Free Exercise Clause Rights to Opt Children Out of Public School Lesson That "Substantially Interfer[e]" with Their Children's "Religious Development"

[1.] The Supreme Court has been debating the meaning of the Free Exercise Clause for over 60 years. One view has been that the Clause generally gives religious objectors a presumptive right to be exempted from generally applicable laws, such as from bans on using peyote, requirements that one provide one's child's social security number to get various welfare benefits, requirements to provide certain health insurance to one's employees, and anything else that might conflict with one's religious beliefs.

This right was just a presumption, which the government could rebut if it has a strong enough reason. And indeed the presumption was often found to have been rebutted, in cases involving draft laws, tax laws, antidiscrimination laws, child labor laws, and more. But the presumption, though not very strong, was broad: It applied to a wide range of religious practices. Historically, that view had been associated mostly with the liberals on the Court, such as Justices Brennan and Marshall. The leading precedent here was Sherbert v. Verner (1963), written by Justice Brennan.

The opposite view has been that the Clause only forbids discrimination targeting religious believers or practices (such as laws that ban religious animal sacrifice but allow virtually identical secular killing of animals, or laws that exclude religious schools from various benefit programs that are offered to secular private schools). Historically, that view had been associated mostly with the conservatives on the Court, such as Justice Scalia and Chief Justice Rehnquist. The leading precedent here was Employment Division v. Smith (1990), written by Justice Scalia.

Curiously, the ideological polarity on this matter has flipped in recent years, with the Court's conservatives generally endorsing the traditional Brennan/Marshall view, and the liberals generally endorsing the Scalia/Rehnquist view. It looked, from cases such as Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (2021), like there were at least five votes on today's Court to bring back the broad-exemption-rights view.

But in today's Mahmoud v. Taylor, the conservative majority took a different approach: Rather than discussing government actions that interfere with religiously motivated behavior generally, it focused on a particular kind of government action—educational rules that substantially interfere with parents' ability to "direct the religious upbringing of their" children. And while this is just a narrowly defined Free Exercise Clause right (focused just on interference with religious upbringing), the protection appears to be quite strong.

In this respect, the right recognized here is structurally similar to another narrowly defined Free Exercise Clause right, seen in cases such as Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC (2012) and Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru (2020)—there, a right of religious institutions to choose their religious leaders and religious teachers, free of antidiscrimination rules. That too was a narrow right, focused on one particularly important facet of religious life; but it was a strongly protected right, within this narrow scope.

[2.] Mahmoud involved the Montgomery County (Maryland) Board of Education's decision to "introduce[] a variety of 'LGBTQ+-inclusive' storybooks into the elementary school curriculum," with no possibility of parental opt-out. According to the evidence cited by the majority, "These books—and associated educational instructions provided to teachers—are designed to 'disrupt' children's thinking about sexuality and gender," and to inculcate particular beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity:

As one email sent by MCPS principals reflects, the Board selected the books according to a "Critical Selection Repertoire" that required selectors to review potential texts and ask questions such as: "Is heteronormativity reinforced or disrupted?"; "Is cisnormativity reinforced or disrupted?"; and "Are power hierarchies that uphold the dominant culture reinforced or disrupted?" …

A few short descriptions will serve to illustrate the general tenor of the storybooks. Intersection Allies tells the stories of several children from different backgrounds, including Kate, who is apparently a transgender child. One page shows Kate in a sex-neutral or sex-ambiguous bathroom, and Kate proclaims: "My friends defend my choices and place. A bathroom, like all rooms, should be a safe space."  Intersection Allies includes a "Page-By-Page Book Discussion Guide" that asserts: "When we are born, our gender is often decided for us based on our sex …. But at any point in our lives, we can choose to identify with one gender, multiple genders, or neither gender." The discussion guide explains that "Kate prefers the pronouns they/their/them" and asks "What pronouns fit you best?" (boldface in original). [Several other examples omitted. -EV]

Several parents challenged the refusal to provide an opt-out, because they viewed those positions as contrary to the religious beliefs that they were trying to teach their children. To focus on the lead plaintiffs,

Mahmoud and Barakat are Muslims who believe "that mankind has been divinely created as male and female" and "that 'gender' cannot be unwoven from biological 'sex'—to the extent the two are even distinct—without rejecting the dignity and direction God bestowed on humanity from the start." Mahmoud and Barakat believe that it would be "immoral" to expose their "young, impressionable, elementary-aged son" to a curriculum that "undermine[s] Islamic teaching."  And, in their view, "[t]he storybooks at issue in this lawsuit … directly undermine [their] efforts to raise" their son in the Islamic faith "because they encourage young children to question their sexuality and gender … and to dismiss parental and religious guidance on these issues."

[3.] The Court identified parents' right to direct their children's religious upbringing, relying mostly on Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972):

Under our precedents, the government is generally free to place incidental burdens on religious exercise so long as it does so pursuant to a neutral policy that is generally applicable. Employment Division v. Smith…. [But] in Smith, we recognized … that the general rule did not apply in Wisconsin v. Yoder because of the special character of the burden in that case…

Yoder concerned a Wisconsin law that required parents to send their children to public or private school until the age of 16. Respondents … were members of Wisconsin's Amish community who refused to send their children to public school after the completion of the eighth grade. In their view, the values taught in high school were "in marked variance with Amish values and the Amish way of life," and would result in an "impermissible exposure of their children to a 'worldly' influence in conflict with their beliefs."

In response, this Court observed that formal high school education would "plac[e] Amish children in an environment hostile to Amish beliefs … with pressure to conform to the styles, manners, and ways of the peer group" and that it would "tak[e] them away from their community, physically and emotionally, during the crucial and formative adolescent period of life." "In short," the Court concluded, "high school attendance … interposes a serious barrier to the integration of the Amish child into the Amish religious community."

In Yoder, … there was no suggestion that the compulsory-attendance law would compel Amish children to make an affirmation that was contrary to their parents' or their own religious beliefs. Nor was there a suggestion that Amish children would be compelled to commit some specific practice forbidden by their religion. Rather, the threat to religious exercise was premised on the fact that high school education would "expos[e] Amish children to worldly influences in terms of attitudes, goals, and values contrary to [their] beliefs" and would "substantially interfer[e] with the religious development of the Amish child."

That interference, the Court held, violated the parents' free exercise rights. The compulsory-education law "carrie[d] with it precisely the kind of objective danger to the free exercise of religion that the First Amendment was designed to prevent" because it placed Amish children into "an environment hostile to Amish beliefs," where they would face "pressure to conform" to contrary viewpoints and lifestyles.

As our decision in Yoder reflects, the question whether a law "substantially interfer[es] with the religious development" of a child will always be fact-intensive.  It will depend on the specific religious beliefs and practices asserted, as well as the specific nature of the educational requirement or curricular feature at issue.

Educational requirements targeted toward very young children, for example, may be analyzed differently from educational requirements for high school students. A court must also consider the specific context in which the instruction or materials at issue are presented. Are they presented in a neutral manner, or are they presented in a manner that is "hostile" to religious viewpoints and designed to impose upon students a "pressure to conform"?

And the majority extended this principle beyond just a right to be excused from compulsory education (as in Yoder) to a right to potentially opt out from particular topics within a public school:

Due to financial and other constraints, … many parents "have no choice but to send their children to a public school." As a result, the right of parents "to direct the religious upbringing of their" children would be an empty promise if it did not follow those children into the public school classroom.

{[W]hen the government chooses to provide public benefits, it may not "condition the availability of [those] benefits upon a recipient's willingness to surrender his religiously impelled status." … Public education is a public benefit, and the government cannot "condition" its "availability" on parents' willingness to accept a burden on their religious exercise.} …

[4.] The majority concluded that the school's mandatory curriculum "substantially interferes with the religious development of [the challengers'] children and imposes the kind of burden on religious exercise that Yoder found unacceptable":

Like many books targeted at young children, the books are unmistakably normative [in support of certain views about same-sex marriage and about gender identity]…. These books carry with them "a very real threat of undermining" the religious beliefs that the parents wish to instill in their children…. That "objective danger" is only exacerbated by the fact that the books will be presented to young children by authority figures in elementary school classrooms. As representatives of the Board have admitted, "there is an expectation that teachers use the LGBTQ-Inclusive Books as part of instruction," and "there will be discussion that ensues."

The Board has left little mystery as to what that discussion might look like. The Board provided teachers with suggested responses to student questions related to the books, and the responses make it clear that instruction related to the storybooks will "substantially interfer[e]" with the parents' ability to direct the "religious development" of their children. In response to a child who states that two men "can't get married," teachers are encouraged to respond "[t]wo men who love each other can decide they want to get married …. There are so many different kinds of families and ways to be a family." If a child says "[h]e can't be a boy if he was born a girl," the teacher is urged to respond "that comment is hurtful."  If a child asks "What's transgender?", it is suggested that the teacher answer: "When we're born, people make a guess about our gender …. Sometimes they're right and sometimes they're wrong." …

{[We thus] cannot accept the Board's characterization of the "LGBTQ+-inclusive" instruction as mere "exposure to objectionable ideas" or as lessons in "mutual respect." … We similarly disagree with the dissent's deliberately blinkered view that these storybooks and related instruction merely "expos[e] students to the 'message' that LGBTQ people exist" and teach them to treat others with kindness.} …

[The dissent] suggests that the parents in this case have no legitimate cause for concern because enforcement of the Board's policy would not prevent them from "teach[ing] their religious beliefs and practices to their children at home." … According to the dissent, parents who send their children to public school must endure any instruction that falls short of direct compulsion or coercion and must try to counteract that teaching at home. The Free Exercise Clause is not so feeble….

[5.] Finally, the majority provided strong protection for this religious exemption right, by treating it as quite difficult for the government to overcome:

To survive strict scrutiny [applicable under this facet of the Free Exercise Clause], a government must demonstrate that its policy "advances 'interests of the highest order' and is narrowly tailored to achieve those interests." In its filings before us, the Board asserts that its curriculum and no-opt-out policy serve its compelling interest in "maintaining a school environment that is safe and conducive to learning for all students….

We do not doubt that, as a general matter, schools have a "compelling interest in having an undisrupted school session conducive to the students' learning." But the Board's conduct undermines its assertion that its no-opt-out policy is necessary to serve that interest…. [T]he Board continues to permit opt outs in a variety of other circumstances, including for "noncurricular" activities and the "Family Life and Human Sexuality" unit of instruction, for which opt outs are required under Maryland law. And the Board goes to great lengths to provide independent, parallel programming for many other students, such as those who qualify as emergent multilingual learners (EMLs) [about 1/4 of Montgomery county students] or who qualify for an individualized educational program [about of 1/8 of students]. This robust "system of exceptions" undermines the Board's contention that the provision of opt outs to religious parents would be infeasible or unworkable….

Nor can the Board's policies be justified by its asserted interest in protecting students from "social stigma and isolation." … [T]he Board cannot purport to rescue one group of students from stigma and isolation by stigmatizing and isolating another. A classroom environment that is welcoming to all students is something to be commended, but such an environment cannot be achieved through hostility toward the religious beliefs of students and their parents….

Several States across the country permit broad opt outs from discrete aspects of the public school curriculum without widespread consequences. And prior to the introduction of the "LGBTQ+-inclusive" storybooks, the Board's own "Guidelines for Respecting Religious Diversity" gave parents a broad right to have their children excused from specific aspects of the school curriculum. These facts belie any suggestion that the provision of parental opt outs in circumstances like these "will impose impossible administrative burdens on schools." …

I hope to have more about this case soon. (Among other things, Prof. Justin Driver and I filed an amicus brief urging the opposite result from the one the majority adopted, and I'll want to say a bit more about that.) But for now, I just wanted to quickly explain what the Court held and why.

Eric Baxter (Becket Fund) argued on behalf of the challengers, and Sarah M. Harris (U.S. Solicitor General's office) argued in support of the challengers on behalf of the federal government.

Comments

[John F. Carr]

I feel like free exercise law is inconsistent because there is no general right to challenge crazy government policies. A claim has to assert an enumerated right. When judges think the government has gone too far they hammer a square peg into a round hole.

"emergent multilingual learners (EMLs)"

I missed a turn of the euphemism treadmill. When I was young we had ESL. Now the term in my area is ELL. Maryland is ahead of us.

[Malika the Maiz]

The ELL is English Language Learners I’m guessing. I wonder what percent of such students are not Spanish to English Learners?

[Supremacy Claus]

As far as nature is concerned, the sexual deviates are more impaired than a person in a wheelchair with intellectual disability, who wants to have sex. The purpose of life is reproduction. No matter their achievements, the deviates are 100% impaired, according to nature.

This educational program is to normalize highly disabling disorders, in a propaganada campaign. It is to make the deviates falsely feel better. The other aim is to attack the family, by normalizing non-reprodutive intimate relationships. These deviate intimate relationships have killed tens of millions of people by horrible diseases for thousands of years.

Early elementary kids don't know much. They trust adults, and will believe anything, like Santa Claus. They are easy prey to these deviation propagandists. Children also imitate. So these lessons will spread a contagion of sexual deviation. The number of trans kids has exploded after these deviate propraganda campaigns.

Volokh and Driver apparently supported the deviates and their propagandists in his amicus brief. They argue that the Free Exercise Clause does not require student-specific opt-outs from public school curricula, even when parents object on religious grounds. The brief emphasizes that the Court’s existing precedents already strike a careful balance between religious freedom and the government’s interest in providing a uniform, inclusive education. Allowing broad opt-outs could lead to an unworkable patchwork of exemptions. It could undermine democratic decision-making in public education. It risks turning curriculum design into a battleground for ideological disputes. These are ridiculous compared to the great damage done by this deviate indoctrination. They also take education time from teaching reading, writing and arithmetic.

This lawyer denier is a danger to our kids.

[Malika the Maiz]

Not what I asked about Bonkers Behar.

[Supremacy Claus]

I just used your answer to place my comment high in the order. You stink, I do not reply to you.

[Malika the Maiz]

He said, replying! What a goof.

[Rossami]

And that admission that you abuse the commenting process puts you over the top and into the mute list. Bu-bye.

[Supremacy Claus]

I have no control over the stupidity of comment branching at Reason.

[Randal]

At least this way the bigots have to identify themselves. Also: the teachers can say anything about those kids they want to while they're not there. I would have Gay Story Hour every day if I worked in that district. Maybe the opt-out kids can be identified with wristbands. Rainbow wristbands.

[Supremacy Claus]

Why the hostility towards kids avoiding bullying, control, indoctrination, and conversion by sexual deviates with mental disorders? The consequence is a tripling in child mutilation. This is from insurance claims data. Multiply by 10 for the real impact of this campaign.

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-transyouth-data/

[Randal]

It's important for kids to learn at an early age that they have sociopathic parents. A little social stigma -- induced by their parents' poor decisions no less -- seems like the perfect way to teach them.

(It's also difficult to imagine a more effective way of convincing kids of the importance of gay rights than to dramatically pull them out of class whenever the subject comes up.)

[wvattorney13]

Nah. They should wear stars pinned to their shirts.

[Commenter_XY]

Which bigots?

[bye]

But the powerful have to be the bigots. To call the slaves who want to opt out from Simon Legree -- to call them the bigots marks you as a Gold Medal Olympic FOOL
What choice does a 7 year old have ??????????????

[Krayt]

"Poor is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another."

[bye]

Well we know you didn't follow the proceedings. Kagan and Sotomayor were so upset that they could not 'draw the line". They know the parents are absolutely right but like you they were worried that now (hasn't happened in 250 years, 400 if you include from the Jamestown times) that kids will be yanked out of Math or Chemistry classes.

Why are the parents responsible in the one case but not the other. Kagan doesn't have kids , that explains that. and Sotomayor is famous for not checking the data

[John F. Carr]

In Massachusetts half speak Spanish first. Portuguese comes next. About a third of ELL students are coming from other languages. I saw Haitian Creole on the list. Data from the "data dashboard" link at https://www.doe.mass.edu/ele/.

I know a boy who goes to a diverse school in Brooklyn. They have 9 widely spoken non-English languages: Arabic, Haitian Creole, Hindi(?), Urdu, French, Spanish, Korean, Russian, Chinese. I put a question mark after Hindi because it's one of the languages of the Indian subcontinent written with a continuous horizontal line and neither I nor my computer's OCR has any idea which.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

The courts have also been pounding square pegs into the free speech round hole for a long time.

In all cases, it's because the courts have long treated the 9th and 10th amendments as embarrassments. If a right is not enumerated, it's second class at best. Except abortion and gun rights, where it was more convenient to reverse them.

Economic freedom? Doesn't exist, but we need to protect topless dancers, so let's call that expressive and put it under the free speech tent.

Right to keep kids free from government indoctrination? No such thing, but if we can find a religious angle, we can torture freedom of religion into covering it.

[Sarcastr0]

Economic freedom?
What rights do you want to see that aren’t currently recognized?

I do tend to agree the 9th is treated as dead letter far too much.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

All minimum wage laws for a start. Zero excuse.

Same for overtime laws, union favoritism (you can quit to go on strike and prevent your employer from hiring a replacement?), business permits (as shown by the irregular example of kids selling lemonade).

Occupational licensing is none of the government's business and has always been implemented to restrict practitioners and raise wages. It offers less protection than private certifications would; look how hard it is to disbar incompetent lawyers, and how easy it is to disbar the politically disfavored. How many people actually look at certificates hanging on doctor's walls?

If you can't think of more example on your own, you aren't trying very hard.

[Sarcastr0]

The Lochner era was a much less free time for everyone who didn’t own a company. Life was cheap.

I can think of plenty of examples, but economic rights do not operationally provide more choices to people.
And you ignore all other aspects of freedom.

You would use rights to make society more oppressive to working people. Perverse.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

More freedom is more oppression?

I do not think you know what those words mean.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes. Turns out there are more way to be unfree than via government regulation.

De facto Jim Crow if you don’t want to look up bakers in the 2930s.

[Drewski]

Sorry, are you saying the government should have the right to prohibit contracts that protect labor strikes? Because it's not illegal to fire striking workers or bring in scabs unless you've voluntarily bargained away that right.

[TwelveInchPianist]

That’s incorrectr

[TwelveInchPianist]

Commenting system not liking links this morning.

https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/employees/right-to-strike-and-picket

[Sarcastr0]

You have the broader thesis and you are right via the margins, but I clicked through to learn about these ‘protected strikes.’

That turns out to be a pretty specific definition. https://www.nlrb.gov/strikes

[bye]

If you can find a religious angle you expose your hate via it.
Plus you make a serious primal logic error. Religous freedom is the first of all freedoms for the Founders and esp in view of people like you who would be very comfortable with Government-as-God. They knew about you.

[SRG2]

Religous freedom is the first of all freedoms

Not mentioned in either the Declaration of Independence, nor in the original Constitution. I'm sure you can find some pretend historian to claim otherwise of course.

[Krayt]

Feel free to suggest that original Constitution was intended to give men the power to step all over religion, or speech.

Indeed, fears that might happen lead to enumeration just in case.

To this day, we deal with motivated sophistry to abridge enumerated freedoms. Some Founding Fathers didn't want enumeration, not that they didn't agree on these as rights, but because they feared future politicians would assert these were the only rights.

Today's issue doesn't even fall under that concern of laxity in clarity. It's just a frontal assault on enumerated rights.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not so much that they didn't have concerns about the new constitution being outright violated. It's just that, to the extent they thought you could write into a constitution clauses to deal with that, they already had.

You've got to swear an oath to follow the Constitution to take office. You're surrounded by other officers who did the same. They just didn't anticipate a social change where people just wholesale stopped caring if they were forsworn.

But the big killer was direct election of Senators: The Constitution relies on 'opposing ambition against ambition', and that took away the last leverage states had to oppose federal usurpation.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Cases involving the Contract Clause, Takings Clause, due process when property is involved, searches and seizures of property, major questions involving economic matters (student debt, etc.), and more have dealt with economic freedom.

Economic matters also have been put under the free speech tent. Commercial speech is protected. Donating to campaigns and other things is protected. SCOTUS had a case noting rules about credit card statements, or some such, was a free speech matter.

Schools teach things. Parents aren't forced to send their children to public schools. They aren't prevented from saying what they learn there (including whatever Florida or Texas is teaching these days) is wrong. If a school 'indoctrinates' a child showing interracial people being happy, a parent can tell them to ignore it.

[bye]

Have you ever noticed how when Stupid essays something grotesque he uses "WE" ?????

And such a poor writer. That last paragraphy for example . He says no such thing and then proceeds to actually give such a thing.

This is what happens when all your views are hate views. Beware, kids.

[John F. Carr]

As I understand the decision, the school is allowed to demand that the parents claim a religious objection. "Stop grooming my children!" would not be good enough.

In some states parents can opt their children out of mandatory vaccinations, but they have to state that their objection is religious in nature. A fear that their children might die or get autism is not good enough.

[Brett Bellmore]

Indeed, the problem here isn't that the school is indoctrinating students with views some religious minorities find objectionable. The problem is that the school is indoctrinating students with views parents, religious AND secular, likely find objectionable.

And deliberately; While not mentioned in the OP, this particular content had been excluded from a pre-existing policy of letting parents know what the books being read would be.

So, prof, you're going to defend the right of schools to deliberately subvert parental rights?

Seriously, the public schools need to go away. Just abolish them.

This is just another example of what I've said before: The only reason we NEED religious liberty in the first place is that we are unfree: In a free society, religion wouldn't need special treatment, we'd all be similarly free regardless of the nature of our motives.

[Sarcastr0]

Gay marriage exists. If that interferes with your religion your religion is going to encounter lots of problems.

This will get silly before it gets smoothed out.

[Brett Bellmore]

The school was not teaching that gay marriage exists, and if you read the OP you already knew that.

[Sarcastr0]

I read the book in question online. That is the extent of what the book says.

You as I recall think school was fine when you were in it. You just think heavy regulation if not abolition in the name of freedom is needed now.

Standard MAGA age group destructiveness.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Did you read the parts quoted above? The parts providing moral justifications rather than simply saying it exists, the parts rebuking the students who dared ask why?

[Sarcastr0]

No. I’m highlighting a specific book, “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding.’

If that’s enough to trigger out out, and it seems to be, things will get very silly.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Yes to the first part: you think you can restrict the discussion to just the book and ignore the guidelines that went with it and were part of the decision.

Yes to the second part: you have always been very silly to think such transparent clothes support your arguments.

[Malika the Maiz]

Clothes?

[Stupid Government Tricks]

I don't think even you are dumb enough to believe that people are dumb enough to think you don't understand the reference.

[Joe_dallas]

Sacastro - you are misrepresenting the underlying theme of the book. Its doing considerably more than teaching the same sex marriage exists.

Its also telling that you have to misrepresent the book in order to justify the school's policy.

[Supremacy Claus]

Gay marriage is a lawyer fiction. It is a friendship. Marriage is to keep a male in the family to raise children. Any other purpose is just the nightmare without any benefit or justification. Gays are intelligent and have above average assets. Their average income is $42000 more than hets. They understand that marriage is a way for the lawyer to plunder their assets. Very few have fallen for that stupid lawyer trap, after decades of gay marriage in Europe (8% vs 50%). Any productive male that gets married today is a self defeating fool. His assets will get plundered to enrich the lawyer profession. The lawyer has killed the American family. The female is highly paid by the lawyer to destroy the family, the life of the male, and assets. Tyrants on the family court bench can never be held accountable. The local Sheriff once said on the radio, the reason for the metal detector at the court is the Family Court. People are sent around the bend by it.

[SRG2]

Marriage is to keep a male in the family to raise children. Any other purpose is just the nightmare without any benefit or justification.

So you would deny marriage to a straight couple who don't want or cany have children, obviously.

[bye]

Again, a fallacy.
Are you saying that senior citizens should not have the right to marry !!!! Amazing. And you take won't and can't to be the same Amazing.

The bad effects are all around and you are still acting like no effects at all. AMAZING 🙂

[SRG2]

And yet again you show your ignorance of the terms you use.

What I wrote were a logical deduction from your statement than I cited. If someone says that X is a nightmare without any benefit or justification it is logical to suppose that they are against X because we know how people reason, and your trying to hide behind quibbles won't cut it.

You're the one who would deny seniot citizens the right to marry because it's a "nightmare without any benefit or justification".

I have noticed that many people really really don't like it when the logical consequences of their assertions are pointed out.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Your cherry picking is shameful and dishonest.

You can be a better human if you try.

[David Nieporent]

Indeed, the problem here isn't that the school is indoctrinating students with views some religious minorities find objectionable. The problem is that the school is indoctrinating students with views parents, religious AND secular, likely find objectionable.

No, the problem is that a subset of parents are having a tantrum and want to change a policy without having to go to the trouble of winning an election.

[Krayt]

So you're fine with the side who won the election using that as justification to do whatever they want?

[David Nieporent]

So you're fine with the side who won the election using that as justification to do whatever they want?

No. There are many things I think are entirely beyond the legitimate power of government. But having a curriculum in government schools is not one of those things.

[wvattorney13]

The right to control the religious upbringing of your children depends on the results of no election. The Barnette case said that.

[David Nieporent]

The Barnette case did not in fact say that. It was not about "the right to control the religious upbringing of [] children."

[bye]

Okay, David , a fallacy even by your own standards. If everything is by election then every outcome is just one outcome. But the case wasn't about making everybody opt out --- does that even make sense ? --- It's about the fact that someone's parents have more concern for them than does everyone else -- and you won't believe this, David, that includes YOU.

[Nom de plume 888]

Trans is a religious cult that rejects biological fact. It should be excluded from the curriculum on religious establishment grounds.

[bye]

But it is religious to not want you kids to die or be autistic. Am I wrong.

[Krayt]

Mercury was removed from vaccines, stupidly, as it had nothing to do with anything, but nevermind. Autism rates continued to climb.

The vaccines-R-bad-yo! crowd, its snake oil leaders, then had to goalpost shift. It's a fascinating study in meme evolution, as memes get altered to continue spreading among host units. The original impetus of badness is forgotten, and the item takes on a background "common knowledge" something is wrong with it, severed from the claimed cause.

[David Nieporent]

Am I wrong.

Pretty much always.

[Joe_dallas]

Defense of the schools policy borders on perverted sickness.

These age kids dont have the capacity to understand.
The exhibits to the opinion showed the books had themes more advanced than the typical pg13 movie, granted they were cartoon pics, but the subtle themes was very advanced for 5-10 year olds .

you dont teach kids playing t-ball to throw out the lead runner when they dont have the arm strength to throw the ball to the closest base.
You dont teach algebra to kids that havent started learning the multiplication tables
Most parents dont take their 5 year olds to a pg movie, much less a pg13.

This case should not have needed to be decided based on religious freedom.
Absolutely nobody should believe the curriculum is appropriate for that age group.

[David Nieporent]

These age kids dont have the capacity to understand.
The exhibits to the opinion showed the books had themes more advanced than the typical pg13 movie, granted they were cartoon pics, but the subtle themes was very advanced for 5-10 year olds .

bookkeeper_joe continues his habit of referring to things he hasn't read as if he were an expert in them. The exhibits showed no advanced "themes" ("subtle" or otherwise) at all. It was literally nothing more than that "gay people exist."

[Joe_dallas]

David provides another example of a leftist intentionally misrepresenting the underylying theme of the books to hide his embracement of teaching a topic that is inappropriate for that age child.

[wvattorney13]

It has been pointed out repeatedly and even in the appendix to the opinion itself that the curriculum goes well beyond noting the fact of the existence of gay people. It portrays these relationships in a positive light which is contrary to the teachings of all major world religions for millennia.

These is not contrived ideas or people coming up with wild theories. These are mainstream religious ideas being attacked and done so on very young children over the objections of their parents.

[Joe_dallas]

Agreed - the leftist advocates including dishonest Dave intentionally distort what is actually happening

[Brett Bellmore]

Mainstream religious and secular ideas. The government explicitly began running its own schools and trying to force everybody to send their children to them for purposes of indoctrination.

But originally it was (mostly) aimed at indoctrinating children into the mainstream culture. I don't think the advocates of the 'Prussian' system realized that it might be captured by a radical minority and repurposed to attack the mainstream culture, instead.

But that's what we're seeing today, as in this case.

[bye]

Okay, but telling kids that Nazi torturers existed is the same thing. It isn't the fact , it's the timing. Sexual perverts are everywhere but that doesn't justify actually bringing them into the classroom. People with kids no exactly what I mean.

[cannpro]

Terrible decision. I fail to see how the school interfered with the parents' right to direct their children's religious upbringing. The parents are free to continue their religious upbringing however they like. What they really want is to shield their children from contrary views. Do parents have the right to shield their kids from the existence other believes? Do Christian’s parents have the right to demand others keep their Jewish, Hindu, or atheistic beliefs away from their children? Parents have no constitutional right to demand others keep their kids in an echo chamber, kept ignorant of differing viewpoints.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

It's a coercive government school. The parents have to pay for it, via taxes. If they want to send their kids to a private school or homeschool them, they still have to pay for the now-unused public school.

Coercion. Makes a difference.

[cannpro]

Everyone has to pay for public school. It has nothing to do with religious liberty.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, yeah: It's as much secular oppression as it is religious.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett still very oppressed.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Sarcastr0 still very silly in such transparent clothes.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

No shit sherlock. Coercion is coercion.

Funding schools for all kids is easily separated from running schools. Yet public school fanatics recoil in horror from the idea of vouchers, showing that their concern is universal indoctrination, not education. The US had high literacy rates before public schools, and most of the arguments in favor of government schools were explicitly to indoctrinate children in the American way. Remember the laws requiring teaching students in English only?

Indoctrination is at the heart of public school fanatics. Not education.

[Malika the Maiz]

In 1870 20% of Americans 14 and over were illiterate, 79% of blacks were, By 1979 that fell to .6 and less than two percent, respectively.

https://nces.ed.gov/naal/lit_history.asp

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Nice, and what is it now? I wouldn't be surprised if their definition of literacy is limited to knowing the alphabet song.

If you actually believe that .6%, you're a bigger fool than Sarcastr0.

[Malika the Maiz]

Do you have any evidence of your initial claim to offer?

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Read the news? Do you? Remedial classes in college? High school graduates who are functionally illiterate?

You claimed above to not understand the transparent clothes joke. What kind of piss poor education did you get?

[Joe_dallas]

yes big improvement since the 1800s. However very noticable decline since the 1960's.

Harvard ( or is it yale) that has HS remedial courses

[David Nieporent]

Harvard ( or is it yale) that has HS remedial courses

It does not. As always, some right winger social media account told a lie, and stupid people believed it: Harvard recently introduced what one might call a "remedial" calculus class. Not what anyone would call "remedial math" in any other context.

[Joe_dallas]

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/9/3/new-math-intro-course/

Non - important David gets caught lying again.
"The Harvard Math Department will pilot a new introductory course aimed at rectifying a lack of foundational algebra skills among students, according to Harvard’s Director of Introductory Math Brendan A. Kelly."

Thats a pretty good description of remedial math

[Bruce Hayden]

The funny thing there is that non-DEI admits very often come in with AP Calculus credits. And very often AP Physics. In my kid’s private HS, Algebra was for middle school.

[Sarcastr0]

“ He said the Covid-19 pandemic led to gaps in students’ math skills and learning abilities, prompting the need for a new introductory course.”

Not the best data point to establish a broader trend.

[Brett Bellmore]

Someone says an earthquake destroyed a lot of buildings. Sarcastr0: "Who cares, it's not part of a larger trend."

[Sarcastr0]

Here's Joe's initial post:
"big improvement since the 1800s. However very noticeable decline since the 1960's.
Harvard ( or is it yale) that has HS remedial courses."

That's about trends.

The impact of Covid is a completely different topic.

[Joe_dallas]

Sacastro - you and DN need to develop better skills at recognizing the credibility of the facts alleged in the article.

A - algebra I is generally taught in the 8th or 9th grade, algebra II is generally taught in the 10th or 11th grade. There should not be a 2-3 year gap for algebra 1 or algebra 2 as a freshman
B - DN was very insistant during the 2020/2021/2022 time that the remote/zoom learning didnt harm the kids learning. both of you should do a better job keeping your stories straight.
C - as I noted, the downward trend predated covid.

[David Nieporent]

B - DN was very insistant during the 2020/2021/2022 time that the remote/zoom learning didnt harm the kids learning. both of you should do a better job keeping your stories straight.

This is, as usual, a lie from bookkeeper_joe, which is why he has never provided a single time I said this, let alone the multiple times that "insistant [sic]" would require.

Also, people going to Harvard are not generally taking Algebra II in 11th grade.

[Joe_dallas]

Dishonest DN gets caught with a flat out lie

DN was quite adament that the remote learning did not affect learning during the pandemic.

as demonstrated by DN actual honesty was never a virtue of DN
.

[Don Nico]

David,
I taught at Yale. I really gave writing assignments and I ca say that first have 50% of Yale undergrads wrote very poorly. They needed the course that at UC Berkeley was called Bonehead English

[David Nieporent]

The US had high literacy rates before public schools,

No, it didn't.

[bye]

because everyone has to pay it has EVERYTHING to do with religious liberty. Just look at the founding organic document for public education

the reference to education in Article 3 of the the Northwest Ordinance:

Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.

SO YOU COULD NOT --- LITERALLY -BE MORE WRONG 🙂

[Cheerio]

"Do Christian’s parents have the right to demand others keep their Jewish, Hindu, or atheistic beliefs away from their children?"

No, so long as the school isn't conveying that any of those beliefs/lifestyles are GOOD or BAD. (The books in question here took a position on that aspect...)

[bye]

But that is the opposite of what the actual parents were saying. They want children taught their religion first. Do you teach children in grammar school French and German while they are learing English ???
You are contradicting the parents --- and that obviously since I don't think you are ignorant enough to say that Christian parents have no idea what Judaism is, for example. LUDICROUS

[Stupid Government Tricks]

The parents and their lawyers had to take that line to get the courts to recognize their rights. This is the judiciary we have, like it or not.

[Cheerio]

I just said that I would be fine with children learning about all sorts of other beliefs...so long as a public school is not taking a position on what is true/good/right.

[Bruce Hayden]

And that was the problem - they were being forced to learn that behaviors that were considered evil and sinful by their religion, were instead normal and to be applauded. They were trying to mainstream what the more fundamental sects of the Abrahamic religions believed were extremely contrary to their religious beliefs, and, here, doing it at an age when children are susceptible to this sort of programming - because that was what it was - programming that sexual, sexual orientation, and identification deviance were normal.

[David Nieporent]

People are allowed to believe whatever they want — whether based on religion or just personal whim — and to try to inculcate those beliefs in their children. They are not entitled to have other people not contradict those things, just because it might cause their children to question whether what the parents are saying is correct.

I don't care how much your religion teaches that race-mixing is bad; a school is allowed to teach your kids about Martin Luther King in a positive way. And if you don't like it, TFB; go to the KKK Academy down the street or homeschool your kid. It doesn't violate your rights for your kid to hear that.

[bye]

a stupid stupid answer. You mustn't have kids.
Any hint of "it's all the same" tells kids "Religion is NOT important"

[David Nieporent]

Do you teach children in grammar school French and German while they are learing English ???

Yes. The public schools in our district start foreign language instruction in elementary school.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

A school might have a class that discusses different types of religion. Storybooks are part of the class.

They can have pictures of Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, Jews, etc., practicing their religions. Pictures of them celebrating festivals, eating different foods, etc.

Parents who think Muslims are anti-God are upset. They think the school is providing a positive view of Islam. It's against their religion. They demand that their children not be exposed.

The books here are comparable. They also expose children to different people, lifestyles, and ideas.

[Rossami]

The books here were not particularly comparable. Nor was the school board's actions.

Note the pattern of events.
1. School board changes the curriculum.
2. School board provides notice and allows opt-outs.
3. Not just a couple but hundreds of parents call to exercise their opt-out. Given the size of the school, that is a sizeable percentage of their total enrollment.
4. Rather than recognize that such widespread disagreement might be an indication that the change was a mistake, the board doubles-down and withdraws the notice and the opt-out option.

These are school board members elected by and theoretically accountable to the community. In what way does that behavior show good judgement or foster trust?

[David Nieporent]

These are school board members elected by and theoretically accountable to the community. In what way does that behavior show good judgement or foster trust?

It doesn't. But that doesn't a constitutional claim make.

[wvattorney13]

In the case outlined, it does. It shows that the board understood the issue that the new curriculum would cause in the religious community and realized that accommodation was the best policy/may be required.

But once they realized how much dissention they caused, they chose to evince a hostility towards the religious parents instead of taking any other possible course of action.

That's a Masterpiece Cake problem.

[David Nieporent]

It isn't. In Masterpiece Cake, the govt sought to punish the baker, who could not choose not to be covered by the law. Here, nobody was being punished and the parents could send the kids to a different school to avoid the problem entirely.

[wvattorney13]

The opinion deals with this. Yes, parents could pay money to send their children to private school. One parent could stay home and homeschool the children. Yet for many parents of modest means, these are not reasonable options for their situation.

Most children are effectively forced to be in public school. If class opened with the Lord's Prayer, I don't think you would be so flippant about it and just tell the parents who don't like it to send their kids elsewhere. Let them eat (Masterpiece) Cake!

[bye]

I am a teacher, I see through this immediately

Public school teachers are more likely to send their children to private schools than the general population, with 21.5%. This is more than double the national average of 10%

[JoeFromtheBronx]

If schools in certain areas taught a class that educated people on a comprehensive lesson on the multitude of religions, many probably would like to opt out. Certain communities strongly think certain religions are wrong and unholy. They don't want their children to read books that show believers happily practicing their religion.

There is going to be a time when teaching LGBTQ+ diversity will take time for parents to adapt. The same was true once upon a time for interracial lesson plans.

(Well, some parents still have problems with lesson plans that examine race. They will want to "opt-out" of them too.)

The fact that so many don't want mere exposure underlines the value of showing people that LGBTQ people exist & that treating them with dignity and respect is important.

[wvattorney13]

Each case turns on its own facts. The idea of religious tolerance is basic to our society. Acceptance of homosexuality not too much. It is clear in your example that the school is not trying to convert anyone to Islam. They are trying to convert children to believing that homosexuality is acceptable---which is contrary to ALL major religions.

Different facts, different results.

[David Nieporent]

They are trying to convert children to believing that homosexuality is acceptable---which is contrary to ALL major religions.

I mean, no. Even if you pretend that there are no people east of about 73° longitude, you also have to pretend that western religions haven't changed their views at any time over the last 2000 years.

[bye]

But it didn't happen for almost 250 years SO IT CAN"T BE ALL THE SAME.

Children need a lifestyle that forms their life BEFORE they are exposed to others. If you have kids you know this is a bedrock absolute of children's education.

[Malika the Maiz]

Would a book about a heterosexual having a happy wedding be advocating for heterosexuality and therefore a proper one for students of parents who think heterosexuality is limiting or whatever to have their kids opt out?

How about a book about the Lovings, Bob Jones type parents get to have their kids opt out?

[John F. Carr]

How about a book about a pair of gay men who get AIDS and die? It would be widely condemned as inappropriate for elementary school children. That is not the constitutional test. The book teaches a secular lesson about disease and risky behavior. If you want to distance your children from it you need to show it's against your religion.

Set in modern times, with AIDS deaths way down from their peak in the 1990s, the book would need to explain that the couple skipped their PrEP. A double moral lesson about avoiding risky behavior and taking your medicine.

[Cheerio]

"a book about a heterosexual having a happy wedding"

If you could truly show sincere religious objection, then it is not the place of the state to correct you...

"a book about the Lovings"

It would be very sad indeed to object to something like that, but people have to get there on their own. Even good messages should not be forced.

[wvattorney13]

AFAIK, there is no sincere belief whether religious or otherwise that heterosexual marriage is a bad thing. You are striking at the air for some reason.

As far as interracial marriage, again teaching the Loving case is not advocating for a cause nor is mentioning that despite a lot of opposition at the time today few people believe that interracial marriage is immoral. Adding "and if your parents think otherwise, they are terrible people" is unnecessary to the teaching.

And further a parent would have to show that they had a genuine religious objection to that teaching and how that fit into the strict scrutiny analysis.

[Brett Bellmore]

"AFAIK, there is no sincere belief whether religious or otherwise that heterosexual marriage is a bad thing."

IIRC, there actually was such a religion at one time. The last member died years ago without leaving behind any children or converts.

[bye]

Would a book about arsonists enjoying the blaze be proper. The perversion of homosexual behavior is what is at issue and not whether lustful folks ever smile and laugh !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[wvattorney13]

Right.

Okay: Uncle Bobby can legally marry a man, a woman, or nobody as he chooses.

Not Okay: And there is nothing wrong with him marrying a man/It is evil if he marries a man.

[Sarcastr0]

Not allowed: it’s okay for this thing that exists to exist.

That’s some deep denial y’all are insisting on.

[wvattorney13]

I don't know how these semantics games are helping your side. You take each case as it comes to you. When the government is teaching something contrary to every major religion in the world, it is reasonable to make accommodations for religious parents. It is clearly not a subterfuge much like Yoder wasn't.

This is vastly different than trying to make it an edge case like teaching evolution which is a factual contention that has widespread acceptance even among religious people. I personally would let parents opt their children out of evolution class, but I believe that it is clearly distinguishable.

[Sarcastr0]

1. That's not what's being taught.
2. Gay marriage is not contrary to every religion in the world you colossal bigoted ignoramus.

You're going to keep lying about the facts while revealing your real agenda of puratnistic hatred of gay people.

[Brett Bellmore]

1. It IS what was being taught.

2. Nobody takes seriously as real religions the few sects that got rooted by the left that way.

[Sarcastr0]

The maw of hell doesn't open and swallow the two gay dudes, so I guess that means their marriage is blessed by baby Jesus?

If your faith cannot handle describing an event that happens your faith is going to have a miserable time.

Plenty of Christians think gay marriage is fine right now. I'm one of them. Jews too, even! Hell, I know some liberal Muslims too.

You betray your parochial thinking with your narrow definition.

[bye]

Then maybe you know that the evolution teachers FEAR such a thing. The famous meme

Here is one of the leading Evolution educators unintentionally showing how false she knows Evolution can appear if taught evenly

https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-in-my-opinion-using-creation-and-evolution-as-topics-for-critical-thinking-exercises-eugenie-scott-69-47-42.jpg

I am a teacher and , yes, many will reject if they see it taught dispassionately. I myself as a college teacher was once summoned into the dean's office because I had a book with one paragraph questioning an aspect of evolution and another faculty member with a Templeton Grant to teach about Evolution reported me.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Why do you think you have the right to instill your values in other people's children?

[Roger S]

Yes, that is the core of this. Public schools forcing radical ideas on children.

[bye]

If we go by the founding principle of public schools, it was expected that the religiouos parents would have the upper hand and anybody wanting to introduce perversion into the schools would have the LOWER

the reference to education in Article 3 of the the Northwest Ordinance of 1787:

Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.

[dwshelf]

"Differing viewpoints" make good sense in high school, when presented as "differing viewpoints" rather than "alternatives are anti-social".

When "differing viewpoints" are advocacy of an anti-religious theme, suggesting that religious views are anti-social, they're repugnant in 1st grade.

[bye]

NO, there is a semantic and logical fallacy there. You don't even have the concept of 'differing' until the child has the solid training in what it is that the others differ FROM

Parents are right and illustrate in their own persons what is right. A good education, knowledge of other viewpoints AFTER there is something right and true that they know and to which something else can be considered 'differing"

You learn fullly Euclidean geometry and then maybe non-Euclidean. YOU NEVER learn non-Euclidean first

[bye]

NO, it is the opposite , your fallacious reasoning will be obvious to most readers

1) You have your obvious view on your children, why should it be everyone else's ???

2) In every subject it is the case...the contrary view that 2+2=5, the US was founded in 1899, electrons all weigh 2 pounds

3) Those parents know everything you said they are shielding the kids from: They know other religions, Jewish , Catholic, Hindu --- it is impossible that you are right that they are the first in the line of their family to want this !!!! What they want is things in order...you don't have calculus before addition and subtraction, you don't have classical history before US History -- and you don't confuse kids about religion by feeding tons of undigested views before they understand their own religion !!!!!

[Rossami]

Yes, your ignorance of how people you disagree with actually think is obvious. Your 'failure to see' does not automatically make your position right.

Flip the polarity of your own comment. What right do you have to force other people's kids into your own echo chamber?

[David Nieporent]

What right do you have to force other people's kids into your own echo chamber?

Nobody forced these kids to attend that school. But once the parents chose to send their kids to that school, they had to take whatever the school offered: that the earth is round, that evolution is real, that the confederates were traitors in defense of slavery, that 2+2 is 4, that the germ theory of disease is real, that Shakespeare is worth reading. Regardless of what those parents want their kids to hear.

[Joe_dallas]

That is a complete prick comment that you know is only true at the margins - its a public school and most families cant afford to pay for private school and the kids are generally only allowed to the schools in the district in which they reside.

[David Nieporent]

Parochial schools exist. So does homeschooling.

[Joe_dallas]

David Nieporent 3 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"Parochial schools exist. So does homeschooling."

Another intentional distortion from DN - for most parents parochial schools and homeschooling are not options, at least not practical options.

[David Nieporent]

Really, you might want to look up the word "distortion" in the dictionary; it does not mean whatever you think it means. "Didn't mention some random thing that may or may not be true" is not "distorting" anything.

Those are available options. That they may not be convenient for some does not mean that they therefore have a right to their own personal curricula in public schools.

[Joe_dallas]

Deflection - In either case , you are simply being dishonest.

[David Nieporent]

Switching your non-substantive comment from "distortion" to "deflection" doesn't make your arguments any less wrong. Everyone has the option to send their kids to parochial or homeschool.

[Joe_dallas]

Back to your prick comment

For all practical purposes home schooling or sending their kids to private or parochial schools is not an option.

Call it deflection / dishonesty or whatever else - your argument is inane and prickish

[JohnSmith97]

DN showing what kind of out of touch leftist he is - not knowing that in most of the US, public school parents have no control over which school their children go to.

[David Nieporent]

Not a leftist, I do know that, and it's not responsive to what I said.

[Joe_dallas]

I am not a leftist ship has sailed

[bye]

see, again, you recur to 'make your position right" IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT. A Jewish parent, a Catholic parent, and a Muslim parent would all object to homosexual perversion but you would say "It has to be for the same reason" [ I doubt it ever is !!]

[Joe_dallas]

Cannpro that is absolute BS - its not exposing kids to contrary views, its exposing kids to what amounts to perversion for that age group.

[Supremacy Claus]

Captive gullible children forced to accept deeply disturbed mental illness as normal. They are forced to imitate it when Democrat teachers use the wrong pronouns on them. Without this decision, violence would be a moral imperative to protest our kids.

[Mike45]

The school's authority over the kids should be subservient to the parent's authority in all cases. It comes from the doctrine of "In Loco Parentis".
Parent's should have the ability to opt out of any part of the curriculum they find objectionable.
We opted out of the formal school system in the 1990's and homeschooled our kids. They have done just fine since, validating our decision.

[Sarcastr0]

Nice you have the income and free time to homeschool. Properly done, it can do great things for a kid.
It can also be abused to turn out twisted weirdos who can’t do math.

But America is a land of you do you, so you do you. Just don’t insistent your decision is universally superior and everyone else must make the same decision.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

No one said anything like that. When you invent claims like you routinely do, do you ever feel a sense of shame?

If not, you should.

[Don Nico]

Of course not; he is shameless about his usually ploy.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Vouchers. The education industry hates them, because they get around government indoctrination. The perfect litmus test to differentiate statists from simple do-gooders.

[Malika the Maiz]

You don’t think maybe they dislike them because it’s less funding for the places they work?

[Stupid Government Tricks]

It's the same amount of overall funding, and the same number of overall students. Do government teachers have some sort of Sarcastr0 right to working at government schools?

[Malika the Maiz]

But you clearly think that they would lose some students and hence funding, yet you claim it must be imposing their will that they want not the concern over the funding which would be the more natural reason.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

What part of "overall" was too complicated a concept for your government-indoctrination reading classes?

[Sarcastr0]

Vouchers help a small income gap, and are a giveaway to anyone above it.
They are not useful to the vast majority of those not on the bubble.

So how vouchers operate in practice is stripping public schools to benefit a few people.

They are just a stealthy way to defund schools.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not like anybody here wasn't aware that you'd consider giving somebody's money back to them a "giveaway".

You actually got that precisely backwards, in that the higher income people are paying enough taxes that the voucher is just returning their money to them, while it's the law earners being given a giveaway.

[bye]

What a dumb point. Do public schools never turn out weirdos who can't do math. It was terrible 15 years ago

May 7, 2010 — Some 22% of 16- to 19-year-olds in England are functionally innumerate – meaning their maths skills are limited to little more than basic ...

Now it is almost hopeless
Just 9% of Americans 16 to 65 are proficient at math
Results of the 2013 PIAAC
https://www.wyliecomm.com/2021/11/whats-the-latest-u-s-numeracy-rate/

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't believe you're stupid enough to think that was his point.

[EllaWilson]

America is back in charge! Greatest SCOTUS ever!

[Cheerio]

The school could've avoided this whole mess with just a bit of grace and tolerance towards traditionalists. But alas, they're obsessed with branding them as bigots.

The cultural left should take a lesson from the preamble of the (bipartisan) bill Congress passed a couple years ago, codifying Obergefell:

"Diverse beliefs about the role of gender in marriage are held by reasonable and sincere people based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises. Therefore, Congress affirms that such people and their diverse beliefs are due proper respect."

That's literally all it took to get several moderate-to-conservative republicans on board. Just a bit of mutual, reciprocal respect.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The dissent quoted a guidance if a student says that gay and lesbian activities are against their religion:

“I understand that is what you believe, but not everyone believes that. We don’t have to understand or support a person’s identity to treat them with respect and kindness. School is a place where we learn to work together regardless of our differences. In any community, we’ll always find people with beliefs different from our own and that is okay—we can still show them respect.”

Doesn't sound like they are calling people who have different views "bigots." Sounds like they provided respect.

Public schools are about a diverse group of students coming together and learning together. It involves sharing with each other the diversity present. The books here provide that.

Other books can show other types of people, including (as books usually did) more traditional type materials.

What is the path now? Any group can now opt-out from mere exposure of ideas they don't like and understand? The "cultural left" will be able to opt-out from things deemed too conservative.

The Respect for Marriage Act protects different types of marriages. Parents still can teach their children different religions. They can send their children to non-public schools or home school.

If they do send them to public school, it includes teaching about the diversity of society.

[wvattorney13]

As has been said several times in this thread, there is nothing wrong with teaching kids "about" same sex marriage or transgenderism. This case does not allow an opt out for that.

The school can even teach that both are good and wonderful. What they cannot do is force parents to have their kids listen to how good and wonderful the school believes they are if the parents object on religious grounds.

In the other threads your side advocates for a parental right to mutilate children, but you don't believe they should be able to control their religious upbringing?

[Cheerio]

"The school can even teach that both are good and wonderful. What they cannot do is force parents to have their kids listen to how good and wonderful the school believes they are if the parents object on religious grounds."

And even that is more than what's allowed in the other direction...

[JoeFromtheBronx]

What they cannot do is force parents to have their kids listen to how good and wonderful the school believes they are if the parents object on religious grounds.

The materials expose students to various types of people and cultures. It also promotes respect for others. Parents who send their children to public schools should not have the right to opt-out their children out of that. Even if schools promote respect and personal dignity of LGBTQ persons as "good and wonderful."

In the other threads your side advocates for a parental right to mutilate children, but you don't believe they should be able to control their religious upbringing?

My side does not advocate for the right to "mutilate children" -- the specific case doesn't involve surgery. And, to the degree surgery is appropriate, which even "your side" agrees in certain cases, it is not about "mutilation."

Finally, they can control their religious upbringing. They can teach children matters of religious faith, including not sending them to public schools. If they do send them to public schools, that involves bearing with some types of exposure to things they don't like, including support of diversity and respect.

[Cheerio]

So then, what if one of the books was about a traditional Muslim/Catholic/etc. family who had *traditional* views on gender and sexuality? Would that be okay too, or would that be "condoning bigotry" or some such?

[Roger S]

But the public schools are not showing respect to the differing views. The schools are forcing the LGBTQ indoctrination on the kids.

[lucia_l]

“I understand that is what you believe, but not everyone believes that. We don’t have to understand or support a person’s identity to treat them with respect and kindness. School is a place where we learn to work together regardless of our differences. In any community, we’ll always find people with beliefs different from our own and that is okay—we can still show them respect.”

And supposed the child's response was "My religion says we should stone those people." Does the teacher get to say, "Your religion is evil?" or maybe they stick to a more bland, "I understand some people believe that, but we don't have to do it." And then some kids double done with "But my mom and dad and their religious leader agree. Those people are abominations."

While it's clear teachers aren't supposed to teach religion, kids aren't forbidden from mentioning their beliefs.

"What is the path now? Any group can now opt-out from mere exposure of ideas they don't like and understand? The "cultural left" will be able to opt-out from things deemed too conservative."

If they claim a school teaching violates their religious belief, let them opt out. I don't think we are going to run across a lot of problems. And if schools are trying to violate left wing religious beliefs, schools should stop doing that. Allowing anyone to opt out is a good way to minimize this sort of obnoxious behavior.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Children's parents have a variety of religious faiths that can oppose any number of things taught in public schools, down to basic things like treating everyone nicely.

How "easy" is it to let everyone choose when to opt out? Public school is about exposure to things, including things you disagree with. It violates the basic concept of public schools to allow willy-nilly opt-outs, including of basic things like treating others equally and experiencing a diverse classroom that brings together all types of people.

[bye]

To believe homosexual lust and promiscuity is not good does not make you a traditionalist !! It just means you're human

[Bunny495]

The elephant in the room so many are terrified to talk about is so many taxpayers don't think they are getting their monies worth from public schools. Performance at grade level is shockingly bad. In some big cities high school graduates are functionally illiterate. To many both primary and secondary schools are little more than government run day care centers.

One of my hobbies is astronomy and I have invested in what is called a HA telescope which only admits light in the Hydrogen Alpha wavelength (basically what you see is those all red images of the sun's surface with CMEs and proms). My local astronomical society does outreach to local schools and I was in a ninth grade class talking to students after they viewed the sun through my camera attached to the telescope. Lets keep in mind this was an advanced general science class. I was discussing the 1859 Carrington Event and mentioned Carrington's side gig was making bets at Lloyds of London based on how sunspots and weather affected agricultural production. One kid in the front row perked up and started quickly taking notes, on a sadder note some girls in the back row were resting their heads on the arms on the desk seemingly nodding off.

So riddle me this Batman, how many students actually understand much more than there are boys and girls and fail to grasp the ideas that this is not the whole story.

[wvattorney13]

Right. In addition to failing to teach the basics to my kids they are trying to do what is in my view something that is affirmatively harmful to their moral upbringing. If they just did a bad job at teaching, I could supplement that, but I now have to do two things: 1) teach my kids, and 2) undo the indoctrination to the political left.

If they were merely only poor at teaching, perhaps I could live with that. Vouchers and other school choice measures will make cases like these unnecessary as we watch public schools wither on the vine.

[Malika the Maiz]

I’m interested in the overlap between people who cheer this decision and also support the recent TX and LA laws to have a specific version of the 10 Commandments posted in all K-12 school building rooms.

[wvattorney13]

The Ten Commandments have a historical component in addition to the religious one. If the teacher is telling the class not to be a Hindu and points at the 10C poster, then that would be a problem.

[lucia_l]

I cheer this decision and also think kids should be allowed to opt out of any classrooms that post the 10 Commandments on the grounds that they should be free from being indoctrinated into a religion. I suspect a fair number of people agree with me.

[bye]

I am interested in how many people don't know that
1) the 10 commandments are prominently displayed at the Supreme Court building,and
2)they were ubiquitous, universal, omnipresent in colonial and Founding era schools

But most of all , in the history of Western Civilization they were all considered NATURAL LAW, knowable by reason, and the giving by Moses was only to underscore the divine sanction.

No Israelite at Sinai said "wow, you mean you aren't supposed to steal or kill or commit adultery, WHAT A SURPRISE !!"

The Ten Commandments, or Decalogue, are considered to be a summary of natural law, which is a universal moral law that governs human behavior. each of the Ten Commandments can be deduced from natural law

St Augustine (and Cicero) knew the obviousness from the fact of how adulterers react to adultery against them (cf Bertrand Russell the great adulterer and how shattered he was when his wife did it) , how thieves respond to stealing, how murderers respond to the murder of a loved one.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Curiously, the ideological polarity on this matter has flipped in recent years, with the Court's conservatives generally endorsing the traditional Brennan/Marshall view, and the liberals generally endorsing the Scalia/Rehnquist view. It looked, from cases such as Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (2021), like there were at least five votes on today's Court to bring back the broad-exemption-rights view.

Many liberals today agree with John Paul Stevens, who joined Oregon v. Smith, especially after seeing how things have gone in the last few decades.

Also, Fulton is a telling example. There is a difference between an individual asking for an exemption and an institutional and governmental function involved there.

Likewise, many of the conservatives are asking for exemptions in cases of public accommodation and harms to third parties. See also, Brennan's concurrence in Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Amos (draws line at non-profits).

[wvattorney13]

For years the left has implicitly or sometimes explicitly stated that a belief in a positive view of same sex marriage or gender identity is NOT merely a view or belief. It is an absolute truth to be taught.

The biggest part of this decision is that it conclusively, as a matter of law, puts that demand to rest. Same sex marriage might be legal, trans surgery might be legal, but it is still within the bounds of reasoned debate, not a matter of truth, to believe in polite society that either or both of those things are wrong.

Parents do not have to accept their children being indoctrinated into left leaning thinking.

[Josh R]

I don't think as a matter of law this ruling says boo about whether anything is within the bounds of reasoned debate. It only says parents can opt out if they have a religious objection to anything taught in public schools, even hard facts like fossil records (see my comment below on Eugene's amicus brief).

[bye]

Josh, there you go contradicting yourself. Undoubtedly since evolutionists disagree amonst themselves, you too would find something you call a 'hard fact' that someone else wouldn't Yet you exempt yourself from rules you would impose on everybody else. Who cares that no one dismisses the fact of fossils but many argue the meaning and significance. You have no self-awareness.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Missing from the cited analysis is strict scrutiny in favor of the right of all children—regardless of gender—to attend a public school free of ideological bias against them. Pro-MAGA administrators across the nation trumpet ideological bias against gender non-conformity as a legitimate public power, and even a virtuous one.

More covertly, those same administrators flout IDEA funding requirements for non-neurotypical learners, and not infrequently for students with physically-imposed learning impairments. There is no strict scrutiny applied against those kinds of discrimination.

Asymmetries of that sort—where secularly-based educational policy gets legal short shrift, while religiously-based policy gets powerful legal protection—define Constitutionally prohibited religious establishment. To establish religious practice in general, to the detriment of secular practice in general, is not less an establishment of religion than to tax the populace to support a particular state-approved religion. It is not preferable to establish all religions, instead of just one.

Religiosity in general is being defined by strict-scrutiny legal practice as superior to secularism in general. That creates a public inequality terrifying and damaging to children who remain secularists. It pressures them by law to enroll in religion—a result devoutly prayed for by pro-religionists.

It is thus a flaw in the court-created notion of strict scrutiny to conclude it provides superior protection for Constitutionally enumerated rights. It cannot do that except at the expense of the Constitution's pervasive protection of a principle of secular equality.

When I say, "cannot," I do not mean, "ought not." I mean imposing strict scrutiny on behalf of religious protection is paradoxical. The way strict scrutiny is now practiced necessarily disparages secular equality, and cannot do otherwise. It was to avoid that tendency that the founders made the 1A's guarantee against establishment of religion the very first provision of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

[wvattorney13]

The problem in your analysis is that you have a far too expansive view of what constitutes an establishment of religion. That expansive view causes you to reach a conclusion that the government may hamper the free exercise of religion.

[Stephen Lathrop]

wvattorney13 — The wall of separation is not both a shelter for religious practice, and a fortress from which to launch initiatives against secular living. American constitutionalism admonishes both kinds of advocates to act on their own sides of the wall.

Religionists—including pro-religionists on the Supreme Court—have lately paraded wall-vaulting ambitions. Whether secular government may, "hamper the free exercise of religion," will never under American constitutionalism become a closed question. The answer will always depend on which side of the wall of separation religious ambition intends to accomplish religiously-founded governance, or religious policy influence.

The price of a state-guarded sanctuary for free religious practice must always include a like commitment to a state-guarded sanctuary for secular governance.

[patiens]

Wrong on the basis of long-standing court decisions

Abington School District v. Schempp
( and Zorach v Clauson)
Justice Clark delivering the opinion of the court

We agree, of course, that the State may not establish a “religion of secularism” in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus “preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe” (Zorach v. Clauson).

[ReaderY]

John Calhoun couldn’t have agreed with you more. That was exactly his position. American constitutionalism should never cave to the religious demands of these hateful anti-secular Bible-thumping Abolitionists!

And yet it did.

[Rossami]

A "public school free of ideological bias against them" could be far more easily be met by focusing on reading, writing and arithmetic and walking back from all these 'values lessons' that aren't in a public school's proper mandate in the first place.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Rossami — The question what proper mandate governs a public school system must remain a secular question. It can never under American constitutionalism become a subject for legal regulation in accord with religiously-founded demands. A secular mandate imposed on a religiously-governed school system is likewise disapproved.

[patiens]

EXCELLENTLY SAID

[David Nieporent]

and walking back from all these 'values lessons'

Call me when they stop doing the pledge of allegiance each morning.

[Joe_dallas]

Missing from the cited analysis is strict scrutiny in favor of the right of all children—regardless of gender—to attend a public school free of ideological bias against them.

That is correct - But that is not what the school policy was. The policy had a very anti religious bias, a very anti age appropriate curriculum. It takes a serious level of perverted sickness to defend teaching the subject for that age group of children.

[ReaderY]

Before we even get to the First Amendment issues involved, I have a question. How exactly does exempting a child from a class or an assignment indoctrinate other children?

Let’s take an analogous situation. Previous Supreme Court precedent permitted parents objecting to the Pledge of Allegiance to exempt their children from reciting the Pledge. As I understand your argument, exempting children of the majority on religious grounds from school curricular requirements that make minority children feel accepted and welcome violates the rights of rhe minoruty children to be free indoctrination in anti-religious messages .

Let’s test your atgument on a factual hypothetical where this position has some genuine psychological substance.

Imagine a school where almost everyone is a pacifist and exempts their children from the Pledge, and only a single child from the only military family says it. Suppose this child’s parents complain that exempting everyone else from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance makes their child feel extremely uncomfortable, as it reinforces a message that their parents way of life is socially disfavored. One could easily imagine a situation in which, in the midst of a huge controversy over a war or a particularly pacifist community, most or nearly all children in the classroom end up being exempt and the children reciting the Pledge feel isolated, and genuinely so - their feelings of social disapprobium are real and can’t be dismissed with the kind of rhetorical flourishes common in this blog’s comments. So let’s go with those hypothetical facts.

Would it be your position that the other children can be required to recite the Pledge in order to help thw military-family minority children feel socially accepted and avoid putting them in a position where they are being effectively socially coerced, and hence indoctrinated, against their military-family identity?

Should exempting the anti-pledger children really be subject, as you say, to strict scrutiny to ensure that all children remain free of ideological bias against them? Does the fact that the military children are a minority and the anti-war children the majority - let’s assume there is a single military child in an otherwise entirely anti-war class and the teacher hates the state requirement to recite the Pledge and goes through it with that single child grudgingly - does that really change the entire calculus of West Virginia v. Barnett and require making all the other children recite the Pledge to keep the one military child from feeling isolated, socially disapproved, and indoctrinated in an anti-military message?

[wvattorney13]

The problem with that hypo is a democratic one and not a constitutional one. In a district where most parents don't want their kids taking the Pledge every morning and only a handful want it, the district should not be reciting the Pledge each morning.

The issue is an intransigent administration, not the fault of any parents.

[ReaderY]

It’s a perfectly plausible hypo. It’s been fairly commn in our history for state legislatures to pass laws requiring schools to do thinga the local administration doesn’t want to do. It’s quite common for very conservative states to have isolated liberal pockets and vice versa. State legislatures use their oversight powers to override local administrations that do things they consider out of line all the time.

The fact that you don’t like this is no reason it’s in any way a bad hypo. People don’t like murder and rape either. But that doesn’t make hypos facilitating discussions about how the legal system should deal with these things when they happen bad hypos.

[ReaderY]

Like it or not, it’s by design. The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion. It does not protect the free exercise of secularism. There’s no question that that gives religious people rights that non-religious people don’t have.

Unacceptable to you or not, it’s what is. It’s right there in the text. It’s what it says.

Being angry about it doesn’t work as a legal argument.

[wvattorney13]

I agree with this, except to quibble that the establishment clause gives you a qualified "free exercise" right of secularism. It doesn't give you the same robust rights as the free exercise of religion but you do have a right not to worship a religion.

It doesn't go so far as to say that your secular eyes should never see a religious exercise. That's where the left goes off the deep end in my opinion. But religious beliefs ARE favored in our society.

[Josh R]

Our mish-mash of a Free Exercise doctrine stems from Scalia trying to distinguish Verner and Yoder rather than overrule them in Smith. But perhaps that just reflects the continuing split in what the doctrine ought to be and we should continue to expect a less-than-satisfying patchwork.

[Josh R]

As Eugene pointed out in his amicus brief, this decision will require an opt out when parents have a religious objection to:

Science courses that reference elements of evolutionary theory, including the “Big Bang Theory” and “fossil record[s]

[Brett Bellmore]

I may think parents would be foolish to want to opt out from this or that, but what the wisest choice is, is a different question from who is entitled to MAKE the choice.

The real problem is the government running it's own schools. They're a bad idea for roughly the same reasons government run churches are a bad idea: We don't want government to have that sort of control over the views of the next generation of citizens!

[SRG2]

FWIW now that the Lemon test is history, rather than seeing parents opting out of science education, we will see school boards opting out - either through simply not mandating the teaching evolution, or outright promoting creationism, in whatever garb it appears (traditional Creo, Intelligent Design, etc.)

[wvattorney13]

I think the analysis is different when one is teaching scientific facts versus a political opinion. Further the strict scrutiny analysis would be different. You could argue that a particular flat earth sect could remove their children from hearing all references to the earth being round.

That seems misplaced and an attempted gotcha. There are worlds of differences between the two.

[Josh R]

Alito wrote:

We express no view on the educational value of the Board’s proposed curriculum, other than to state that it places an unconstitutional burden on the parents’ religious exercise if it is imposed with no opportunity for opt outs.

That doesn't sound like there is any legal difference between opt outs for LGBT and a round earth.

[wvattorney13]

Alito was making a conclusion about the curriculum at issue in the case ("the Board's proposed curriculum"), not all possible curriculum.

A board teaching heliocentric astronomy has a much different and stronger interest on its side of the balance, and the parent a far lesser interest on its side if we were analyzing an undisputed scientific and factual based approach to astronomy.

[Josh R]

You posit that some curriculum has educational value that overcomes strict scrutiny. Assuming you are right, how did Alito conclude this curriculum does not without expressing a view on its educational value? Also, evolution and the Big Bang are theories, not facts.

Eugene gave four examples of real-world litigation that are impacted by this ruling, the one quoted above plus:

1) Stories for beginning readers that include a girl who reads a recipe from a cookbook to a boy who prepares a meal, for allegedly “communicat[ing] the idea that there are no God-given roles for the different sexes.”

2) Books about “wizards, sorcerers, [and] giants,” for allegedly “foster[ing] a religious belief in the existence of superior beings” and teaching children anti-Christian values such as “tricks” and “despair.” {my note: opt outs for Harry Potter).

3) A social studies curriculum that (i) did not “describe the divine origins of Hinduism,” (ii) “describe[d] Hinduism as consisting of ‘beliefs and practices,’ ” and (iii) taught that the caste system “was a social and cultural structure as well as a religious belief,” for allegedly disparaging Hindu faith.

They all require opt-outs under this ruling.

[wvattorney13]

Because what the school is teaching is political opinion. Under any standard that cannot have educational value for young children---no one is any smarter for hearing what side of this debate the Montgomery County Schools come down on than any poster in this thread. It's not education, it is indoctrination.

All of the other examples as I said are matters that need to be analyzed on their facts. Why did the school pick out that particular storybook? What is the particular objection of the parent?

A plaintiff would have a heavy burden to show that an isolated story in a book in which a girl reads a recipe to a boy is somehow a commentary that men should be subservient to women in a marriage and that those gender roles should be reversed. Maybe they can do it. That's why we have court cases.

The thing to judge was that THIS case was an easy one. Clear evidence of indoctrination and not education on a subject which is wholly offensive to all of the world's major religions and done so with a purpose to encourage very young children to have a different idea than their parents AFTER they found out that many parents objected. That makes this case easy.

If there is a similar revolt over wizards and Hindus then that case will have to be resolved but they are not close analogies except in the most minimally superficial way possible.

[Sarcastr0]

You draw a line where the Court gave no doctrine to draw the line. And you draw the line with vibes as to what you feel is political opinion. That’s not an intelligible standard, with or without a fact-based inquiry.

Though even saying each bit of curriculum gets a facts based inquiry before a court to see if it’s legit is going to be crazytown.

Your plan here is both not implementable and not actually implemented.

[wvattorney13]

Yoder already provided a fairly reasonable standard. The opinion even said that if it wasn't the Amish, the opinion would likely have been different.

There is a jurisprudential difference between one outlandish parent who objects to a cookbook and the body of the world's major religions wanting their millennia old doctrine respected.

[Sarcastr0]

This opinion does not say the status quo is now Yoder's standard.

'the body of the world's major religions' is unsupported parochial hogwash.

And you're still not providing an actual test - that's a tell. Vibesing 'this is legit, and that is not' is not going to cut it. Legally useful standards must do better than the confidently held priors of some dude on the Internet who doesn't even really understand Christianity's diversity of opinion.

[Josh R]

Your "teaching political opinion" doctrine might work. But, Alito appears to say it does not apply. Again, he was able to dispose of this case without evaluating whether it came under that doctrine, or any other doctrine that distinguishes different curricula. If he wanted to distinguish different curricula, he would have had to at the very least say it's possible to distinguish different curricula, but we don't have to provide those details now because under any reasonable doctrine this case easily favors the plaintiffs. But instead, he categorically stated no analysis of curricula in needed. And perhaps he did so because he thinks judges should not be in the business of evaluating the educational value of curricula, including splitting hairs over what is or is not a political opinion.

[wvattorney13]

And if you read Bruen it seems to suggest that convicted felons should be able to carry machine guns at Wal Mart. Except that it doesn't. Your concerns about becoming a federal board of education will likely animate future decisions in this area in cases that are not so close.

Perhaps Alito could have written a stronger opinion but these parades of horribles never come to pass in any issue despite the protestations of the dissents. No constitutional right to prostitution after Lawrence for example.

[David Nieporent]

Clear evidence of indoctrination and not education

"Ladies glisten, men perspire, horses sweat." I teach, you indoctrinate, they brainwash.

[Sarcastr0]

wvattorney13 is wishcasting because he only wants to hate on gay people.

Your nice tidy just-hate-gay-marriage is not how it's going to go.
We're going to have a lot of nutty people, mostly right-wing Christians, try and opt out of some pretty normal and foundational items.

[David Nieporent]

That seems misplaced and an attempted gotcha. There are worlds of differences between the two.

The only difference is that you find one reasonable and one weird.

[Roger S]

The Volokh brief was rejected. It was all about the needs of school administrators, and preserving their ability to brainwash kids. It says schools might have to sacrifice legitimate pedagogical goals.

No, teaching kindergarten kids to have positive attitudes about sodomy is not a legitimate pedagogical goal. Glad to see the 6-3 majority had some sense.

Even the above example is absurd. The Big Bang Theory is not part of evolutionary theory.

[David Nieporent]

No, teaching kindergarten kids to have positive attitudes about sodomy is not a legitimate pedagogical goal. Glad to see the 6-3 majority had some sense.

Nothing in the curriculum mentioned sodomy, you sick bigoted weirdo.

[lucia_l]

Yes. Parents may very well now be able to opt out of some science courses. Let them. I suspect the numbers will be very small relative to the number who don't want their 1st grader to be taught that more than 2 sexes exist and so on and so on. But even if they aren't small, nothing really truly horrible will happen if kids don't learn much about evolution in school. I believe in evolution-- and I think nothing horrible will happen.

Even fewer horrible things will happen if kids don't learn much about the Big Bang Theory. They really don't learn much about it anyway. They also don't need to learn "string theory", quantum entanglement or all sorts of things. Heck, most don't learn the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

The ones who learn to read and have an interest in science will eventually learn these things.

[Sarcastr0]

nothing really truly horrible will happen if kids don't learn much about evolution in school.

Foundational science is important, actually.

[lucia_l]

Sure. The second law of thermodynamics is "foundational"-- and tons of high school students don't cover it. Many of people move on to subjects in which they never learn anything that requires the 2nd law of thermo as a foundation. And those people never learning the 2nd law of thermo don't prevent engineers and scientists from using it to do all sorts of things in science and engineering.

So be specific. What precisely do you is lost of some objecting students happen to not learn evolution? If you can say something other than "it's foundational", then we can discuss whether merely being foundational to something makes it necessary for everyone to have it.

As far as I can see, a subset of students not learning evolution doesn't prevent other students from learning evolution. Courses like AP bio can still cover it-- and the college board can still put questions about evolution on their test. The kids who don't learn evolution will fail that topic. If interested, they can learn later when their parents can no longer prevent them from learning it. And if uninterested.... well... so? They probably don't major in biology or anthropology so anything similar. Lots of people don't. So what?

[David Nieporent]

Yes. Parents may very well now be able to opt out of some science courses.

And English courses, and history courses. (I'm not aware of any religious groups who would raise objections to math courses, but there's probably some somewhere.)

[lucia_l]

Some religions also object to dancing and some forms of art. I haven't heard of objections to music in general, but who knows?

My position is generally: Let them opt out. It's better than ending up with an argument where a group wants to ban art classes so their kids aren't sucked into the horrors of art (or music, or whatever literature a particular teacher picked). With evolution-- it's better to let them opt out than to waste time teaching creationism along side evolution. It's all well and good to think that letting kids opt out will deprive those kids of something valuable. But with evolution, the alternative to "no opt out" doesn't turn out to be evolution is taught and that's that. The compromise is the "creationism" is taught in parallel-- and generally without denigrating creationism.

[Don Nico]

It is worth pointing out that “Big Bang Theory” actually mean at least three different concepts to astrophysicists and that the one most similar to the common understanding has has good (as opposed to compelling) evidence against it.

[patiens]

Okay, somebody skipped science lessons themself
Big Bang Theory came from Catholic priest Georges Lemaître

and evolutionary theory is a misnomer. I count 5 major forms incl theistic evoltion, Tree-of-life thing from a pond evolution, and many others such as the totally non-religious Panspermia theory.

Science does not work as you imagine. No fact is self-interpreting ever.

=====> As Polanyi and Lonergan (and many others) put it
there is no such thing as a brute fact, only interpreted facts

[ReaderY]

Trying to shoot down an alleged slight mistatement is going to fool anyone into thinking that you’ve made any substantial objection to the argument. It’s a variant of the Cochran defense of defense by distraction. The victory you may think it gives you and the points it scores for you exist only in your own mind.

[ReaderY]

Absolutely will. And under Yoder, the objectors absolutely carry the day. There is simply no need to have a particular opinion on what the age of the earth is in order to be able to function in society. People who believe the Earth is a few thousand years old can avoid crime and hold a job - meet the Yoder standard of being law-abiding and economically self-supporting - just as well as people who believe it’s a few billion years old.

So under the Yoder standard, the objectors win in a slam dunk. There can’t be any serious question that they win.

[ReaderY]

Also, the whole point of the decision was that Yoder already answered the question. Yoder permitted Amish children to be exempt from secular education in its entirety beyond the 8th grade. An exemption from a handful of biology lessens is, in comparison, a triviality of an ask.

[David Nieporent]

An exemption from a handful of biology lessens is, in comparison, a triviality of an ask.

No. Opting out of school entirely is non-disruptive to the functioning of the school. Demanding a bespoke curriculum for each student is disruptive.

[Brett Bellmore]

Requiring things be added to the curriculum that most parents find objectionable, and a large fraction find objectionable to the point of legal action to stop it, is a hundred times more disruptive. So, why does the school board get a pass here? They're the ones who picked this fight, after all: The school was functioning just fine without transsexual indoctrination in kindergarten.

[Sarcastr0]

People keep saying 'large fraction.'

That's not in the opinion, and not evidentiarily established. It's just evangelicals and right wingers thinking they're everyone.

And 'transsexual indoctrination' is not an issue in this case. You need to keep lying to drag the issue over there because you're not on solid ground with the actual facts the Court found material in this case.

[Brett Bellmore]

You are such a BS dispenser. From the decision:

"Less than a year after the Board introduced the books, however, it rescinded the parental opt out policy. Among other things, the Board said that it “could not accommodate the growing number of opt out requests without causing significant disruptions to the classroom environment.”"

Even the board didn't pretend it was just a few parents! You're going further in dismissing the complaints than the board did!

"And if a student asks “[w]hat’s transgender?”, it was recommended that teachers explain: “When we’re born, people make a guess about our gender and label us ‘boy’ or ‘girl’ based on our body parts. Sometimes they’re right and sometimes they’re wrong.”"

Yeah, that's transgender indoctrination, the school is teaching transgender ideology. In fact, the Court was explicit on that point:

"Beyond the materials themselves, the Board instructed teachers to reprimand certain traditional religious views about sex and gender as “‘hurtful,’” and to respond to students’ questions with answers that, among other things, endorse same-sex marriage and transgender ideology."

[David Nieporent]

Parents did not care enough to oust the school board.

[Brett Bellmore]

The school board is relying on school board elections having low participation rates, and often not even having more than one candidate for position. They may find that reliance problematic come the next election.

[ReaderY]

But isn’t demanding that children be allowed to opt out of the Pledge of Allegiance exactly demanding a bespoke curriculum? We’ve had such bespoke curricula for years. Many states have permitted opt-outs for things like sex education. What makes this particular opt-out fundamentally different from these other, well-established ones?

[Cheerio]

The court left room for schools to show if/when an opt-out would truly be a problem. Lessons on evolution may or may not meet such a threshold.

But as they well explained, an opt-out was very doable in THIS case, which raised the reasonable inference that impermissible coercion efforts were in play.

[Josh R]

The only room left for the schools I found in the opinion was "in having an undisrupted school session conducive to the students’ learning." Refusing opt outs on lessons on evolution would not meet that standard.

[bye]

Josh, do you even know the facts

https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-in-my-opinion-using-creation-and-evolution-as-topics-for-critical-thinking-exercises-eugenie-scott-69-47-42.jpg
check her background , this is a famous quote/case

This is a woman as pro-evolution as can be , shutting down any discussion !!!
Teach evolution and let critics come into the classroom, Then you will see interest . I promise.

All this is a result not of what you think, but of shutting down real education on what most students care about, which is religion and politics widely defined. I've been a college teacher for 10 years.

[lucia_l]

Part of the problem for the school board in this case is they made opt out difficult by their own design. Schools know how to make opt out easy when they are required to allow opt out as the MA law required for certain sex ed courses required later in high school. They know how to figure it out when they are organizing carve outs outs for English Language Learners. They could have made opt out easy by organizing which specific weeks the teachers would use these particular books and communicating that to parents at least 1 week in advance. That gives teachers quiet a bit of flexibility in scheduling the books-- especially since the topics are just things like reading comprehension and so on. The specific topics aren't "foundational" for later readings. The reason they didn't give advanced notice and organized things to make it "hard" to give advanced notice was they didn't want to.

Heck, school boards or teachers could almost certainly make the decision for when to use certain books more than 1 week in advance. Do you think they aren't capable of covering specific lessons for "Black History" during "Black History Month"? I'm pretty sure they have the February readings picked out and schedule by November if not August!

[Martinned2]

It's almost as if you can get whatever answer you like if you're in charge of how the question is formulated!

[bye]

https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-in-my-opinion-using-creation-and-evolution-as-topics-for-critical-thinking-exercises-eugenie-scott-69-47-42.jpg

This is due to logic/rhetoric being no longer taught. Also grammar/language.

“Public discourse, the moment it becomes basically neutralized with regard to a strict standard of truth, stands by its nature ready to serve as an instrument in the hands of any ruler to pursue all kinds of power schemes.”
― Josef Pieper, Abuse of Language—Abuse of Power

[vaadu]

Does this enable parents if a teacher has a Pride or BLM or confederate flag in the classroom?

[bye]

But that misstates the problem...Why would you stick a Pride symbol in a classroom? To show that you approve sexual behavior of any kind in students who are in school TO LEARN

[Roger S]

Teachers should not be forcing any of those ideologies.

[David Nieporent]

How about an American flag?

[lucia_l]

Well, it might. But their objection would need to be religious, not secular. There may be some parents who could honestly claim their kid sitting in a room where a pride flag is displayed violates their religion. I doubt there are any significant number of parents who would claim their kid sitting in a room where a confederate flag is displayed violates their religion.

If they make that claim, I'd guess they'd probably be against all flags. That's probably very, very few parents. A school might be able to find an accommodation that allows permits the majority of teachers to fly flags. Maybe they could send kids who can't be seated in the presence of flags to a special lightly supervised "one room classroom" where they can do independent study of some sort.

[ReaderY]

I think the hypothetical is potentially differentiable. The opinion focused its reasoning on a finding that the children involved were made to actively affirm the curriculum. Just having something on the wall doesn’t require anyone to actively do or say anything.

[bratschewurst]

“ Same for overtime laws, union favoritism (you can quit to go on strike and prevent your employer from hiring a replacement?)”

News to me.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Under American constitutionalism, "substantial interference with [children's] religious development," ought not be a mandatory goal of a secularist government, but neither should it be a prohibited goal.

So long as parents remain at liberty to educate their children otherwise—with the state leaving them alone to do it—then the state should remain at liberty to oppose the particulars of any or all kinds of religious education. In principle, if not in wise public policy, a question whether certain religious doctrines, or religious doctrines in general, conduce to wise governance ought not be ruled off limits in a secular education. For whatever constituency can assemble political power to organize a pro-secularist, anti-religious curriculum, American constitutionalism thus properly empowers doing it.

A polity which thinks that unwise, of which I would likely be a member, ought to be likewise at liberty to organize a pro-religious-liberty curriculum, closely resembling standard American civics fare which was commonplace in public education 50 years ago. That balance—secular public life; privately governed religious life—worked well.

What must not happen is yet more legally imposed religious governance for Americans. There is no place in American constitutionalism for that. The founders made a wise choice to put that off limits. Political troubles of the most dangerous kinds have too often followed efforts to impose religious governance.

[ReaderY]

Yoder held otherwise.

Under Yoder, the purpose of education is not to indoctrinate children in whatever the government wants to indoctrinate them, but to enable them to be functioning members of society. Parents have to show that their children will likely become functioning members of society - specifically that they will likely become law-abiding and economically self-supporting - with the accommodation. But if they can show this, the state’s legitimate interest in educating its children has been adequately met. The state has no compelling interest in teaching children particular specific ideas.

Your position is simply that Yoder is “against American constitutionalism.” It seems to me you need a more specific argument against a long-standing, well-established Supreme Court precedent that has been reaffirmed in numerous subsequent cases, by Justices liberal and conservative, than that. You have to engage Yoder’s reasoning and explain why you think it wrong.

[ReaderY]

Yoder was unanimous. I think that’s a particularly strong argument that the case didn’t go against “American constitutionalism.” It seems to me that if you are not merely saying you think a unanimous decision is wrong, but making the stronger claim that it lies entirely outside the tradition of Supreme Court jurisprudence, you have a much heavier burden to meet.

[ReaderY]

Two comments.

1. The decision is narrow in the sense that it is based on Yoder, which Smith itself said survives as a strict-scrutiny case. However, it gives Yoder a particularly expansive reading. It basically says that public schools can’t “Americanize” minority cultures (at least those expressed through religion) by inculcating an “American” way of life. This is, however, something that public schools, both liberal and conservative, have seen as a core part of their mission since the inception of mass public education. It’s a huge cultural change. While I agree the plaintiffs should have won on the merits, I have to admit the dissent is correct to point out just how vast a cultural change this is.

For example, in a number of cultures parents choose their childrens’ spouses for them and/or children are not permitted to date or even interact with members of the opposite sex, either at all or without chaperones. The decision may suggest that a variety of school activities that would expose children to a departure from these ways of doing things could potentially be opted out of.

2. The decision does not say so in any direct way, and it needn’t necessarily lead to the conclusion. But it tends to suggest that the Supreme Court is leaning towards the position that government does not have a compelling interest in homosexuality/trans/etc. as categories. This may merely mean that protection of religious liberty will trump whenever there’s a conflict. But it might apply more broadly.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

You have a twisted take on the "American Way".

[ReaderY]

I was deliberately not picking a take on the ‘American Way,’ just noting that different takes -indeed historically very different takes - have historically all been inculcated in the public schools.

It’s true that this particular district, in trying to indoctrinate children in its conception of the “American Way,” is quite conscious that its take is different from (indeed disruptive of) previous takes. Yet the Court was quite correct to note that the instructional materials, in attempting to “disrupt” previous attempts at indoctrinating previous conceptions of the “American Way,” are nonetheless themselves similarly attempting to indoctrinate in a take on the “Anerican Way.” A different take, and one you may perhaps regard as “twisted.” But a take on the “American Way” all the same.

[patiens]

This is an amusing thread. Most want to replace "perverted homosexual books" with "X books" so that the discussion doesn't call up to mind lust-sickened perverts in books children are subjected to. Make it all antiseptic and abstract. But we parents are hip to that. Our kids aren't learning shit , they can't read, their math skills are non-existent, they write like they arrived at Ellis Island 6 months ago --- and you want them to know about disgusting perverted lusters , that they can be fine parents too.

Even normally rebellious teenagers are disgusted by this

https://static.independent.co.uk/2021/10/15/17/Screenshot%202021-10-15%20at%2017.07.57.png?width=1200&height=630&fit=crop

Try it on one. And get back to me