Latest news with #ParentalRightsinEducationAct
Miami Herald
01-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Miami Herald
As Florida curbs LGBTQ rights, queer teens gather for prom at Miami's Vizcaya Museum
They Cupid Shuffled. They whipped and nae-nae'd. They shook it like a Polaroid picture. But this was not a regular prom: it was an extravaganza on a terrace overlooking Biscayne Bay. On Saturday night, the gardens of Vizcaya Museum and Gardens were taken over by LGBTQ students from around Miami — about 96 in total — for the first prom ever held at the iconic waterfront estate. The theme: 'Into the Garden.' They wore everything from purple corduroy pants and platform sneakers to baby blue ball gowns that matched the evening sky above Biscayne Bay. Many had never seen Vizcaya before. The estate was built in the early 20th century by James Deering. Paul Chalfin, a queer artist, helped build the villa. Chalfin lived with his male partner on a houseboat docked at the property. For Artemis Cruz, 17, who just graduated from José Martí MAST, the night was more than a party. 'I'm pretty excited because it's kind of history,' he said. 'This is the first time I had a big idea and it came to fruition,' said the student, who was one of the students who came up with the idea for the prom. Cruz said he had once gone to a queer prom at a library. 'It was 'eh,'' he said. He skipped his school's prom because he didn't feel comfortable in that environment. Cruz was not the only one who was excited to have prom at such an iconic location. 'I wasn't ready for this much amazement,' said Nicole De Souza, 18, who arrived a bit late, not knowing how beautiful Vizcaya would be. 'It's so pretty! I love it! I wish I wore my actual dress. It's like a dream come true!' De Souza, who just graduated from Pompano Beach High School, wore a floor-length teal sequin gown. But it wasn't enough. She wished she wore the quinceañera-style ball gown she wore to her school's prom. Ludwin Arauz, 18, who just graduated from Felix Varela High School, was close to having gone to high school and never attend prom at all. 'I never cared for it… but, this place is actually insane, I've never seen anything like this.' The 'queer prom,' as students were calling it, was organized by Safe Schools South Florida, a nonprofit founded in 1991 to support gay students. Historically, the organization would provide teacher training's, work with individual schools' Gay-Straight Alliance clubs, and host an annual empowerment day — where students would get a permission slip to leave school and attend a district-wide event with games and motivational speakers. School buses provided by the district would transport them. But now, nearly all of Safe Schools' programming happens outside the school district's purview. Since the passage of Florida's Parental Rights in Education Act — or the 'Don't Say Gay' law — signed by Governor Ron DeSantis in 2022, Miami-Dade schools have largely stepped back from visible support for LGBTQ students. Even a symbolic resolution to recognize LGBTQ History Month was rejected by the school board for the past three years. The state has imposed restrictions on classroom discussions of gender and sexuality, and banned access to gender-affirming healthcare for transgender minors. Yariel Genao, a junior, had planned to arrive in style — but had a mishap. 'So I was in the car, and when I got out, I felt my sole touch the floor — oh no…' His gold heels had broken completely. He entered Vizcaya with bare feet and his shoes in hand. 'I don't know how I am going to tell her,' he said of the friend he borrowed them from. At the green screen photo booth in the plant-filled courtyard, Jessica Lam, a trans woman who 'has been a member of the community before there was a community,' was running the booth. She listed off the backdrop options: 'You can be in outer space!' she said, or, 'You can go to Paris.' The group chose the flaming background. 'Act like we're burning!' said one friend. Lam texted them the photo. As they laughed at the photo, one friend joked, 'Us going to hell after going to queer prom.' Latisha Buffenoir, 18, showed up with a group of 10 friends, all picked up in a black car provided by the event. She wore black pants, dress shoes, and a vest. Her date, Abigail Chico, wore a petticoat, corset, and lingerie top — all in the style of the Gilded Age. Her friend Evelyn Ventura wore a corset her mom got her from Spain. The music was handled by DJ Citizen Jane, an openly gay DJ who kept the dance floor full with a mix of Chappell Roan, Kendrick Lamar, and throwbacks from the 2010s. Although the music was a bit too loud for some students, who wore earphones and earplugs. 'It's loud, but yay gay people!' said Lin Sutton, a home school student who brought a small notepad and was sketching the architecture of the building as they waited for the dinner banquet portion of the event to begin. 'I'm just grateful for this to exist,' said Sutton. At the end of the event, they crowned nine students Kings, Queens and Monarchs, using a sound meter to measure which contestant received the most enthusiastic response. The 'monarch' category was created to provide a category for non-binary students. 'We are not banging our head against the door, we are going to do things without the school boards help,' said Scott Galvin, the executive director and former elected official. 'Yes, it was a heavy financial lift to go to Vizcaya, but I wanted to do it there because other queer proms are at an Elks Lodge or a library. I wanted these kids who are not being celebrated as much right now, to have a first class prom experience.' 'That is pure queer joy,' said Harold Marrero, the chief operating officer for the organization, watching the students dance after they finished their dinner. He added the event was a testament to the fact that 'we are not going to hide, go back in the closet or go underground, and we are going to enjoy the freedoms we have worked so hard to obtain.'
Yahoo
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
How children's picture books got to the Supreme Court
In one children's book, a family dog gets lost at a Pride parade. In another on intersectional feminism, a young girl talks about using a wheelchair, while her friend wears a hijab in ballet class. A child who uses multiple pronouns, like she/her and they/them, talks about their gender expression in a different story. These books, among others written and illustrated for children, are at the center of an upcoming Supreme Court case. They are being challenged by Maryland parents who say their elementary-age children are being compelled by the Montgomery County Board of Education to learn about gender and sexuality against their religious beliefs. These parents aren't challenging school curriculum or asking for books to be banned. But since they can no longer opt their kids out of reading these books, they are asking the Supreme Court to intervene. Oral arguments for the case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, take place on Tuesday. If the Supreme Court sides with the plaintiffs, experts say that it could have far-reaching effects in education — fostering a culture of pervasive censorship and eroding church-state separation in classrooms since schools cannot accommodate persistent requests to opt students out of instruction. Parents of faith would be given unilateral power to restrict reading materials, classroom discussions and school activities, purely on religious grounds. By doing so, these parents would infringe on the rights of individuals who don't share their beliefs and stigmatize students from LGBTQ+ families or other groups their religions target. The Supreme Court is considering this case as states in recent years have increasingly attempted to inject religion into education. States including Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas have introduced policies to require schools to post the Ten Commandments in classrooms, buy Bibles for all students or include religious stories in the curriculum. These efforts coincide with the White House taking aim at schools and other institutions for promoting 'gender ideology' — the point of tension in Mahmoud v. Taylor. How could this case impact the future of public education? And what are different religious groups saying? The 19th explains the nuances of this case here. A group of Maryland parents are suing on the grounds that their First Amendment right to freely exercise religion is being violated. They also contend that their parental rights are being trampled — an idea foundational to statehouse bills introduced across the country to stop schools from teaching divisive concepts. Florida's Parental Rights in Education Act, nicknamed the 'Don't Say Gay' law, is perhaps the most well-known example. That law banned the instruction of sexual orientation and gender identity from kindergarten to third grade — and later, the law was expanded through 12th grade. The parents named in the lawsuit come from different faiths — Islam, Roman Catholicism and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church — but they all share one concern: that these picture books will confuse their children about what gender and sexuality mean in their respective religions. The parents worry that reading these stories will keep their children from embracing their 'biological sex' or cause them to conflate gender identity with sex assigned at birth. The fact that the parents did not ask for the books to be banned but for their children to be opted out of instruction still constitutes censorship, according to Tasslyn Magnusson, senior advisor for the Freedom to Read program at PEN America, a nonprofit that fights to protect free expression. The Freedom to Read team documents censorship in K-12 schools through reduction or removal of access to materials. 'What these parents are doing is basically asking teachers to manage the fact that they don't want their children to encounter these books ever, and so that is a ban, because those books will not be able to be in that classroom, or we're going to be pulling kids in and out of classrooms, whether it's in this district or other districts that will see this case and respond with fear. We're going to see no more LGBTQ voices in these schools because they won't be able to manage that.' Multiple religious groups oppose the parents' lawsuit. In a friend of the court brief, Montgomery County faith leaders and parents write that these petitioners 'seek to wield the First Amendment to curtail students' exposure to ideas in the classroom.' In another, groups including the Alliance of Baptists, a Jewish Partnership for Justice and Muslims for Progressive Values argue that the Montgomery County public school curriculum does not coerce parents or their children to act contrary to their religious views, directly or indirectly. Allowing students to opt out of certain books would harm religious freedom, those faith groups say. They argue that it would undermine public schools' ability to foster tolerance, stigmatize children who are not opted out, divide students along religious lines and force schools to tailor their curricula to the religious views of some parents. For the 2022-2023 school year, the Montgomery County Board of Education introduced LGBTQ-inclusive storybooks for elementary school students in its language-arts curriculum. These books were not used in any lessons related to gender and sexuality, the board says, and students were not asked to change their views on LGBTQ+ identities by reading them. Throughout most of that year, parents were able to opt their children out of reading these books, which were available for individual reading and classroom read-alouds. But the lawsuit rests on a decision made in March 2023. In response to growing outcry from parents, the board mandated that in the new school year, no opt-outs from instruction using the storybooks would be granted 'for any reason.' Excusing more and more students when the books were read in class led to absenteeism concerns and was becoming unfeasible on a practical level. What's more, the board worried about stigmatizing students who saw themselves in the LGBTQ-inclusive books. In response, parents sued. A district court denied them a preliminary injunction, saying that they failed to demonstrate a clear burden to their religious freedom. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed that decision. Now, the Supreme Court has agreed to step in. These Maryland parents are represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a conservative legal group known for winning the 2014 case that allowed Hobby Lobby to deny full contraceptive coverage to its female employees. As part of this legal fight, Becket has invoked a phrase often repeated by the Trump White House as it attempts to curtail rights for transgender Americans: 'gender ideology.' 'Cramming down controversial gender ideology on 3-year-olds without their parents' permission is an affront to our nation's traditions, parental rights and basic human decency,' Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said in January. 'The Court must make clear: parents, not the state, should be the ones deciding how and when to introduce their children to sensitive issues about gender and sexuality.' That same outcry has been a foundational part of state efforts to challenge schools over curricula or books that deal with LGBTQ+ topics, as well as Republican-led attempts to restrict the teaching of critical race theory and Black history. PEN America has documented almost 16,000 instances of book bans since 2021. The censorship followed an executive order Trump issued in September 2020 'to combat offensive and anti-American race and sex stereotyping and scapegoating' and the teaching of 'divisive concepts' related to racism and sexism in the federal workforce. The order saw states across the country introduce legislation using similar language to censor books and lessons about race or sex in schools. According to Eileen Hershenov, PEN America's chief legal officer and deputy CEO, 30 percent of recent bans have targeted books with LGBTQ+ themes or characters. While bans have come through parent outcry or decisions made at varying levels of government, 'increasingly we see one area by which books are being challenged, and that is free exercise of religion. Basically it's the same books, and it all comes down to disfavored ideas and viewpoints, but it's a potentially potent argument to say, 'Wait a minute, there's a constitutional right at issue.'' The First Amendment's free exercise clause grants the right to religious freedom, but Hershenov said the public can't argue that something constitutes a First Amendment burden simply because they disagree with it on religious grounds. Kelly Parry-Johnson, senior staff attorney for the nonprofit Advocates for Trans Equality (A4TE), said that, on a societal level, this case represents the belief that religion and LGBTQIA+ inclusion are at odds with one another. But from her organization's perspective, this isn't true. A4TE filed an amicus brief for this case on behalf of LGBTQ+ Muslims, who say that their faith does not have a monolithic stance on gender and sexuality. 'Too often, trans and queer Muslims and other members of religious minorities are really left out of these discussions of religious liberty,' she said. 'For our clients, acceptance of gender and sexual diversity and a commitment to justice for every single person, including LGBTQI+ people, are core religious beliefs and practices.' Attorneys and experts worry that a Supreme Court ruling siding with the Maryland parents in this case could lead to a 'snowball effect' that would weaken the country's ability to operate its public education system. 'If the opt-out is mandated, it's going to effectively mean that the books will be taken out of the curriculum for all students, and this would grant religious objectors a heckler's veto over the language arts curriculum and open the door to other such vetoes,' said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a nonpartisan advocacy organization. 'Like next, will it be vetoing teaching about evolution instead of creationism?' Magnusson said that allowing these parents to opt their children out of instruction will have a chilling effect that amounts to a gag order because classrooms can't function efficiently amid ongoing opt-out requests. To avoid getting into trouble, teachers will preemptively remove materials they suspect might lead to objections. She cites Iowa, which passed a law in 2023 prohibiting the inclusion of books with so-called sexual content in K-12 school libraries, as a case in point. After the policy, which a court recently struck down, took effect, 'Some districts pulled all the books, including art books that might have naked bodies in them,' she said. Other districts pulled nothing, leading to an uneven application of the law. 'The real story will be the loss for readers who could enjoy these picture books,' Magnusson said of Mahmoud v. Taylor's potential outcome. 'I think it's worth saying these books are not really about sexual identity,' she continued. 'They're not coming out stories. They're stories about common experiences that kids have, learning how to talk to people, if it's the 'What Are Your Words?' book. Learning that two dads can get married, but everybody loves a wedding, and learning also about crushes. 'Love, Violet' is such a beautiful little book. The fact that it's a little girl who has a crush on another girl is one aspect of the story, but it's about a universal feeling of being young and having a crush on a classmate.' A win for the plaintiffs in this case, Laser said, would also conflict with the First Amendment's free exercise clause, a point Americans United emphasized in its 'friend of the court' brief. 'Religious freedom does not apply to government actions that are secular and merely offend religious beliefs,' Laser said, citing 1986's Bowen v. Roy. 'That is part of living in a pluralistic democracy. Public schools play a vital role in fostering acceptance and preparing students for a life in a diverse society. So allowing opt outs would undermine that acceptance and stigmatize students who remain in class. It basically takes what some, and not all, religious parents believe in and imposes that on all other families from different belief systems and backgrounds, and that's not OK.' In fact, Laser said, that is a religious shaping of public education that violates church-state separation. After oral arguments conclude on Tuesday, the justices will meet to decide the case and write the opinion of the court — typically accompanied by a dissenting opinion. The Supreme Court is expected to issue that ruling in June. Given how the court, which has had a 6-3 conservative majority since 2020, has decided other cases involving religion, Laser is not hopeful that the school district will emerge the victor in Mahmoud v. Taylor. 'The [Justice John] Roberts court has ruled on the side of the religious plaintiffs over 85 percent of the time, so the odds are with the religious plaintiffs here, even though I'd like to point out that we have worked with a diverse coalition of Christian, Jewish and non-Abrahamic faiths who oppose the opt out,' Laser said. 'So I don't want to concede that the plaintiffs in this case are on the side of 'religion.' But that said, because they are before the court representing a request for a religious right of refusal, we can look to the Roberts court record of ruling repeatedly, and in most cases, in support of the religious plaintiff.' Although the lead plaintiff in this case is a practicing Muslim, Laser said that a win for the parents in this case will largely benefit Christians, specifically White Christian nationalists. 'This creates a scenario that advances a political agenda that entrenches the traditional power structures into our public schools,' she said. 'It's part of a larger effort by religious extremists to indoctrinate a new generation of Americans in their philosophy, and their philosophy is un-American because it supports the idea that America was intended for White Christians, and advances the conservative agenda of keeping power with White Christian straight, cisgender men in our society.' The post How children's picture books got to the Supreme Court appeared first on The 19th. News that represents you, in your inbox every weekday. Subscribe to our free, daily newsletter.
Yahoo
10-04-2025
- Yahoo
Florida teacher's contract not renewed after using student's preferred name
MELBOURNE, Fla. (WFLA) — A central Florida school teacher won't be returning to the classroom next year after she was accused of using a student's preferred name instead of their legal name. As part of the 2022 Parental Rights in Education Act (referred to by critics as the 'Don't Say Gay' law), teachers who use a student's preferred pronouns or name – even just a nickname – without parental permission could lose their jobs and even their teaching certifications. 'Welcome to Florida': Sheriff confronts woman accused of stealing $52K in Facebook Marketplace scheme In a statement obtained by NBC affiliate WESH, Brevard Public Schools (BPS) said the student's parent reached out to them about the situation. 'This directly violates state law and the district's standardized process for written parental consent,' the BPS statement read. 'BPS supports parents' rights to be the primary decision-makers in their children's lives, and Florida law affirms their right to be informed.' BPS officials said the district conducted an investigation which, since the teacher reportedly admitted to using the student's preferred name, resulted in a letter of reprimand. The district will not be renewing her contract this summer because the state is reviewing her teaching certification. 'Since the state will be reviewing her teaching certificate based on these actions, the district decided not to renew the annual contract until the issue is resolved with the state,' BPS said. 'At BPS our focus is on education — teachers are here to teach and support students academically. Our job is to work in partnership with parents and guardians to ensure student success.' A woman, who identified herself as the teacher's colleague and the parent of a Brevard student, told the school board she found the decision to not renew the teacher's contract deeply concerning. 'There was no harm, no threat to safety, no malicious intent,' she said. 'Just a teacher trying to connect with a student, and for that, her contract was not renewed despite her strong dedication and years of service. I ask you, how can we justify this?' WESH reported that her comments were met with applause from the audience. Rep. Randy Fine, who sponsored the bill as a state representative, said the school district is simply following the law. 'I don't have the details,' Fine told WESH. 'But if a teacher was referring to a student by a name different than what the parents desire and it rose to the level that the parent complained about it, then that teacher is breaking the law. And we do not want lawbreakers teaching our children.' WESH reached out to the teachers' union, which declined to comment, and the accused educator, who did not respond to their inquiries. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
27-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Florida 6th District election: President Trump will join Randy Fine during 'tele-rally'
If Tuesday's special election for Florida's 6th District seat in the U.S. House is a referendum on Donald Trump, the president will not let the final days pass without involving himself. Republican Randy Fine — who's been endorsed by Trump to fill the seat vacated by Michael Waltz when he became national security advisor on Jan. 20 — has announced the president will join him for a "tele-rally" at 6:30 p.m. Thursday. Those interested can call in at 833-380-0653, according to a text message from Fine. Fine and his Democratic opponent Josh Weil are scrambling for votes in what promises to be a closer contest for Congress than previous races in the 6th. Weil has raised $10 million and has hundreds of canvassers on the ground knocking on doors, while the two have traded insults in ads airing on TV spots and elsewhere. Weil announced he would be participating in a town hall and phone bank with Stetson University Democrats on the DeLand campus Thursday night. That event starts at 6 p.m. in the Lynn Business Center, 345 N. Woodland Blvd. Also, the Human Rights Campaign endorsed Weil Wednesday and has "launched an effort to mobilize the district's more than 100,000 equality voters (voters who prioritize issues of LGBTQ+ equality)," according to Brandon Wolf, the organization's press secretary. HRC will send those "equality voters" emails and text messages, while also launching paid digital ads in the district. Wolf attacked Fine's record on equality issues. Fine, now a state senator, wrote a bill removing access to medical care for transgender youth, sought to restrict drag shows and led legislative efforts to retaliate against Disney after the company challenged the Parental Rights in Education Act, referred to by critics as the "don't say gay" law, Wolf said. Meanwhile, Fine has gotten help from other corners of the right-wing mediasphere. Donald Trump Jr., posted a video urging voters to back Fine. 'Democrats are pouring millions into this race trying to take Congress away from the Republicans, so we need to fight for the America First agenda. They want to open our borders, raise your taxes, everything Florida stands against." Fine appeared on the conservative Mark Levin's radio show where the host suggested Republicans are sleeping on the race. "America, you gotta view this as our seat and our battle," Levin said. " ... No. 1, if you live there and you don't vote, and this kook (Weil) wins ... that's on you and you're going to punish the nation and President Trump." This article originally appeared on The Daytona Beach News-Journal: President Trump to urge support for Florida 6th candidate Randy Fine
Yahoo
27-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Gay Penguins Face Florida's Classroom Speech Regulations
One Florida school district is facing a legal battle over its decision to ban a book about gay penguins. In 2022, the state passed the Parental Rights in Education Act, which banned classroom discussions on sexual orientation or gender identity "in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students." While the law initially applied only to kindergarten through third-grade classrooms, the Florida Board of Education later expanded the law to all grades. Several Florida school districts began removing books from their collections that could possibly violate the new law—including And Tango Makes Three, a picture book depicting two male penguins who raise a chick together. In 2023, the authors of the book filed a lawsuit against one school district that removed the book, arguing that "the Ban's vagueness, in combination with its harsh penalties, make it more likely to be applied expansively—such as to public school libraries—at the expense of the authors' free speech rights and the students' right to receive information." The state disagrees. In a November court filing, lawyers for the school district argued that authors don't have a constitutional right to demand their books be made available at school libraries. Instead, the school board has "the First Amendment right to choose what message is conveyed through its curation of the library collection," adding that "when the Board selects books to be made available in its school libraries, it is the government speaking, not the books' authors." So who's right? "The removal of And Tango Makes Three is constitutionally suspect because it appears to be driven by school authorities' disagreement with a particular viewpoint or perspective," says Aaron Terr, the director of public advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a free speech group. "And when school authorities remove books from libraries out of hostility to a viewpoint or ideology, that raises serious First Amendment issues." Terr notes that in 1982, "a plurality of the Supreme Court held that public schools have discretion to determine the content of their libraries. But they can't exercise that discretion in a narrowly partisan or political manner." This isn't the only time Florida has been sued over a school district's attempt to ban the gay penguin story. In September, a group of major publishers launched another lawsuit, this time targeting another Florida law that bans any school library book that "describes sexual conduct." "The argument that library books are government speech really defies logic and is, I think, just an excuse for censorship," Terr explains. "Libraries contain books presenting a wide range of ideas and perspectives, many of which clash with each other. So if they're all speech of the government, then the government is babbling incoherently." The post Gay Penguins Face Florida's Classroom Speech Regulations appeared first on
