US supreme court rules schools must let kids opt out of LGBTQ+ book readings
In a case that exposed the passions surrounding the US's religious-secular divide, the court sided with parents in Maryland who protested that they were left with no means of shielding their children from the contents of six storybooks they found objectionable.
The ruling means that the Montgomery county board of education – which administers schools in some of Washington DC's most affluent suburbs – must provide opt-out facilities.
In the case, Mahmoud v Taylor, three sets of parents, comprising Muslims, Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians, complained that the board's policy in effect forced their children to hear storylines that they alleged promoted 'political ideologies about family life and human sexuality that are inconsistent with sound science, common sense, and the well-being of children'.
One book, Uncle Bobby's Wedding, features a gay character who is getting married, while another, Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope, is about a transgender child.
The parents in the case filed a complaint after education authorities decreed that parents should not expect to receive prior notice before one of the books was read out loud in class, thus enabling a child to leave the room for that period.
The ruling was handed down after an initial hearing in April at which several of the court's conservative justices – who form a 6-3 majority on the bench – appeared sympathetic to the plaintiffs' case after lower courts refused to force the education authorities to change its policy.
In the ruling, the conservative justice Samuel Alito wrote: 'We have long recognized the rights of parents to direct 'the religious upbringing' of their children. And we have held that those rights are violated by government policies that substantially interfere with the religious development of children.'
At the end of Alito's judgment, the ruling stated: 'Until all appellate review in this case is completed, the [school] board should be ordered to 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.'
The ruling prompted a fierce dissent from the liberal justice Sonya Sotomayor, who said that public education was intended to be a unifying experience for children and 'the most pervasive means for promoting our common destiny'.
But she added that concept would become 'a mere memory' if pupils were 'insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents' religious beliefs'.
The ruling comes against a widespread conservative backlash in public schools and public libraries across many places in the US, but especially Republican-run parts of the country. The backlash has often sought to remove books that social conservatives find objectionable – often those that involve depictions of LGBTQ+ themes or racial inequality.
The American Library Association estimates there are at least 112 proposed state laws concerning schools and public libraries that seek to expand the definition of what is deemed obscene or harmful to children and to limit librarian staff's ability to determine which books they hold in their collections.
In a statement, Catholics for Choice, which opposes the court's ruling, said: 'The Supreme Court decided that it is okay for parents to teach their children to discriminate and judge people who are different than them.'
Taylor Tuckerman, a CfC vice-president, said: 'It's also important for children to learn that our differences – religion, sexual orientation, gender expression, race, economic backgrounds, and more – contribute to a thriving community and are not something to be ashamed of.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
5 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Beach city scraps 10,000 new homes and plans F1-style track instead that locals rage is 'dumb' and 'desperate'
Locals in a popular New Jersey beach city are enraged after it ditched plans to build 10,000 new homes for a 'dumb' and 'desperate' $3.4 billion F1-style racetrack. Atlantic City government officials have moved forward with the redevelopment of Bader Field, a shuttered airport about an hour outside of Philadelphia, after plans for the new racetrack were officially approved on July 16. The idea to take over the abandoned city-owned airport, which shut down in 2006, first started in 2022 when Bart Blatstein, the CEO of Tower Investments, Inc. and owner of Showboat Atlantic City, said his company and Atlantic City would collaborate to create a massive residential community. The proposed $3 billion development, dubbed 'Casa Mar,' was set to be built on 140 acres with 10,000 residential units, 20 acres of trails, amenities and parks and 400,000 square-feet of retail and office space - but that plan has since been wiped. Instead, a 2.5-mile racetrack, headed by real estate development company Deem Enterprises, will take its place. The massive raceway, said to be a 'game changer' by Atlantic City Mayor Marty Small Sr., is expected to take six to nine years to complete. It will be surrounded by retail businesses and condominiums in the community that is home to beaches, a bustling boardwalk and casinos. 'We're more confident than ever that we have the funds, Small Sr., an Atlantic City native who has been in office since 2019, told NJ Advance Media. '[DEEM] has been vetted, and just getting a $3.4-plus billion project on the ratable base is a complete game changer.' While the mayor, who was embroiled in a child abuse scandal involving his wife and daughter last year, and other government officials are thrilled about the new plan, Atlantic City locals are not happy with it. 'Atlantic City leadership is so desperate that they will support any development offer no matter how stupid it is,' a Facebook user wrote. Another said: 'What a joke! Want to really do something with the land? Dig canals and sell off lots and watch the ratepayers flood in!' 'Building that into a racetrack has to be the dumbest idea in the world,' someone else posted. A resident stressed that the heavily populated and touristy area is already filled with loud noises, so a racetrack would not be ideal. 'If people are bothered by the noise from beach concerts, the noise from the screaming F1 race cars would be unbearable!,' they said. While many are not happy with the development, others appear to be excited for the new track. 'Hell yes,' one simply wrote. Somebody else said: 'Do it!' Another said: 'Excellent' alongside several thumbs up and heart emojis. Meanwhile, a majority of people are not convinced the racetrack will ever be completed. 'They've been talking about it for years... highly doubt it'll ever happen,' wrote a user. 'This is all BS. Every few years this story comes out,' someone else shared. Another posted: 'I'm gonna go ahead and predict this will never happen.' Blatstein told the outlet three years ago that he saw room for growth in the beach city after realizing that other Garden State beach towns have booming populations compared to Atlantic City. 'So what really is needed here is a new plan, a new way of living, a new opportunity for people to come to Atlantic City,' Blatstein said. DEEM Enterprises, a Los Angeles and Atlantic City-based company, first announced the proposal in February of that year. The company has a tentative deal with the city to sell the vacant airfield for $100 million in exchange the real estate developer would donate $15 million for a community center. 'We don't have a recreation center of our town,' Small Sr. explained. 'We use the schools and different things like that.'
Reuters
7 minutes ago
- Reuters
Out-gunned Europe accepts least-worst US trade deal
LONDON, July 27 (Reuters) - In the end, Europe found it lacked the leverage to pull Donald Trump's America into a trade pact on its terms and so has signed up to a deal it can just about stomach - albeit one that is clearly skewed in the U.S.'s favour. As such, Sunday's agreement on a blanket 15% tariff after a months-long stand-off is a reality check on the aspirations of the 27-country European Union to become an economic power able to stand up to the likes of the United States or China. The cold shower is all the more bracing given that the EU has long portrayed itself as an export superpower and champion of rules-based commerce for the benefit both of its own soft power and the global economy as a whole. For sure, the new tariff that will now be applied is a lot more digestible than the 30% "reciprocal" tariff which Trump threatened to invoke in a few days. While it should ensure Europe avoids recession, it will likely keep its economy in the doldrums: it sits somewhere between two tariff scenarios the European Central Bank last month forecast would mean 0.5-0.9% economic growth this year compared to just over 1% in a trade tension-free environment. But this is nonetheless a landing point that would have been scarcely imaginable only months ago in the pre-Trump 2.0 era, when the EU along with much of the world could count on U.S. tariffs averaging out at around 1.5%. Even when Britain agreed a baseline tariff of 10% with the United States back in May, EU officials were adamant they could do better and - convinced the bloc had the economic heft to square up to Trump - pushed for a "zero-for-zero" tariff pact. It took a few weeks of fruitless talks with their U.S. counterparts for the Europeans to accept that 10% was the best they could get and a few weeks more to take the same 15% baseline which the United States agreed with Japan last week. "The EU does not have more leverage than the U.S., and the Trump administration is not rushing things," said one senior official in a European capital who was being briefed on last week's negotiations as they closed in around the 15% level. That official and others pointed to the pressure from Europe's export-oriented businesses to clinch a deal and so ease the levels of uncertainty starting to hit businesses from Finland's Nokia ( opens new tab to Swedish steelmaker SSAB ( opens new tab. "We were dealt a bad hand. This deal is the best possible play under the circumstances," said one EU diplomat. "Recent months have clearly shown how damaging uncertainty in global trade is for European businesses." That imbalance - or what the trade negotiators have been calling "asymmetry" - is manifest in the final deal. Not only is it expected that the EU will now call off any retaliation and remain open to U.S. goods on existing terms, but it has also pledged $600 billion of investment in the United States. The time-frame for that remains undefined, as do other details of the accord for now. As talks unfolded, it became clear that the EU came to the conclusion it had more to lose from all-out confrontation. The retaliatory measures it threatened totalled some 93 billion euros - less than half its U.S. goods trade surplus of nearly 200 billion euros. True, a growing number of EU capitals were also ready to envisage wide-ranging anti-coercion measures that would have allowed the bloc to target the services trade in which the United States had a surplus of some $75 billion last year. But even then, there was no clear majority for targeting the U.S. digital services which European citizens enjoy and for which there are scant homegrown alternatives - from Netflix (NFLX.O), opens new tab to Uber (UBER.N), opens new tab to Microsoft (MSFT.O), opens new tab cloud services. It remains to be seen whether this will encourage European leaders to accelerate the economic reforms and diversification of trading allies to which they have long paid lip service but which have been held back by national divisions. Describing the deal as a painful compromise that was an "existential threat" for many of its members, Germany's BGA wholesale and export association said it was time for Europe to reduce its reliance on its biggest trading partner. "Let's look on the past months as a wake-up call," said BGA President Dirk Jandura. "Europe must now prepare itself strategically for the future - we need new trade deals with the biggest industrial powers of the world."
The Guardian
7 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Considering an open relationship? Don't read this Reddit forum
It all started with Elon Musk's black eye. In May, the President's on-again-off-again best friend appeared in the Oval Office visibly bruised. He laughed it off and said his five-year-old child had done it. The internet had other ideas. Soon, a round of extremely unconfirmed speculation began about an alleged – and I cannot stress the word 'alleged' enough – throuple: Musk; Trump's deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, and his wife, political adviser Katie Miller. The Democrats even weighed in with a post of an empty hotel room chair, a notorious signpost of cuckoldry. I'm not alone in finding perverse joy in other people's relationship dramas. Reddit's crowdsourced advice sections, particularly r/relationships and r/amitheasshole, have long been staples of viral posts. They're portable soap operas – or in some cases, sitcoms – with the added spice that they're (probably, sometimes, maybe) real. The Musk-Miller saga led me to r/openmarriageregret, a subreddit mining and reposting threads from other relationship and polyamory boards for cautionary tales of open relationships gone wrong. Maintaining a relationship with another human being contorts us into new ugly shapes. Maintaining a relationship with two or more other human beings can break us apart. The page opens with a sober preamble: 'Life is about choices. Some we regret, some we are proud of – and some will haunt us for ever.' It's all very 'don't try this at home'. Sure. This is for educational purposes. Many posts are as you'd imagine: a man pressures his wife into an open relationship and is then shocked to discover that she's a sought-after 10 and he's sexual kryptonite. But things can get so much worse. One user asks if they're in the wrong 'for leaving our honeymoon because my husband and his boyfriend kept leaving me and my girlfriend out'. Another writes of a very contemporary woe: 'My husband wants to open our marriage for his AI girlfriend and says it's the next step in their relationship.' Her partner has been acting distant lately, she says, spending a lot of time on the phone, smiling to himself, hiding away in the home office. Then he says he has something to tell her. Is he having an affair? No. It's far worse. The user continues: 'He told me he wants to take the next step with her.' This involves introducing the AI to their children. 'How do I stay married to someone who's half emotionally checked out of our life and into a fucking chatbot?' In the comments, several people share their experience of male partners becoming enamoured of a simulation of a woman who doesn't talk back and is programmed to think everything he says is brilliant. The voyeurism of the group is twofold: of course the relationship dramas are engaging. But so are the way people discuss these real scenarios. The commenters bring their own baggage and bias, perhaps not realising they're part of the drama themselves. The group's diehards subscribe to one central thesis: that those opening their relationships want novelty and attention, and the person who provides this is functionally irrelevant. The thesis, of course, doesn't necessarily hold water. As much as non-monogamy continues to rise, we've been gawking at successful open arrangements for decades. Not that it matters to the group's frequenters, who forge forward in their cynicism, however misinformed. 'I know absolutely no one in an open relationship or marriage,' says one user, who is in the top 1% of commenters in the group. I know, by my slightly unsettling investment in the group, that I'm complicit. But I can't look away. Who are these commenters? Who hurt them? Why are they so devoted to other people's romantic dramas, their crumbling marriages? Why am I? The emotional zing of gossip is strong. Even the usually humourless Democrats are in on it. So, putting ill will to one side: I truly hope the alleged Musk-Miller polycule patch things up. Alleged! I mean alleged! They're made for each other.
