SCOTUS smacked my local school district over opt-outs and transgender materials
Posted by Potomac on June 27, 2025, 13:37:02
The school system treated people who objected to its policies poorly. Who knows how much this cost? They overplayed their hand and it was obvious that they would lose. Who will be held accountable? The justices said school officials in Montgomery County, Maryland, may not require young children to participate in lessons with books that conflict with their parents’ religious beliefs.
The 6-3 decision could have implications for public schools nationwide and could give families the right to voice religious objections to a broad range of learning materials, expanding on the long-standing practice of allowing opt-outs for reproductive-health classes.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the majority, said government officials burden the religious rights of parents when they require them to “submit their children to instruction that poses ‘a very real threat of undermining’ the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill.”
While litigation continues, Alito wrote, Montgomery County must notify parents in advance whenever one of the books in question or any other similar book is to be used in any way and to allow them to have their children excused from that instruction.
A key part of the problem was the content was often not age-appropriate. You're teaching WHAT in first grade? One reason the parents won is that the objection was not about the subject - go ahead in high school, for example - but the vulnerability and impressionability of young children. It was hard to call them bigots, IMO.
Oh, that's right. This case originated from your neck of the woods.*
The school system treated people who objected to its policies poorly. Who knows how much this cost? They overplayed their hand and it was obvious that they would lose. Who will be held accountable?
The justices said school officials in Montgomery County, Maryland, may not require young children to participate in lessons with books that conflict with their parents’ religious beliefs.
The 6-3 decision could have implications for public schools nationwide and could give families the right to voice religious objections to a broad range of learning materials, expanding on the long-standing practice of allowing opt-outs for reproductive-health classes.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the majority, said government officials burden the religious rights of parents when they require them to “submit their children to instruction that poses ‘a very real threat of undermining’ the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill.”
While litigation continues, Alito wrote, Montgomery County must notify parents in advance whenever one of the books in question or any other similar book is to be used in any way and to allow them to have their children excused from that instruction. A key part of the problem was the content was often not age-appropriate. You're teaching WHAT in first grade? One reason the parents won is that the objection was not about the subject - go ahead in high school, for example - but the vulnerability and impressionability of young children. It was hard to call them bigots, IMO.
Guns. Have them.
The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants.
Socialism is the gospel of envy.
Alito called out some of the non-neutral content in his opinion
This is consistent with what he said in the oral argument. The school system argued that they were neutral in their instruction, which you could be in straight descriptions of various family structures out there.
In the orals, he did not like this when it came up regarding instruction in grades K-5:
The Board also contemplated that instruction involving the “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks would include classroom discussion. See id., at 642a (Board’s lawyer: “there will be discussion that ensues. In fact, I think everyone would hope that discussion ensues”). In anticipation of such discussion, the Board hosted a “professional development workshop” in the summer of 2022, where it provided teachers with a guidance document suggesting how they might respond to student inquiries regarding the themes presented in the books.
For example, if a student asserts that two men cannot get married, the guidance document encouraged teachers to respond by saying: “When people are adults they can get married. Two men who love each other can decide they want to get married.” If a student claims that a character “can’t be a boy if he was born a girl,” teachers were encouraged to respond: “That comment is hurtful.” And if a student asks “[w]hat’s transgender?”, it was recommended that teachers explain: “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 and sometimes they’re wrong.” The guidance document encouraged teachers to “[d]isrupt the either/or thinking” of their students.
At the same workshop, the Board also provided teachers with a guidance document that suggested particular responses to inquiries by parents. For example, if a parent were to ask whether the school was attempting to teach a child to “reject” the values taught at home, teachers were encouraged to respond that “[t]eaching about LGBTQ+ is not about making students think a certain way; it is to show that there is no one ‘right’ or ‘normal’ way to be.” The guidance also urged teachers to assure parents that there would not be “explicit instruction” about gender and sexual identity, but that “there may be a need to define words that are new and unfamiliar to students,” and that “questions and conversations might organically happen.”
If parents were not comforted by that information, teachers could tell them that “[p]arents always have the choice to keep their student(s) home while using these texts; however, it will not be an excused absence.”
“Professional Development Workshop” : taxpayer-funded, of course. *
The school system treated people who objected to its policies poorly. Who knows how much this cost? They overplayed their hand and it was obvious that they would lose. Who will be held accountable?
The justices said school officials in Montgomery County, Maryland, may not require young children to participate in lessons with books that conflict with their parents’ religious beliefs.
The 6-3 decision could have implications for public schools nationwide and could give families the right to voice religious objections to a broad range of learning materials, expanding on the long-standing practice of allowing opt-outs for reproductive-health classes.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the majority, said government officials burden the religious rights of parents when they require them to “submit their children to instruction that poses ‘a very real threat of undermining’ the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill.”
While litigation continues, Alito wrote, Montgomery County must notify parents in advance whenever one of the books in question or any other similar book is to be used in any way and to allow them to have their children excused from that instruction. A key part of the problem was the content was often not age-appropriate. You're teaching WHAT in first grade? One reason the parents won is that the objection was not about the subject - go ahead in high school, for example - but the vulnerability and impressionability of young children. It was hard to call them bigots, IMO.
on June 27, 2025, 13:37:02
Previous Message