This Tuesday, Apr. 22, the Supreme Court heard the oral arguments from the Mahmoud v. Taylor case. In this case, six parents from a Maryland school district are asking to be able to exempt their children from the classroom curriculum that they believe conflicts with their religion. The parents, who are Muslim, Roman Catholic, and Ukrainian Orthodox, believe that the reading of LGBTQ+ books is a violation of their First Amendment right to freedom of religion.
background
As one of the largest and most diverse school districts in the country, Montgomery County Public Schools has expanded its curriculum in the past few years. LGBTQ+ books were added in an effort to fully represent the families that reside within the district. They were not meant to teach or “indoctrinate”, merely to bring a different type of book to read aloud. Books such as “Born Ready” and “Love, Violet” were added to the curriculum. “Born Ready” is the story of a transgender elementary-aged kid and his journey to try and affirm his identity. “Love, Violet” is about a girl who is scared to give a Valentine to another girl she has a crush on. As is common practice in the U.S., Montgomery County Public Schools allows kids to opt out of sexual education. This school district also had a policy allowing the parents to opt out of certain parts of the curriculum due to religious objections. However, in 2023, this opt-out policy was dismissed because of the high number of absences it had caused, burdening the teachers and their lesson plans. To make it to the Supreme Court, the case had to travel through the district and appellate courts. In both cases, the decision sided with the school district.
the arguments
Both sides have a valid argument in this case, and that is why it has made it to the Supreme Court. On the petitioner’s side, the parents are not objecting to the teaching of the material. They just want the ability to remove their kids from those lessons. Given that the opt-out policy was in place for a time, their request to reinstate it is not unheard of. However, the respondent’s argument also presents good points. The whole reason that the opt-out policy was dismissed was that it had caused problems in the classroom. The respondent also invoked the Establishment Clause, which prevents the government from favoring one religion over another.
what this means
Children attend school to obtain their education and prepare for their future. Public schools provide this for over 80% of children in this country. If the Supreme Court sides with the petitioner and implements the decision on a broad scale, it could wreak havoc on the public education system. It would provide a precedent for parents to be able to pick and choose what content their kids learn. Kids who do not participate in a lesson would be sent to the hallway to wait, or perhaps they go to a separate room that is monitored by another teacher. The potential for extra costs is endless, and for many school districts, it would not be affordable. Not only that, but the topics covered in the books Mahmoud and other parents believe conflict with their religion are real-world topics. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson brought this up in her response to some of the oral arguments, asking if a transgender classmate would also have to be reported to the parents. While being gay or transgender may not align with your religion, these books are not forcing you to be gay or take hormones, they are simply talking about real-world situations and people.