One Georgetown professor warns of ‘weaponization of the First Amendment’
The Supreme Court’s ruling today in favor of a religiously “diverse group” of parents who object to their kids being exposed to some books with homosexual and transgender themes sets a “dangerous precedent,” according to two Georgetown University professors.
The Supreme Court ruled today in a 6-3 decision that Montgomery County, Md. parents should be allowed to challenge the use of pro-LGBT books in their classrooms.
“Those texts included five ‘LGBTQ+-inclusive’ storybooks approved for students in kindergarten through fifth grade, which have story lines focused on sexuality and gender,” according to Justice Samuel Alito’s summary in Mahmoud v. Taylor. The court ruled in favor of a preliminary injunction for the parents to be able to opt their kids out of classroom discussions on those books.
As noted by Alito, the schools specifically pushed one-sided views, such as endorsing same-sex marriages.
This ruling upset two Georgetown academics at the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law.
“The fundamental question here is whether public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when their children learn about subject matter that does not align with their religious convictions,” Professor Michele Goodwin stated in a news release. “In this case, the content is gender and sexuality, but the case is being litigated in a climate where the subjects are benign — art, cultural inclusion, history, and more.”
“As such, the Court opens the door to further weaponization of the First Amendment and challenges to the administration of school governance in ways that are more challenging to reconcile based on traditional Supreme Court jurisprudence,” Goodwin stated.
Colleague Rebecca Reingold concurred. The ruling “sets a dangerous precedent, paving the way for broad censorship in public school curriculum,” the former Planned Parenthood employee said.
“Reducing exposure to diverse perspectives, backgrounds, and identities from curricula will negatively affect not only countless children throughout the United States, but also broader communities,” Reingold said.
She suggested there should be further push back against “parental involvement” in education.
“The push by advocates and decision-makers to increase parental involvement in school curricula is part of a broader global trend,” Reingold said. “However, unlike the Supreme Court, courts in other countries have pushed back — stressing the education system’s role in promoting inclusion and diversity and affirming children’s rights to equality, education, and health.”
“In today’s decision, the Supreme Court fails to reference the rights and best interests of children even once, despite the fact that they will be the ones most affected by the decision,” she said.
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit included Muslims, Catholics, and Jews who objected to the content.
However, while some Georgetown academics were upset about the victory for parental rights, another said the Court should consider the rights of parents.
Research fellow Asma Uddin wrote an article yesterday for Maryland Matters that pointed out the school district previously allowed for opt-outs. The district also allows students to opt-out of singing religious songs and depictions of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad.
“The district says its curriculum reflects its commitment to inclusivity, and that letting families withdraw from certain lessons could undermine that goal,” Uddin, an attorney affiliated with Georgetown’s Center for the Constitution, wrote in her article. “But the parents are not asking the state to affirm their beliefs — only to give them space to raise their children without contradiction from mandatory school messaging.”
As Uddin explained: “You do not need to agree with the parents’ theology to understand why their rights matter.”
“If public education is to serve a pluralistic society, it must allow space for real moral diversity.”
MORE: Professor says it is ‘dangerous’ for Trump to keep men out of women’s prisons
IMAGE CAPTION AND CREDIT: Muslim parents rally in support of opt-out; Becket Fund