In the recent Supreme Court case of Mahmoud v. Taylor, a Maryland school district implemented what it called an LGBTQ+ inclusive English curriculum for elementary school students. Some of the books concerned gender identity. One of the books contained a discussion guide to be used with the students, which stated, “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.” Other books promoted same-sex marriage.
Some parents objected to the use of the books, contending that elementary classrooms were not the appropriate place for discussion of sensitive topics such as gender and sexuality, on which Americans hold many differing beliefs. At first, the school allowed parents to opt their children out of the lessons, but later revoked its opt-out policy, claiming that it would be disruptive to the classroom.
Parents who voiced concerns at Board of Education meetings were often met with contempt. One of the board members suggested that “the objecting parents were comparable to ‘white supremacists’ who want to prevent their children from learning about civil rights and ‘xenophobes’ who object to ‘stories about immigrant families.’”
Unable to make any headway, a group of parents from different religious backgrounds took their case to the Supreme Court, which held that the Board of Education violated the First Amendment because the school policies on the compulsory curriculum on sexuality and gender “substantially interfered with the parents’ ability to direct the religious development of their children.”
The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing of their children and religious freedom have both long-been identified by the Supreme Court as fundamental rights.
In Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), the Supreme Court struck down an Oregon law that prohibited private education and required all children to attend public schools because it “unreasonably interfered with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of their children.” As the court stated, “The child is not the mere creature of the State.”
In West Virginia v. Barnette (1943), the state required all public school students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance or face expulsion. A group of students brought a First Amendment challenge to the law on the basis that it violated their religious beliefs as Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the students and explained that under the First Amendment, “no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.”
In Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), a group of Amish parents, who educated their children until the eighth grade, argued that a law requiring all children to attend school until age 16 interfered with their ability to pass on their values to their children. The Supreme Court held that the extra two years of school was not so essential that it could override the rights of the parents, explaining that “a State’s interest in universal education, however highly we rank it, is not totally free from a balancing process when it impinges on fundamental rights and interests, such as those specifically protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, and the traditional interest of parents with respect to the religious upbringing of their children.”
Later in Troxel v. Granville (2000), the Supreme Court held that the rights of parents apply even outside of the context of cases involving religion, ruling that “the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.”
Recognizing the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children in accordance with their own values is not a “conservative” position, but rather affirms the principles of tolerance and pluralism that are the hallmark of liberalism, which is the philosophy that people with differing values and beliefs should be able to live according to those values without government interference.
As the political philosopher Michael Sandel has described liberalism, “Its central idea is that government should be neutral towards the moral and religious views its citizens espouse. Since people disagree about the best way to live, government should not affirm in law any particular vision of the good life. Instead, it should provide a framework of rights that respects persons as free and independent selves, capable of choosing their own values and ends.”
The same liberty that gives individuals the freedom to choose what kind of relationships they wish to enter in their personal lives also gives parents the right to decide which values they wish to impart to their children and how they desire to raise their families. As the Supreme Court stated in its landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, “The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.”
Mahmoud v. Taylor affirms the right of all citizens to hold differing values and belief systems. That is something which all Americans can celebrate, even if they disagree with the beliefs of the parents in that particular case.