Can children opt out of hearing any book that "violates 'sincerely' held religious beliefs?" If there's a Catholic character, can non-Catholic kids cover their ears? If there's a Black character can kids whose beliefs include white supremacy cover their ears? Interracial marriage? Books that describe characters making mistakes or committing crimes? Any mention of drinking or smoking? Kissing? If you want your children to be so sheltered from even the existence of LGBTQ (or any other "offensive" human group), perhaps the best approach is to homeschool. They can be shocked to learn that other humans exist when they're adults, and I hope that their immediate reaction isn't hate or violence toward those people.
In theory yes they could. In AZ we have state statutory parental rights which requires public schools to have an opt out provision. Parents try to opt out of all kinds of things they deem as usurping their parental rights. Things like having a social worker lead class discussions on sharing or how to regulate emotions and behavior, how to be kind etc. just because they buy in to some “public schools are indoctrination factories” theory. And this in a state with robust, state supported and funded school choice. And we wonder why teachers are leaving.
It’s my understanding that the issue was the curriculum pushing a viewpoint of same sex marriage and gender—not the mere presence of LGBTQ in books in general. Your examples would make sense if curriculum was pushing the viewpoint that smoking and drinking was ok, or committing a crime was ok, or being Black or of a different religion was superior to others or beneath others. It’s the agenda of the curriculum that was concerning to the parents, not the presence of the books or inclusion of certain people in them. At least that was my takeaway.
I think the challenge here is that there was no curriculum teaching beyond having the books in the classroom, making them available for use during reading times, and telling teachers that it was okay to instruct students that it was unkind to use "gay" as an insult. There was no agenda beyond: "People like this exist!"
Not to nitpick your analogies, but being gay is not a crime, and there was nothing that suggested being LGBTQ+ was *superior* to being heterosexual. A lot of children's books already include parents (Mom + Dad) or straight couples (Prince + Princess). A lot of children's books already include messaging that introduce them to different kinds of people they may or may not have been exposed to, like people with disabilities or those from very different cultures. Including books with a Mom + Mom, or a Prince + Prince, would be very much along those lines.
Whoa. Feeling a little attacked here. I get my news from primarily Sharon and MoshNews. This was Sharon’s exact quote from above:
“ The Court today sided with the parents, in a 6–3 decision, saying that the MCPS books and policies did more than just expose children to ideas they object to, that the curriculum was designed to convey a particular viewpoint about same-sex marriage and gender.”
I took that to mean there was more to the presence of the books in the classroom—that a “a curriculum was designed to convey…..” I’m not arguing their decision. As far as the examples—those weren’t mine and I don’t agree with any of them. I used them from the initial comment.
Portraying the existence people on the LGBTQIA+ spectrum as being human and living their lives, which may reflect the lived experience of some students, is not “pushing a viewpoint” Is acknowledging difference “pushing a viewpoint” is expecting, in schools respect and acting in kindness to all students and families “pushing a viewpoint” No one is expecting that people abandon sincerely held religious beliefs but exposure to differences or pretending certain people shouldn’t exist is found no where in any religion. If it means you as a parent may have to have conversations with your children, in an age appropriate way, then have the conversation and explain why you and your family believe what you believe. If you prefer your child not to be exposed to certain ideas, people etc then you can choose not to have them participate in public spaces. If you want to make the argument the curriculum was not age appropriate be active on curriculum committees and at school board meetings. But this opt out is a slippery slope as we are a deeply divided country and each person’s personal political views cannot be played out in a classroom.
I’m sorry. I’m not arguing any of that. My comment was to determine the nuance under which I understood the court to be ruling. That it wasn’t the presence of LGBTQ community in books, but whatever this curriculum was, as Sharon stated above. I didn’t see an association between the examples the initial commenter made—of Catholics or Black people being in a book. That is all.
I can think of no examples of books that push people who are not gay into having same sex marriages. Can you provide an example? I also can't think of a single person who has felt pressured into marrying someone of their same gender, but I know several examples of people who felt pressured into marrying someone of the opposite gender because society told them it was the only acceptable option.
I’m sorry, but you’re completely taking my response out of context. I genuinely thought that “a curriculum was designed to convey…” as Sharon stated above! I’m not arguing their point or decision. Your examples didn’t make sense to me—the presence of a Catholic person or Black person or LGBTQ person or even a criminal in a book isn’t the issue. I understood the issue to be a “curriculum. But I could be completely wrong! I’m not at all trying to get into an argument about the court’s ruling! I was trying to convey that it wasn’t the presence of the people in the books, but the curriculum, as stated above by Sharon. And I could completely be misinterpreting it! Never meant to be controversial!
They’ve made the president immune and now limited the power of courts. All while being bought and paid for. And Roberts had the audacity to worry about “legitimacy”.
I'd really like to know if we can still argue that we're a republic of laws with these and other recent rulings.
As far as I can tell, Democratic presidents are subject to the law (debt forgiveness), while Republican presidents and Trump specifically are exempt from the law.
How are we not practically a dictatorship now? Honest question.
We are a dictatorship. The government isn’t going to declare this. The people have to call it out and name it for what it has become. It is up to us to change it. If enough of us want it to change. Personally I don’t think we have the numbers. It’s quite sad.
Same, the Rubicon has clearly been crossed several times over already. We're a dictatorship, there are just a lot of privileged people who aren't affected by this reality *yet*.
Meantime, other than caring for our neighbors and I guess primarying every spineless Democrat, I don't know what we can do. I feel so helpless and angry.
The moral injury is debilitating. So much suffering and cruelty, such an erosion of truth and justice and right and wrong. And so many people telling us we’re overreacting or even celebrating what’s happening, because they don’t understand what it means other than it’s pissing off the people they’ve been told (without evidence) are trying to do the same thing to them.
I’m trying to focus on helping my immediate community via mutual aid and direct action. I won’t give up, but having to show up at work and talk about KPIs and Business while our government institutions and civil rights are melted down and sold off to the highest bidder makes me feel like I’m losing my mind.
Missy, you just named two important things we can do, proving we are not helpless. Anger is a valid emotion in this situation, proving you are a caring person that your neighbors can depend on.
Thank you for sharing the updates, Sharon. It’s hard to have faith in the Supreme Court’s ability to be unbiased when the opinions are 6-3, 6-3, 6-3 across the board. Feeling very sad today and especially holding space for the LGBTQ+ community.
Thank you for all you and your team do, Sharon. I’ll echo what others have said. My immediate reaction is to feel heartbroken and panicked. I’ve learned, though, to seek more information before I sink into doom. I’m thankful you’ll do this live. And I hope our questions are answered. Because right now I feel scared.
Literally, a foundational tenet of every religion is--in one form, or another--"compassion for others." How is it that teaching, or providing anecdotal examples that *others* exist (in one's midst) is a violation of one's religious freedom? In my mind, it appears to support the religious ideal of compassion.
Mahmoud v Taylor leaves the door open for SO many other lawsuits to follow. What about schools teaching evolution to people who believe in Creationism as part of their religion? What about reading books about people observing different religions or wearing certain clothing as part of their religion? Feels like the door just swung wiiiiide open.
These concepts have been in place for a long time. As I mentioned in another comment, as a former science teacher, I always inform parents that I was going to be teaching about evolution or having students undertaking dissections of creatures. These were two things that I knew could be against individuals close held religious beliefs. They had the option to pull their student from the activity, and I was required by law to provide an equal and alternative opportunity for that student.
If you don't mind, I do have a question about what this looked like in practice, as it came up a few times during the discussion around this case: did you ever feel you needed to be careful not to raise those topics *outside* of the prescribed times? Was it an issue if other students wanted to talk evolution? Or if a student asked a question and the answer would have inevitably required a reference to evolutionary theory, did you feel like you could give that answer to the whole class or were you concerned about the optics of "teaching evolution" with those particular students still in the classroom?
I imagine a lot of this would be contingent upon the relationship already built between yourself and those parents, the support of your administration, etc. The concern folks have had is that erring on the side of being cautious feels like a potential stifle on free expression, and I'm just interested to hear from your personal experience there, if you're willing to share ❤️
Wonderful thoughts and questions! I sent a form home to all parents notifying them the topic was going to be covered and when. They returned the form with their consent or opt out request. It was really relatively easy at that time. I’d probably do it via paper and electronic (use email to notify parents to look for the form and remind them to return it) still today if I were teaching. But what then? For dissections it was relatively easy to create an alternative using a computer simulation. For evolution I had to get more creative and usually did something like creating a parallel assignment where they did something with an analysis of Darwin’s work allowing them to create their own hypothesis of the diversity. As for class discussions, I never worried about those. If a student asked a question I felt could be answered without expressing “fact” I would do it. Otherwise it was very easy to say,”that’s a great question…” and respond to them after class or sit on it over night to respond in a well thought out manner the next day. You’re right about the relationship with parents. If you’re up front with them they don’t get the idea your hiding anything and they appreciate they heads up memos.
Thanks for this reply! I had some friends who were able to opt out of evolution teaching in HS but they had to get all sorts of pre-approval from admin. I’m glad it’s possible but still wonder how this ruling will affect other things.
Thanks, Sharon! I’m sorry if I didn’t see this, or if it went over my head, but can a federal judge issue a nationwide injunction, or does the ruling just apply to district judges?
Will each contested case of birthright citizenship have to go through the legal system now? Those individuals are now subject to the cruel deportations that are occurring, and may not have a fair shake at arguing their case. How could SCOTUS not see where this was heading? Or do they not care? I don’t understand how this is constitutional.
District judges are federal judges. They're the lowest level of federal judges. They're the ones that make initial rulings before things go up to Appeals and then eventually Scotus.
Essentially the executive can issue any order it wants at this point and no matter how blatantly unconstitutional it will be allowed to remain until it reaches SCOTUS which at this point seems unable to adhere to the constitution. Am I getting this right?
One comment…one question. Comment - the ruling about students being able to be pulled out of class while a particular book is discussed that happens to be against their religious beliefs is not surprising. As a former science teacher, I always inform parents when I was going to be teaching about evolution or if we were going to be dissecting creatures such as frogs. I was well aware that both of these items could be objectionable based on religious beliefs. I gave parents the option to pull their students out and I was required to provide an alternative/equal activity for them. I would assume the same would be required here. Question – I taught educational law for many years and one of the underlying pieces of the ruling about what courts can or cannot do focuses on who files the lawsuit. If it is a class action suit, it appears that it would be broadly, applied across the country. If it is a suit filed by an individual or entity, it appears the resulting court ruling would only apply to that individual or entity and could not be applied broadly to the general population. this is a huge break in how legal rulings are applied to the public. Anyone on here that is an attorney see this differently?
In regards to the nationwide injunctions, is this just proactive? Could someone now sue about a previous decision that was a nationwide injunction? Say in regards to another immigration decision like DACA (I did not come up with this myself I saw another reader who is on Instagram post this question and now I am very intrigued at the potential implications).
With the glacial pace of court cases, allowing the executive branch to cause widespread unredressable harm unless or until the Supreme Court deigns to address the issue is offensive. The majority of Americans do not want a king, but the 6-3 majority of this court does.
It says we have three justices that apparently don’t have the best interest of children in mind when making their decisions. I guess it shouldn’t be surprising when one of the three cannot /will not define what a woman is.
Can children opt out of hearing any book that "violates 'sincerely' held religious beliefs?" If there's a Catholic character, can non-Catholic kids cover their ears? If there's a Black character can kids whose beliefs include white supremacy cover their ears? Interracial marriage? Books that describe characters making mistakes or committing crimes? Any mention of drinking or smoking? Kissing? If you want your children to be so sheltered from even the existence of LGBTQ (or any other "offensive" human group), perhaps the best approach is to homeschool. They can be shocked to learn that other humans exist when they're adults, and I hope that their immediate reaction isn't hate or violence toward those people.
Yes! And in Texas, can a parent opt out their child from a classroom with the Ten Commandments?
In theory yes they could. In AZ we have state statutory parental rights which requires public schools to have an opt out provision. Parents try to opt out of all kinds of things they deem as usurping their parental rights. Things like having a social worker lead class discussions on sharing or how to regulate emotions and behavior, how to be kind etc. just because they buy in to some “public schools are indoctrination factories” theory. And this in a state with robust, state supported and funded school choice. And we wonder why teachers are leaving.
Rachel, the children may be more likely to grow up to resent their parents “sheltering” them.
It’s my understanding that the issue was the curriculum pushing a viewpoint of same sex marriage and gender—not the mere presence of LGBTQ in books in general. Your examples would make sense if curriculum was pushing the viewpoint that smoking and drinking was ok, or committing a crime was ok, or being Black or of a different religion was superior to others or beneath others. It’s the agenda of the curriculum that was concerning to the parents, not the presence of the books or inclusion of certain people in them. At least that was my takeaway.
I think the challenge here is that there was no curriculum teaching beyond having the books in the classroom, making them available for use during reading times, and telling teachers that it was okay to instruct students that it was unkind to use "gay" as an insult. There was no agenda beyond: "People like this exist!"
Not to nitpick your analogies, but being gay is not a crime, and there was nothing that suggested being LGBTQ+ was *superior* to being heterosexual. A lot of children's books already include parents (Mom + Dad) or straight couples (Prince + Princess). A lot of children's books already include messaging that introduce them to different kinds of people they may or may not have been exposed to, like people with disabilities or those from very different cultures. Including books with a Mom + Mom, or a Prince + Prince, would be very much along those lines.
Whoa. Feeling a little attacked here. I get my news from primarily Sharon and MoshNews. This was Sharon’s exact quote from above:
“ The Court today sided with the parents, in a 6–3 decision, saying that the MCPS books and policies did more than just expose children to ideas they object to, that the curriculum was designed to convey a particular viewpoint about same-sex marriage and gender.”
I took that to mean there was more to the presence of the books in the classroom—that a “a curriculum was designed to convey…..” I’m not arguing their decision. As far as the examples—those weren’t mine and I don’t agree with any of them. I used them from the initial comment.
Portraying the existence people on the LGBTQIA+ spectrum as being human and living their lives, which may reflect the lived experience of some students, is not “pushing a viewpoint” Is acknowledging difference “pushing a viewpoint” is expecting, in schools respect and acting in kindness to all students and families “pushing a viewpoint” No one is expecting that people abandon sincerely held religious beliefs but exposure to differences or pretending certain people shouldn’t exist is found no where in any religion. If it means you as a parent may have to have conversations with your children, in an age appropriate way, then have the conversation and explain why you and your family believe what you believe. If you prefer your child not to be exposed to certain ideas, people etc then you can choose not to have them participate in public spaces. If you want to make the argument the curriculum was not age appropriate be active on curriculum committees and at school board meetings. But this opt out is a slippery slope as we are a deeply divided country and each person’s personal political views cannot be played out in a classroom.
I’m sorry. I’m not arguing any of that. My comment was to determine the nuance under which I understood the court to be ruling. That it wasn’t the presence of LGBTQ community in books, but whatever this curriculum was, as Sharon stated above. I didn’t see an association between the examples the initial commenter made—of Catholics or Black people being in a book. That is all.
I can think of no examples of books that push people who are not gay into having same sex marriages. Can you provide an example? I also can't think of a single person who has felt pressured into marrying someone of their same gender, but I know several examples of people who felt pressured into marrying someone of the opposite gender because society told them it was the only acceptable option.
I’m sorry, but you’re completely taking my response out of context. I genuinely thought that “a curriculum was designed to convey…” as Sharon stated above! I’m not arguing their point or decision. Your examples didn’t make sense to me—the presence of a Catholic person or Black person or LGBTQ person or even a criminal in a book isn’t the issue. I understood the issue to be a “curriculum. But I could be completely wrong! I’m not at all trying to get into an argument about the court’s ruling! I was trying to convey that it wasn’t the presence of the people in the books, but the curriculum, as stated above by Sharon. And I could completely be misinterpreting it! Never meant to be controversial!
They’ve made the president immune and now limited the power of courts. All while being bought and paid for. And Roberts had the audacity to worry about “legitimacy”.
Yes !
Heartbroken for the LGBTQIA+ community.
Terrified for how the Trump admin will use the ruling on national injunctions.
Thank you for your work, Sharon.
I'd really like to know if we can still argue that we're a republic of laws with these and other recent rulings.
As far as I can tell, Democratic presidents are subject to the law (debt forgiveness), while Republican presidents and Trump specifically are exempt from the law.
How are we not practically a dictatorship now? Honest question.
We are a dictatorship. The government isn’t going to declare this. The people have to call it out and name it for what it has become. It is up to us to change it. If enough of us want it to change. Personally I don’t think we have the numbers. It’s quite sad.
Same, the Rubicon has clearly been crossed several times over already. We're a dictatorship, there are just a lot of privileged people who aren't affected by this reality *yet*.
Meantime, other than caring for our neighbors and I guess primarying every spineless Democrat, I don't know what we can do. I feel so helpless and angry.
The moral injury is debilitating. So much suffering and cruelty, such an erosion of truth and justice and right and wrong. And so many people telling us we’re overreacting or even celebrating what’s happening, because they don’t understand what it means other than it’s pissing off the people they’ve been told (without evidence) are trying to do the same thing to them.
I’m trying to focus on helping my immediate community via mutual aid and direct action. I won’t give up, but having to show up at work and talk about KPIs and Business while our government institutions and civil rights are melted down and sold off to the highest bidder makes me feel like I’m losing my mind.
Thank you, Jude, for taking positive action.
Missy, you just named two important things we can do, proving we are not helpless. Anger is a valid emotion in this situation, proving you are a caring person that your neighbors can depend on.
Erica, by sad, do you mean tragic?
Thank you for sharing the updates, Sharon. It’s hard to have faith in the Supreme Court’s ability to be unbiased when the opinions are 6-3, 6-3, 6-3 across the board. Feeling very sad today and especially holding space for the LGBTQ+ community.
Thank you for all you and your team do, Sharon. I’ll echo what others have said. My immediate reaction is to feel heartbroken and panicked. I’ve learned, though, to seek more information before I sink into doom. I’m thankful you’ll do this live. And I hope our questions are answered. Because right now I feel scared.
I don't like any of these facts, Sharon.
Literally, a foundational tenet of every religion is--in one form, or another--"compassion for others." How is it that teaching, or providing anecdotal examples that *others* exist (in one's midst) is a violation of one's religious freedom? In my mind, it appears to support the religious ideal of compassion.
One can teach compassion of one’s fellow man without teaching the delusions.
Mahmoud v Taylor leaves the door open for SO many other lawsuits to follow. What about schools teaching evolution to people who believe in Creationism as part of their religion? What about reading books about people observing different religions or wearing certain clothing as part of their religion? Feels like the door just swung wiiiiide open.
These concepts have been in place for a long time. As I mentioned in another comment, as a former science teacher, I always inform parents that I was going to be teaching about evolution or having students undertaking dissections of creatures. These were two things that I knew could be against individuals close held religious beliefs. They had the option to pull their student from the activity, and I was required by law to provide an equal and alternative opportunity for that student.
If you don't mind, I do have a question about what this looked like in practice, as it came up a few times during the discussion around this case: did you ever feel you needed to be careful not to raise those topics *outside* of the prescribed times? Was it an issue if other students wanted to talk evolution? Or if a student asked a question and the answer would have inevitably required a reference to evolutionary theory, did you feel like you could give that answer to the whole class or were you concerned about the optics of "teaching evolution" with those particular students still in the classroom?
I imagine a lot of this would be contingent upon the relationship already built between yourself and those parents, the support of your administration, etc. The concern folks have had is that erring on the side of being cautious feels like a potential stifle on free expression, and I'm just interested to hear from your personal experience there, if you're willing to share ❤️
Wonderful thoughts and questions! I sent a form home to all parents notifying them the topic was going to be covered and when. They returned the form with their consent or opt out request. It was really relatively easy at that time. I’d probably do it via paper and electronic (use email to notify parents to look for the form and remind them to return it) still today if I were teaching. But what then? For dissections it was relatively easy to create an alternative using a computer simulation. For evolution I had to get more creative and usually did something like creating a parallel assignment where they did something with an analysis of Darwin’s work allowing them to create their own hypothesis of the diversity. As for class discussions, I never worried about those. If a student asked a question I felt could be answered without expressing “fact” I would do it. Otherwise it was very easy to say,”that’s a great question…” and respond to them after class or sit on it over night to respond in a well thought out manner the next day. You’re right about the relationship with parents. If you’re up front with them they don’t get the idea your hiding anything and they appreciate they heads up memos.
Thanks for this reply! I had some friends who were able to opt out of evolution teaching in HS but they had to get all sorts of pre-approval from admin. I’m glad it’s possible but still wonder how this ruling will affect other things.
Thanks, Sharon! I’m sorry if I didn’t see this, or if it went over my head, but can a federal judge issue a nationwide injunction, or does the ruling just apply to district judges?
Will each contested case of birthright citizenship have to go through the legal system now? Those individuals are now subject to the cruel deportations that are occurring, and may not have a fair shake at arguing their case. How could SCOTUS not see where this was heading? Or do they not care? I don’t understand how this is constitutional.
District judges are federal judges. They're the lowest level of federal judges. They're the ones that make initial rulings before things go up to Appeals and then eventually Scotus.
Thank you, Allison. I have so many questions. I don’t understand how this will make America great at all.
Steve Vladeck is doing a live right now talking about it on his substack.
Essentially the executive can issue any order it wants at this point and no matter how blatantly unconstitutional it will be allowed to remain until it reaches SCOTUS which at this point seems unable to adhere to the constitution. Am I getting this right?
This is my question as well. Well. One of many that I have haha!
It feels like SCOTUS has given the President the ability to rule by executive order. What is Congress’s role right now?
A functioning Congress would set limits and actively address executive orders. But currently a majority are just there to say yes
Exactly!
One comment…one question. Comment - the ruling about students being able to be pulled out of class while a particular book is discussed that happens to be against their religious beliefs is not surprising. As a former science teacher, I always inform parents when I was going to be teaching about evolution or if we were going to be dissecting creatures such as frogs. I was well aware that both of these items could be objectionable based on religious beliefs. I gave parents the option to pull their students out and I was required to provide an alternative/equal activity for them. I would assume the same would be required here. Question – I taught educational law for many years and one of the underlying pieces of the ruling about what courts can or cannot do focuses on who files the lawsuit. If it is a class action suit, it appears that it would be broadly, applied across the country. If it is a suit filed by an individual or entity, it appears the resulting court ruling would only apply to that individual or entity and could not be applied broadly to the general population. this is a huge break in how legal rulings are applied to the public. Anyone on here that is an attorney see this differently?
Thank you for this summary!
In regards to the nationwide injunctions, is this just proactive? Could someone now sue about a previous decision that was a nationwide injunction? Say in regards to another immigration decision like DACA (I did not come up with this myself I saw another reader who is on Instagram post this question and now I am very intrigued at the potential implications).
With the glacial pace of court cases, allowing the executive branch to cause widespread unredressable harm unless or until the Supreme Court deigns to address the issue is offensive. The majority of Americans do not want a king, but the 6-3 majority of this court does.
What does it say that none of these decisions were unanimous?
It says we have three justices that apparently don’t have the best interest of children in mind when making their decisions. I guess it shouldn’t be surprising when one of the three cannot /will not define what a woman is.