High court to hear case on kids’ books

Maureen Groppe

USA TODAY

WASHINGTON − In the children’s picture book 'Prince & Knight,' the handsome prince falls in love not with a princess, but with the knight who helps him defeat a dragon.

Officials in the Maryland school district that included the book – along with others with LGBTQ+ characters – into its reading program say the story is no more about sex than are classic fairy tales with romantic themes like Cinderella and Snow White.

But to some parents, cute children’s books are being used to teach ideas about gender and sexuality against their religion.

They say they should be able to get their elementary school children excused from class when any of the LGBTQ+ inclusive books are being used, the same way the Montgomery County school district allows older students to opt out of sex education instruction.

When the district refused, the parents sued.

On April 22, the Supreme Court will consider whether the school has unconstitutionally burdened the parents’ ability to freely exercise their religion under the First Amendment.

Their appeal is one of three religious rights cases the Supreme Court is deciding in the coming weeks, and could be part of a recent trend of the court siding with religious rights advocates.

National organizations representing school boards and superintendents, which have not taken a position on the books being used in Maryland, warn about the potential wider impact of a court decision agreeing with the parents. Schools could face a 'bewildering variety' of religious rights claims, they said in a filing that emphasized 'the importance of deference to the decisions of local school officials.'

'Whatever rule the Court promulgates in this case will apply far beyond the circumstances of this dispute,' they wrote.

What are the controversial books?

Montgomery County Public Schools officials said they introduced a handful of books with LGBTQ+ characters into the reading curriculum at the start of the 2022-2023 school year as part of an effort to better reflect the community.

'In addition to helping students explore sentence structure, word choice, and style, the storybooks support students’ ability to empathize, connect, and collaborate with peers and encourage respect for all,' lawyers for the schools told the Supreme Court.

The school district is one of the nation’s largest and most religiously diverse.

The book 'Intersection Allies' features nine kids from different backgrounds, including Alejandra who uses a wheelchair while playing basketball; Adilah who wears a hijab in ballet class; and Kate, who prefers a superhero cape to 'skirts and frills.'

In 'Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,' Chloe’s favorite uncle gets married to another man.

In the alphabet primer 'Pride Puppy,' children chase their dog through a pride parade. The parents complain that the book 'invites students barely old enough to tie their own shoes' to search for images that include 'underwear,' 'leather,' and 'lip ring.' The school says the objecting parents are trying to give a salacious bent to objects like a leather jacket. But since the lawsuit began, Montgomery County has stopped using 'Pride Puppy' as well as 'My Rainbow,' a book about a mom who makes a rainbow-colored wig for her transgender daughter.

After various teachers, administrators and parents raised concerns about the effectiveness and age-appropriateness of the books, the school system allowed students to be excused when they were read in class. But officials said they had to stop that because the growing number of opt-out requests created other problems, such as high absenteeism and the difficulty of administering the opt-outs.

The parents who then sued said they shouldn’t have to send their kids to private school or to homeschool to avoid instruction that goes against the tenets of their religions which include Islam, Catholicism and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

'Intentionally exposing our young, impressionable, elementary-aged son to activities and curriculum on sex, sexuality, and gender that undermine Islamic teaching on these subjects would be immoral and would conflict with our religious duty to raise our children in accordance with our faith,' parents Tamer Mahmoud and Enas Barakat said in a court filing about why they didn’t want their son to be part of his second grade class’s reading of 'Prince & Knight.'

But a divided panel of appeals court judges said the parents hadn’t shown that they or their children had been coerced to believe or act contrary to their religious views.

Simply 'hearing about other views does not necessarily exert pressure to believe or act differently than one’s religious faith requires,' 4th Circuit Appeals Court Judge G. Steven Agee wrote.

Colt Stanberry, a lawyer with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty which is representing the parents, said the books are 'compelled instruction' when a teacher reads them to a class.

Even without any commentary from the teacher, Stanberry said, children know what’s being taught when, in 'Born Ready,' a mother is supportive of her transgender son, saying: 'Not everything needs to make sense. This is about love.'

Students are meant to learn that children can choose their own sex, the Becket Fund says.

School officials say no one is being asked to change how they feel about gender and sexuality. Instead, the books are meant to promote acceptance and respect and to show that the world is diverse.

Exposing students to ideas that clash with their parents’ religious beliefs does not violate their constitutional rights, they argue.

'Abandoning this longstanding principle would render public education unworkable,' lawyers for the school said in a filing.

Stanberry said he doesn’t expect a 'tidal wave' of religious opt-out requests if the Supreme Court sides with the Maryland parents. Schools know what the sensitive areas are and have usually allowed opt-outs.

'I don’t think we’re really asking for something,' he said, 'that’s going to blow the whole system up.'