California officials must rewrite state policies in the wake of a Supreme Court decision on Friday to support families who want to choose their children from lessons on LGBTQ+ characters and Pro-LGBTQ+ themes.
The case included a new “LGBTQ Inclusive” storybook for pre-kindergarten to fifth grade in Montgomery County, a suburb of Washington. The potential impact goes far beyond the storybook and could have a major impact on California’s approach to education regarding LGBTQ+ inclusivity.
State education officials said they are reviewing their decision but have not commented immediately.
California law requires students to learn and provide age-appropriate educational materials at all grade levels that describe and incorporate the “roles and contributions” of “lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans.”
In some important respects, California’s approach to LGBTQ+ inclusion appears to be untouched. When representing his parents before the Supreme Court, Eric Baxter, a lawyer with the Beckett Fund for Religious Freedom, said “I am not opposed to books on the shelf or in libraries. I have no right to tell the school which books to choose.”
Under the Supreme Court decision that appears to follow this reasoning, California learning goals may not change as a required policy for local school boards. It is up to your local school district to decide which materials to use to achieve these goals.
However, such lessons are no longer needed for certain families who oppose the content. Schools are likely to need to move to inform parents of immediate lessons and related materials, so parents can decide whether or not they want their children to be exposed to this content.
When opposed to Maryland parents, Maryland Board of Education lawyer Alan Shaunfeld argued to the judiciary that the goal of the storybook is to “promote mutual respect.”
However, Judge Samuel Alito, who wrote for the High Court and the majority of the Sixth Commander, concluded that district practices are a form of indoctrination attempts that could contradict constitutionally protected religious beliefs.
For example, he wrote that while many Americans oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds, “the storybook is designed to present an opposing perspective to young, impressive children who may undoubtedly accept the moral message conveyed by teacher guidance.”
What California teaches in LGBTQ+ lessons
This domination raises scores for related issues, such as how opt-out applies at different ages.
For example, according to state guidelines, second-graders can experience the story of a “diverse collection of families” that includes lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender parents and their children.
The California Education Code requires that social science instruction include the roles and contributions of “lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans.”
Due to previous experience in the Maryland area, a new roadmap for schools can be difficult to manage. The school system originally allowed families to opt out of lessons with LGBTQ-themed storybooks, but so many families did so, and their policies were reversed.
“Given the diversity of religious beliefs in this country, the myriad interactions that occur every day in public schools may expose children to messages that contradict their parents’ religious beliefs,” Judge Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent. “The outcome is a disruption to public schools in this country.”
How far the objection can go is another question for California.
A group of parents in Los Angeles protested the story book, which briefly stated, “some children have two dads.”
The LA Board of Education essentially ignored their objections, and then board Jackie Goldberg read the entire picture book aloud on the TV Board’s Board of Education.
“Amazing book,” she said after closing the cover. “I recommend it.”
Strongly different reactions
Reactions to the Supreme Court decisions in California and across the nation have arrived promptly from many quarters, including President Trump.
Cecilia Wang, national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, called the decision “a dramatic break from decades of precedent.”
“For the first time, parents who have a religious dissent have the authority to choose and choose from the secular public school curriculum, and can interfere with the district’s legitimate educational objectives and the ability to run schools without confusion.
Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy, chairman of the Senate’s health, education, labor and pensions, praised him, saying, “students should not be forced to learn about subjects of gender and sexuality that violate the religious beliefs of their families.”
LGBTQ+ rights supporters described the ruling as another attack from political rights.
“The decision is another wolf of sheep’s clothing from a court that has lost its conspiracy over the separation of the church and state,” said Kimberly Innes McGuire, executive director of impulse (Unity of Reproduction and Gender Equity). “The objections of a small number of religious fundamentalists are used to override the curriculum of selected schools by a comprehensive process driven by educators and experts.”
But Julian Fleischer, a Murieta-based lawyer who defends the faith and freedom of legal groups, called the decision “a victory for religious freedom.”
“Parents, not the nation, are great for making decisions about what a child is being taught, especially on sensitive issues, including gender and sexuality,” Fleischer said. “The government does not own our children, and this decision is justly reflected not only in the sacred and legal rights of parents who direct their children’s religious education. Families should not be forced to choose to participate in public education in good faith, held religious beliefs.”
California precedents of sex education
There is a clear precedent for the opt-out approach: sex education.
In California, the sex education curriculum must recognize that people who include same-sex relationships have different sexual orientations. The lessons also teach about gender identity and explore the harms of negative gender stereotypes.
At the same time, California, like almost every other state, allows parents to opt out of sex education classes for their children. In California, that meant that families already had the option to avoid LGBTQ+ content within the context of sex ED.
However, at least up until now, parents have not been able to oust their children from LGBTQ+ content as a standalone topic other than Sex Ed.
A divided religious community
The Maryland case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, was pursued by a group of Muslim, Catholic and Ukrainian orthodox parents. They said the book contradicts the religious and moral views it taught children.
A federal judge and the Fourth Circuit refused to intervene. Those judges said that the “free movement” of religion protects people from being forced to change their actions and beliefs, but neither of them were in question in school cases.
The issue divided the religious community in California, including within the Muslim community, an important constituency pursuing the Maryland incident.
“If LGBTQ+ theme books are an excuse for their desire to opt out, who would say a book about black, Jewish and Muslim children? said Anni Sonneveld, founder of Muslims for Progressive Values, a Los Angeles-based organization that has filed opt-outs.
“We are not theocratic,” Sonneveld said. “Therefore, discrimination should not be permitted in the name of religion.”
Orange County-based Sheikh Tarik Ata said he supported “parents’ rights to guide their children’s moral and religious education.”
“As a member of the American Muslim community, we are rooted in our core values - religious freedom, family and respect for various beliefs – leading our stance on this Supreme Court case,” said Ata, a board member of the Islamic Shura Council in Islamic California.
“In our tradition, parents are responsible for the spiritual development of their children. When the classroom introduces topics that are deeply contradictory to belief, families should have the right to make choices without penalties or stigma.”
Source link
