Latest news with #MahmoudvTaylor
Bloomberg
13 hours ago
- Politics
- Bloomberg
The Supreme Court Is Right to Respect Parents' Faith
The ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor should remind public schools that they're working with parents, not competing against them. Save Here's why I think the Supreme Court might be on to something in its Friday decision allowing a group of Muslim and Christian parents to opt their young children out of public-school lessons that feature 'LGBTQ+-inclusive texts': my wife and I sent our kids to private school. How does B lead to A? Let me explain. Before it's here, it's on the Bloomberg Terminal
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
As a teacher, Supreme Court siding with parents' religious freedom concerns me
My first day as a high school teacher, kids were opting out of pretty much everything I asked them to do. Too tired to read, they said. Writing made their heads ache. They had beefs with whoever I partnered them with on a project and they sure weren't about to get up in front of the class. Most teachers quickly become accustomed to all the opting out. We wise up and toughen up to help kids toughen up. We also figure out how to know when, for the moment, it is better to leave them be. We also get used to the exceptions that kids and their parents ask for. The first year I assigned James Baldwin's "If Beale Street Could Talk," a girl told me her parents wouldn't let her read it. Her brother had found all the f-bombs and showed their parents. The novel also contains critiques of Christian piety and hypocrisy. It was on the district approved reading list, but I didn't want to give that girl any more grief than her brother and parents already were so I let her read something else. Even so, I am concerned about the Supreme Court's ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor, validating an assertion of religious freedom over a school district's reading program. The case was brought by a group of Maryland parents against Montgomery County's school board, which refused to allow the parents to opt their kids out of the reading and/or discussion of books that depicted people married to same-sex spouses, dramatized a dog at a pride parade, and told other stories whose settings included the recognition and normalization of LGBTQ+ people. In general, I have always tried to honor the beliefs of parents ‒ not just about what to read but also about how they choose to raise their children ‒ whether or not I agree with them. I do this out of respect and also for the sake of kids who are better off without being in the middle of ideological conflict. There are limits, however. The most serious of these is that if I believe a parent's idea of discipline rises (or descends) to the level of physical abuse, I am compelled by law, as are all teachers, to report it to the authorities. Teachers are also mandated to report emotional abuse, elusive as it may be to detect. The students whose emotional abuse has often been the most obvious to me are gay teenagers whose parents have shunned or humiliated them. Some of this abuse is instigated by religious beliefs and influences that make their child's sexuality a source of torment. Another view: Schools are pushing LGBTQ+ books on kids. Supreme Court should side with parents. | Opinion I feel for those parents, but I am far more sympathetic to the young men and women who are the subject of the condemnation and alienation. Even in cases where the level of emotional abuse isn't sufficient to file a report, and with all due respect to the parents, I am compelled to offer emotional support and a voice of acceptance. If narrowing a child's educational experience in that way is a pillar of religious freedom, does that 'freedom' also prevent me or any other teacher from telling an LGBTQ+ student they need not be ashamed of who they are? Perhaps not ‒ not yet ‒ but I worry, as should all educators. It has been nearly 100 years since the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled in John Scopes' case that the state may not criminalize the teaching of human evolution, though Darwin's theory was at odds with the Judeo-Christian Bible's version of human inception. The parallels between Scopes and Mahmoud are far from perfect. The former challenged the academic freedom to teach science when science contradicted religious beliefs. The latter challenges the authority of a school district to override the religious beliefs (or interpretations, anyway) of parents on curricular decisions about their kids. Even so, it doesn't take much of a leap to get from opt-outs for LGBTQ+ book references to opt-outs for the study or even mention of human evolution. Evolution is foundational to anthropology, human history and civilization, and human biology. Preventing a student from learning about it could set the student behind their peers in their knowledge and understanding of science. Preventing a child from understanding the world beyond their own family and experience is potentially more crippling. The world in which today's children are growing up is diverse. An inability to comprehend it and navigate it can limit their academic and professional horizons. Some kids have two moms and some have two dads. Some kids have a transgender parent. Some are being raised by a single parent or grandparent(s) or in a blended family, some kids are being raised by someone with whom they are not related, and still others are being raised by no one at all. Refusing to allow a child to understand and normalize this diversity marginalizes those kids ‒ many of whom are already marginalized by circumstances. This is what educators think about. We try to look out for all kids, but especially the ones who might otherwise feel out of place. Opinion: If you had a teacher who changed your life, 'find that person, tell that person' More urgently, books that validate all families and all kids can save the life of a child who realizes they are gay or trans and feels alone and terrified by that realization. The imposition of those books to someone's faith seems, by comparison, trivial. Pushing back against that imposition seems utterly selfish ‒ ironic for people of faith. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. At the core of this issue are two fundamental questions: How much power and authority should parents legally have over their children? Are we, as a nation, willing to fully recognize the humanity and dignity of all people, regardless of race, creed, color, or sexual orientation or identity ‒ and regardless of our own comfort level? To the first question I can tell you, as a high school teacher and a parent, that parental power is ultimately mostly illusory, and quite often the tighter the parental grip the stronger the children's resistance. I do not have the answer to the second question, but I do know that on this day, Supreme Court justices tilted us toward no. Larry Strauss, a high school English teacher in South Los Angeles since 1992, is the author of 'Students First and Other Lies: Straight Talk From a Veteran Teacher' and "A Lasting Impact in the Classroom and Beyond," a book for new and struggling teachers. You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court ruling on LGBTQ books worries me as a teacher | Opinion
Yahoo
a day ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion: SCOTUS ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor strengthens parents' educational rights, partnership with schools
The U.S. Supreme Court just affirmed that parents have the right and responsibility to direct how their children are taught about moral topics and clarified that schools must accommodate the religious practices of families. This important case is a win for families and the Constitution, and it points the way forward for stronger collaboration between parents and schools. In this case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, a school district in Maryland decided to introduce reading materials on sexuality and gender identity for discussion in early grades of elementary school. Initially, the district agreed to allow parents to opt their children out of these discussions. This is the approach nearly all states, including Maryland, take to parental concerns about sensitive discussions in class. The district, though, later changed its approach and told parents their children would have to participate in these classroom discussions. This created a significant burden on parents who feel they have a religious responsibility to direct how their children are taught about moral issues. A group of parents from different faith traditions challenged that decision in court, eventually leading to this Supreme Court ruling. The Court held that when schools require parents 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,' the school must show that it has a compelling reason for doing so. Here, the Court noted, the schools offer many other accommodations for instruction in other areas, so they cannot claim they have an overwhelming reason not to accommodate only religious parents. The Court pointed out that the specific facts of this case, particularly the involvement of 'young, impressionable children who are likely to accept without question any moral messages conveyed by their teachers' instruction' and the use of materials that 'explicitly contradict their parents' religious views' compelled its conclusion. This is not the same as simply exposing older children to the existence of different viewpoints on controversial issues. The Court rejected the idea that parents could simply choose other schools: 'It is both insulting and legally unsound to tell parents that they must abstain from public education in order to raise their children in their religious faiths, when alternatives can be prohibitively expensive and they already contribute to financing the public schools.' This decision is a win for the parents. It also establishes important precedent for future conflicts between religious exercise and government regulations. Perhaps not as obvious at first sight is that it helps policymakers who want to facilitate better collaboration between parents and schools. The Court has made clear that simple accommodations, like allowing parents to opt students out of class discussions about sensitive topics, can avoid constitutional conflicts. The principle of accommodation also has implications for other areas of potential conflicts, like whether religious people can serve as foster parents or must pay for abortion coverage in their insurance plans. States can avoid cases like this one by giving parents information about what schools will be teaching in the classroom and proactively adopting accommodations where a government regulation is likely to be at odds with religious beliefs. State legislatures should follow the precedent set by this Court decision and pass or strengthen legislation that codifies such accommodations in law. Education leaders at the district and school levels throughout the country should strive to foster a stronger sense of partnership and collaboration with parents to minimize these kinds of conflicts in the future. If that practice becomes more common — as it should — the Court's decision will yield positive ripple effects far beyond the specific facts of this case.
Fox News
2 days ago
- Politics
- Fox News
Final day of SCOTUS decisions brings wave of history-making rulings
The Supreme Court had a banner day on Friday, the last decision day of the high court's term, involving the justices reining in judicial power and serving up a victory for parents in the ongoing culture wars. The high court's more controversial decisions were split along ideological lines. Liberal justices sometimes dissented with bitter rebukes, while the Trump administration celebrated what it viewed as landmark wins. In the most high-profile case of the day, the Supreme Court ended the practice of judges issuing sweeping injunctions that cover the whole country and not just parties involved in a case. The injunctions, often known as "nationwide injunctions," have been a source of frustration for President Donald Trump as judges side with plaintiffs and block key parts of the president's agenda. The case arose from several judges issuing injunctions that blocked Trump from carrying out his birthright citizenship plan. Rather than ask the Supreme Court to weigh in on the merits of the plan, which has been uniformly rejected in courts, Trump asked the high court to put a stop to the injunction practice. The Supreme Court's 6-3 decision left open the possibility that judges and plaintiffs could use other avenues, such as class action lawsuits, to seek broad relief now that the high court has curtailed nationwide injunctions. The Supreme Court decided 6-3 in Mahmoud v. Taylor that parents can opt their children out of a Maryland public school system's lessons when they contain themes about homosexuality and transgenderism if they feel the content conflicts with their religious beliefs. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, said the government "burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires 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." The Trump administration celebrated the ruling as a victory for "parental rights," while Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in a scathing dissent that the high court's decision would open floodgates for students to opt out of a wider range of lessons. The Supreme Court allowed Texas to require age verification for users of pornographic websites, dealing a win to those aiming to block children from accessing explicit material online. A trade association for the porn industry brought the lawsuit, alleging the age requirement meant the state was unconstitutionally regulating free speech on the internet. "This is a major victory for children, parents, and the ability of states to protect minors from the damaging effects of online pornography," Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement. "Companies have no right to expose children to pornography and must institute reasonable age verification measures." The Supreme Court punted its case about Louisiana's congressional maps, indicating it needed a few more questions answered during oral arguments in the fall. The delay means that Louisiana's map of voting districts, including majority-Black districts, would not see any changes until the 2028 election cycle or later. The Supreme Court is now set to wind down in anticipation of its summer recess, though it is still expected to hand down some straggling decisions before its next term begins in October.
Fox News
2 days ago
- Politics
- Fox News
Supreme Court decides whether to allow parents to shield children from LGBTQ books in school
The Supreme Court held Friday that a group of Maryland parents are entitled to opt their children out of school lessons that could violate their beliefs, in a case centered on religious freedom. The justices decided 6-3 along ideological lines in Mahmoud v. Taylor that parents can exclude their children from a Maryland public school system's lessons that contain themes about homosexuality and transgenderism if they feel it conflicts with their religious faith. "A government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires 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," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority. "And a government cannot condition the benefit of free public education on parents' acceptance of such instruction." Montgomery County Public Schools began incorporating books into their preschool through 12th grade language arts curriculums a few years ago that featured "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer characters," the school district's attorneys told the Supreme Court. The attorneys said the school district did this as part of an effort to be "culturally responsive" and teach lessons that encourage "equity, respect, and civility." The Maryland parents who sued said in their petition to the high court that the school board introduced books to their elementary school students that promoted "gender transitions, Pride parades, and same-sex playground romance." The parents said the school board initially allowed parents to opt their children out of lessons involving those books but then ceased doing that. They also said the presence of the books created "indirect pressure to forgo a religious practice," which created enough of a burden to violate their religious freedom rights. The parents who brought the suit span a range of religious backgrounds. Tamer Mahmoud and Enas Barakat are Muslim, while others fall under different denominations of Christianity. During oral arguments, Justice Clarence Thomas questioned an attorney representing Montgomery County schools about whether the books simply existed in the classroom or were actively introduced to the students. The attorney indicated that teachers gave lessons to the students involving the books in question five times during the school year. Rosalind Hanson, a member of the conservative group Moms for Liberty, told Fox News Digital during a recent interview in front of the Supreme Court that she and other parents who helped bring the case were "not trying to change the curriculum" for parents who did support their children being exposed to the books. "The majority of states across the country have said you can have an opt-out for these very sensitive issues and topics, especially because of the religious component, but also because of the age appropriateness," Hanson said. This is a breaking news story. Check back for updates.
