A federal judge in Maryland has denied the request for relief from a group of parents who sought to opt out of the LGBT curriculum in Montgomery County Public Schools. This marks a substantial shift in the ongoing battle over how much control parents should have over what their children are taught in schools.
The parents, many of whom are of the Muslim faith, are represented by non-profit public interest law firm Becket in the lawsuit against the district. They argued that the new policy, which came into effect in March, violated their First Amendment rights to freely guide their children’s religious and moral instruction. However, on Thursday, the court denied their request for an injunction.
No fairy tale ending (yet) for Maryland parents: a federal court denied parents the right to be notified when their elementary-age children will be read storybooks that push extreme ideology regarding gender and sexuality. The court’s opinion ⬇️@BECKETlaw https://t.co/xT2oH5lEKj
— Eric Baxter (@esbax) August 24, 2023
According to the court, “Because the plaintiffs have not established any of their claims is likely to succeed on the merits, it follows that the plaintiffs are not likely to suffer imminent irreparable harm.” The court further stated that the parents’ “asserted due process right to direct their children’s upbringing by opting out of a public-school curriculum that conflicts with their religious views is not a fundamental right.”
Eric Baxter, the attorney with Becket representing the parents, expressed their plan to appeal this decision. “Today, the district court decided parents have no right to notice when extreme ideology is pushed on their elementary-age children during story hour,” Baxter wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter. “The school board should let kids be kids and let parents parent,” he added.
It is not just a conservative talking point to argue that parents should have a say in their children’s education, especially regarding sensitive topics. While schools have a role to play in teaching inclusion, the question remains whether they should do so without parental input or the option for parents to remove their children from objectionable instruction.
The new policy allows for teaching topics like gay pride parades, gender transition, and pronoun preference, starting as early as pre-K through eighth grade. This has naturally raised concerns among parents about the age-appropriateness of such topics.
Baxter emphasized this: “Children are entitled to enjoy a period of innocence and be guided by their own parents on how and when to approach the complex and sensitive issues being pushed by the school board.”
The ruling reflects a trend of courts and educational institutions increasingly sidelining parents in favor of a one-size-fits-all approach to education. Regarding the delicate balance between academic standards and respecting family values, this decision tilts the scales away from parental rights.
As this case moves forward, likely to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, it offers a moment for reflection. What should be the boundaries of school curricula when it conflicts with the values and beliefs of families? Is it fair to shut out parents from decisions that have long-lasting implications on their children’s understanding of complex social issues?
The court’s answer seems to be a stark “no” to parents seeking to uphold their religious and moral teachings within their families. With the new school year fast approaching, the ruling clearly conveys that parental concerns are secondary to the state’s educational agenda. It’s a message that many parents are unwilling to accept without a fight.
