in ballet class; and Kate, who prefers a superhero cape to “skirts and frills.”
After various teachers, administrators and parents raised concerns about the effectiveness and age-appropriateness of the books, the school system allowed students to be excused when they were read in class.
But officials said they had to stop that because the growing number of opt-out requests created other problems, such as high absenteeism and the difficulty of arranging alternate instruction. They also said students who believe the storybooks represent them and their families could face social stigma and isolation if classmates leave the room when the books are read.
Some parents said the books conflict with their faith
The parents who then sued said they shouldn’t have to send their kids to private school or to homeschool to avoid instruction that goes against the tenets of their religions.
“Intentionally exposing our young, impressionable, elementary-aged son to activities and curriculum on sex, sexuality, and gender that undermine Islamic teaching on these subjects would be immoral and would conflict with our religious duty to raise our children in accordance with our faith,” parents Tamer Mahmoud and Enas Barakat said in a court filing about why they didn’t want their son to be part of his second grade class’s reading of “Prince & Knight.”
But a divided panel of appeals court judges said the parents hadn’t shown that they or their children had been coerced to believe or act contrary to their religious views.
The parents asked the Supreme Court to intervene.
The Trump administration backed the parents, saying the schools had put “a price on a public benefit of public education at the expense of foregoing your religious beliefs.”