The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) heard arguments this week on whether parents can opt out of a curriculum that contradicts their religious beliefs. Mahmoud v Taylor pits a religiously diverse group of parents from Montgomery County, Maryland, a suburb of Washington, D. C., against its school board that in 2022 began offering transgender-themed and romance storylines in books both for casual reading and instruction for Pre-K through eighth graders.
Among the offerings the school district made available to the elementary school students:
One, “Prince & Knight,” tells the story of a prince who does not want to marry any of the princesses in his realm. After teaming up with a knight to slay a dragon, the two fall in love, “filling the king and queen with joy,” according to the school’s summary.
Another, “Born Ready,” tells the story of Penelope, a character who likes skateboarding and wearing baggy jeans. When Penelope tells his mother that he is a boy, he is accepted. When Penelope’s brother questions his gender identity, their mother hugs both children and whispers, “Not everything needs to make sense. This is about love.”
The school board initially approved the opt-out alternatives, but a year later withdrew the offer, claiming it had become “unworkable”:
“Some schools, for example, experienced unsustainably high numbers of absent students,” the district told the justices in a brief this month. “The need to shuttle students in and out of the classroom would, moreover, disrupt those classrooms.”
One Montgomery County board member said allowing parents to opt out because the books “offend your religious rights or your family values or your core beliefs is just telling your kid, ‘Here’s another reason to hate another person.’”
Billy Moges, director of Kids 1st, a local parents’ rights group, says her organization of parents from Islamic, Jewish, and Christian faiths is united in seeking to guarantee their children an age-appropriate education that is consistent with their faith and sound science:
“Schools should be working with parents, not against us. We are our children’s primary teachers, not obstacles to be avoided. Today, we asked the Court to remind Montgomery County—and the entire nation—of this fundamental truth.”
Eric Baxter is vice president and senior counsel at the Becket Fund, which represents the parents:
“In this country, we’ve always trusted families to decide when their kids are ready for sensitive topics. Children shouldn’t be forced into conversations about drag queens, pride parades, and gender transitions without their parents’ permission. Today, we fought for common sense and parents’ right to guide the upbringing of their children.”
The parents’ group is relying on Supreme Court precedent to bolster their argument. In 1972, the Court ruled unanimously, 7-0, in Wisconsin v Yoder that three Amish parents who were prosecuted after refusing to send their children to school past the eighth grade in violation of a Wisconsin law mandating compulsory school attendance until age 16, were within their free exercise of religion to do so. Two other justices on the Court, William Rehnquist and Lewis Powell, did not participate in the Yoder decision since they were not on the Court when the case was argued in 1969.
The decision coming this term will affect school districts nationwide. Polling from Survey USA indicates sentiment from Kansas voters, with 66% of voters with children or grandchildren in public schools saying they are very or somewhat concerned about objectionable material in schools.
The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision in Mahmoud by the end of its term June 30th.
