The Supreme Court to the Rescue, Maybe

This morning, the Supreme Court heard the case of Mahmoud v. Taylor, which tells a story all-too-familiar to parents of young children today. The case involved LGBTQ+ books taught as a part of the English curriculum in Montgomery County, Maryland. The books, which were taught to children as young as 4, included such classics as Uncle Bobby’s Wedding (about gay marriage), Pride Puppy (pride parades), and My Rainbow (an autistic boy with gender dysphoria). There is little doubt that these books are age inappropriate, have no literary value, and violate the religious beliefs of adherents of most major religions.

The parents, having seen these books, asked the district to opt out. The district, at first, complied. But after too many parents pulled their kids (shocker), they removed the ability to opt out. Litigation ensued, and the liberal District Court and Fourth Circuit of Appeals both denied the parents’ claims.

The Supreme Court may be coming to the rescue. The case had oral arguments today, which is the first opportunity to hear how the justices view the issue. While this is not determinative, there was broad support for the parents and broad objection to the actions of the school district. The only question, it seems, is how far the Court’s ruling would go. (The transcript of the oral argument is available, and it’s great reading.)

First up was the parent’s counsel, who was asked by Justice Thomas if the offense was the merely the presence of books in the classroom shelves. Counsel confirmed that these books were being “taught,” and as such, the themes of the books were presented as factually accurate and morally correct to the children. At one school, they were going to read one book a day, to celebrate “Pride Week.”

Chief Justice Roberts asked if the school’s newly-found complaint, that opting out was “unworkable,” was legitimate. The parent’s attorney responded that the school district, in a FOIA request, only mentioned “inclusivity.” It was clear that indoctrination was the goal.

The biggest objection to parents’ counsel’s argument came, predictably from Justice Sotomayor, who tried to twist the facts to claim that books were merely on the shelves, then merely being read, then claimed important themes that needed to be taught. It got so bad that Justice Alito allowed parents’ counsel to correct the record on what was being taught, and how.

Justice Kagan (who might end up in the majority) raised the conflict between the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause. Schools are not allowed to “push” a religion, but they are also not allowed to interfere with someone’s exercise of their own religion.

Justice Alito raised a very important point as well: these books were not a part of any sex education curriculum, they were in English. So the books, their review, and parental opt out was circumvented. In Michigan, a Sex Ed Advisory Board is required, although Democrats have recently tried to water it down. It is clear that the English department is being used, in Montgomery County and elsewhere, to push a political agenda. Shame.

Justice Kavanaugh helped provide some details around how the standard would be workable, pointing out that numerous First Amendment have the standard of a “sincerely held religious belief,” and that hasn’t caused the mass hysteria Sotomayor and Kagan seem to imply would happen. He delved into the history of the case; when the parents asked to opt out, this happened:

“When they --when they spoke to the Board, the Board accused them of using their religious beliefs as another reason to hate, accused a young Muslim girl of parroting her parents' dogma, and then accused the parents of aligning with racist xenophobes and white supremacists.”

Justice Barrett didn’t seem to buy that this was mere exposure. Interestingly, she and counsel agreed that merely having books on the shelves will not be sufficient for a First Amendment claim. But she had problems with Sotomayor’s idea that this was mere exposure.

“MR. BAXTER: And it says let's disrupt the norms, that book.

JUSTICE BARRETT: Let's disrupt the norms. And --and many of the books, it's not just pictures; it's actually the text is --you know, it's talking about there are not just two genders, embracing, you know, non-binary and -­and pronouns, et cetera.”

Justice Jackson was, predictably, lost. As she can’t define what a woman is, she also didn’t understand the case posture. She claimed there was no harm because there wasn’t a record of HOW the books were taught in the schools. Insanely, she pondered if the parents had no claim because they were not in the classroom watching this go on. Sounds like a great argument to let parents in classrooms, if you ask me.

Next up to argue was Sarah Harris, arguing for the United States Government in support of the parents. I don’t want to even imagine a world where Kamala Harris was President, and the US Government would be arguing, I’m sure, that schools should teach this trash. She focused the issue very clearly: you can’t make a parent choose between a public education and their religion, full stop. She sparred with Justice Kagan, but the Government’s position was clear, and easy to define. She did raise an alternative reading of the case, that the District here was not just ignoring parents, but that they were also being hostile toward religious parents, which was clearly the case here. I think she did a great job sharpening the argument.

Last was counsel for the school district, and oh boy.  Justice Thomas asked, how as if in a case called Yoder, the Amish could opt their children out of school entirely, these parents couldn’t opt their children out of some material. Chief Justice Roberts asked how this attorney thought that five-year-olds could resist indoctrination. Justice Gorsuch asked how opting out a book featuring a drawing of Muhammed (which is blasphemy to Muslims) was ok, but this opt out was not. Justice Barrett dispelled the notion that this was simply reading; the books were being taught, with instructional directions like this question from Justice Gorsuch:

“And --and you say this is only about exposure, but we also have in the record some guidance materials for teachers and one of which is, if a student says that a boy can't be a girl because he was born --born a boy, a teacher is to respond: That comment is hurtful, and we shouldn't use negative words to talk about people's identities.

Is that just --is that exposure, or is that something else for a three-to five-year-old?”

Justice Alito continued with portions of one of the books, where is was clear that this was simply not showing that same sex marriage exists, but that it (and “changing” gender, and pride parades, in other books) are morally positive events. Justice Kavanaugh (in a clear signal of his position) rejected the concept that an opt-out was infeasible.

Justice Alito had a wonderful summation of what public school parents hear all the time:

“And we pay taxes to support the public schools, but we don't have enough money to send our children to private schools. And one of us can't stay home and provide home-schooling. So we just want to be able to take our children out of the part of the instruction that we find objectionable.

And what's your response to that? Your response to that is just: Well, it's too bad, all right? This is the public school and the public school can teach what the public school wants. And you don't like that. Well, you can take your --you can send your --your children to private schools.”

And Justice Barrett provided what is likely to be the kill shot.

“I understood them to be more focused on things like, you know, this is an instruction to the teacher, "If a student observes that a girl can only like boys because she's a girl, the Board suggested that the teacher disrupt the student's either/or thinking by saying something like: Actually, people of any gender can like whoever they like."

You know, or, on the transgender issue, "When we're born, people make a guess about our gender and label us boy or girl based on our body parts. Sometimes they're right; sometimes they're wrong. When someone's transgender, they guess wrong. When someone's cis gender, they guessed right."

So, you know, it is kind of along those things, which seem to be more about influence, right, and shaping of ideas and less about communicating respect because it's less about communicating respect for those, you know, who are transgender, who are gay, and more about how to think about sexuality.”

This case featured themes and history that have been present all across Michigan. Parents are ignored at best, lied to at worst. Curriculum and books are hidden from them. Young students are indoctrinated, and when called out, schools lie about what happened.

This all avoids the most pertinent question: why is this garbage in our schools in the first place? Michigan is 42nd in educational performance, and our reading scores are awful. Did it ever occur to these educators that perhaps we would do better, if, and I’m just guessing here, we just taught reading instead of mixing in indoctrination?

The case will be decided by late June or early July. So maybe, for the next school year, parents’ rights will be re-established, and they can get back some control and some piece of mind.