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
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
India is targeting Bengali-speaking Muslims for expulsion to Bangladesh, Human Rights Watch warns
Indian authorities have forcibly pushed hundreds of Muslims into Bangladesh without due process, Human Rights Watch said. The rights group, based in the US, accused Narendra Modi's Hindu nationalist government of targeting Bengali-speaking Muslims from West Bengal and Assam for political gain ahead of elections in the two eastern states. India expelled over 1,500 Muslim men, women, and children to Bangladesh between 7 May and 15 June alone, the rights group said, citing the Bangladeshi border guard. New Delhi hasn't disclosed the number of people deported to the neighbouring country. After the massacre of 26 people, mostly Hindu tourists, in the restive Himalayan region of Kashmir in May, the federal home ministry declared a 30-day deadline for states to round up undocumented Bangladeshi immigrants. In the event, critics said, authorities in Uttar Pradesh, Odisha, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Haryana, and Delhi – all states ruled by Mr Modi's BJP party – rounded up mostly Bengali-speaking migrant workers from West Bengal and Assam. Bengali is one of India's 22 official languages. 'India's ruling BJP is fuelling discrimination by arbitrarily expelling Bengali Muslims from the country, including Indian citizens," Elaine Pearson, Asia director at Human Rights Watch, said. 'The government is putting thousands of vulnerable people at risk in apparent pursuit of unauthorised immigrants but their actions reflect broader discriminatory policies against Muslims." Assam's chief minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, a member of the BJP, said the state had been told by the Supreme Court 'that those who are declared foreigners have to be returned [to their country of origin] by whatever means'. This month he wrote on X that 'protecting Assam's interests is foremost', and that 'illegal infiltrators WILL NOT BE ALLOWED to stay in Assam and threaten our identity'. Senior BJP members regularly refer to undocumented immigrants from Bangladesh as 'infiltrators", a term that has also been used more broadly to vilify Indian Muslims. Ms Pearson said the claim that the expulsions were meant to manage illegal immigration was "unconvincing" and showed the ruling party's 'disregard for due process rights, domestic guarantees, and international human rights standards'. A 51-year-old labourer told the rights group he had "walked into Bangladesh like a dead body" after India's Border Security Force pushed him across after midnight. "The BSF officer beat me when I refused to cross the border into Bangladesh and fired rubber bullets four times in the air,' he said. The migrant worker, the group said, was repatriated to India two weeks later. Authorities in West Bengal, governed by a regional party, said they repatriated dozens of residents who had been forcibly sent into Bangladesh by the Modi government. At least 300 of the people expelled to Bangladesh were from Assam, which underwent a contentious citizenship verification process in 2019 that excluded nearly two million people. Nazimuddin Sheikh, 34, a migrant worker from West Bengal, was detained in Mumbai and expelled to Bangladesh in June after police raided his home and allegedly "tore up his identity documents". The BSF did not listen when he and his fellow workers protested that they were Indian, Mr Sheikh told the Human Rights Watch. 'If we spoke too much, they beat us. They hit me with sticks on my back and hands,' he said. 'They were beating us and telling us to say we are Bangladeshi.' West Bengal's chief minister, Mamata Banerjee, one of Mr Modi's fiercest rivals, earlier called out the ruling party for the crackdown. "Is speaking Bengali a crime?" she asked. "You should be ashamed that by doing this, you're making everyone who speaks Bengali appear to be Bangladeshi." She said nearly 2.2m migrant workers from Bengal were working elsewhere in the country while about 15m people from outside were working in the eastern state. The Independent has approached the BJP for comment. In addition to Bengali workers, Indian authorities also deported around 100 Rohingya refugees from Myanmar, taking them from a detention centre in Assam and pushing them into Bangladesh. Another 40 Rohingya were forced to jump into the sea near Myanmar, handed life jackets and told to swim ashore, the UN human rights office said. Bangladesh shares a 4,096km border with India, the fifth-longest in the world. The two countries have experienced multiple waves of undocumented migration since the British partition of the subcontinent in 1947. Mr Modi this month accused Ms Banerjee's government in West Bengal of "encouraging' illegal immigration "for the sake of vote bank politics". The issue of immigration from Bangladesh is expected to become a focal point of the 2026 election in West Bengal, a key target for the BJP.
Telegraph
5 hours ago
- Telegraph
Half of public think Islam not compatible with British values
More than half of the public think Islam is not compatible with British values, according to a survey. The YouGov polling also found that four in 10 feel Muslim immigrants have a negative impact on the UK. The survey of 2,130 adults in mid-July asked people if they felt different groups of immigrants by religion generally have a positive or negative impact on the UK. While 41 per cent said Muslim immigrants have a negative impact, the proportions feeling this way were much lower for other groups. Around 15 per cent felt this way about Hindu immigrants, 14 per cent about Sikh immigrants, 13 per cent about Jewish immigrants and 7 per cent about Christian immigrants. Just under a quarter (24 per cent) of respondents felt Muslim immigrants had a positive impact on the UK, lower than for any of the other religions stated. Earlier this week, Angela Rayner, the Deputy Prime Minister, urged Labour colleagues to acknowledge people's 'real concerns', pointing out that immigration was one of a number of factors having a 'profound impact on society', as she updated Cabinet on her work on social cohesion. Some 53 per cent of those polled said they believed Islam is not compatible with British values, while 25 per cent said it is and 22 per cent said they did not know. Sabah Ahmedi, known as 'the young imam' online, said he believes fear among people 'stems from a lack of understanding of Islam '. He said: 'These findings are deeply worrying, revealing high levels of anti-Muslim sentiment in this country. As a British Muslim, it is tragic to think that we are disliked or hated because of our religious beliefs. It is unfair and unjust considering that the vast majority of Muslim immigrants to the UK are contributing positively.' He encouraged people to 'meet Muslims to see we are not a threat' and urged the media to 'play a role as well'. The polling was commissioned by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community ahead of a gathering for what it described as the UK's biggest Muslim convention – the Jalsa Salana – this weekend in Hampshire, expected to be attended by 40,000 followers of the faith. The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is made up of people and their descendants who generally fled Pakistan in the 1980s in the face of religious persecution. Members said they now often face the same discrimination in the UK – from some Muslims who do not agree with their version of the faith, and from other people who have subjected them to racist bullying because of their Pakistani ethnicity.
The National
7 hours ago
- The National
A history of protests against Donald Trump in Scotland
The US president is also set to meet with Scotland's First Minister John Swinney as well as Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Will there be protests? There are certainly many planned. READ MORE: Donald Trump protest planned near mother's birthplace during Scotland visit It wouldn't be the first time, either. Over the years, there have been many events held in Scotland protesting the now US president. Even before he was elected for the first time in 2016, Scots have publicly called out the American whose mother, Mary Ann, was born in the Isle of Lewis. Take Scottish farmer Michael Forbes, who has long been butting heads with Trump. The saga began in 2006 when Trump bought part of the Menie Estate. Residents were concerned about the environmental impact that the 18-hole course would have and Forbes and his family mounted a particularly large amount of vocal and public opposition against it in the years since. On January 30, 2017, just after Trump was made US president for the first time, demonstrators flocked to the streets of Edinburgh and marched from the Mound to the Scottish Parliament (below). (Image: Photo by) The protesters took particular issue with the ban on Muslims travelling to the USA which he had just brought in. During his first state visit in 2018, groups gathered outside of Trump Turnberry to boo the president while he played an afternoon game of golf. They also flew a paraglider around the area with a message criticising the president's first term. Here are some other demonstrators (below) who chose to gather in Glasgow's George Square for the Scotland United Against Trump protest against the state visit. (Image: Lesley Martin/PA Archive/PA Images) The visit also gave birth to an iconic viral moment from Janey Godley. The late comedian arrived at a protest wielding a huge placard with, shall we say, flowery language (below). It immediately went viral across the globe. Now, with Donald Trump soon arriving in Scotland again, there will be a host of protests across the country.
