In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the Supreme Court ruled that public schools must provide notice to parents of any LGBTQ+ related school policy or material and an opportunity for the parents to opt their children out of the policy or exposure to the material, according to the California Department of Education website.
The case specifically mentions that parents of elementary school students can opt their children out of learning LGBTQ+ themed storybooks because younger children do not have the same discernment capacity in brain development as children in secondary do, Superintendent Cheryl Jordan said.
“We (the district) are obligated if a parent says that they don’t want their elementary child to participate in any sort of instruction or curriculum that has to do with LGBTQ+, and if the parent says that it’s because it goes against their religion, then the district is obligated to provide their child with a different storybook or a different curriculum,” Jordan said.
The district also had to account for the California FAIR (Fair, Accurate, Inclusive, and Respectful) Education Act, which requires school districts to provide instruction around the roles and contributions of groups, including LGBTQ+, and the California Healthy Youth Act, which requires students to understand gender stereotypes and identities, she added.
“But because the court case is focused, it’s not that it conflicts; it’s just that it creates another layer because it says that a parent has the right to be the first teacher of their child in regards to religion,” Jordan said. “And so really, I guess it’s not a conflict, because California law requires that we don’t discriminate. It also requires that we provide safe and secure classroom learning environments. Now, there’s always two different perspectives to everything.”
Our current regime, federally is eroding our rights, and this legal requirement is one more symptom of that erosion, and one step closer to book banning and the loss of academic freedom, English teacher Brett Webber said.
“Which books are we going to read?” Webber, who also has taught LGBTQ+ ethnic studies, said. “‘I don’t want books with violence.’ Well, then I can’t teach ‘Lord of the Flies.’ Give me a break. You know, I understand people’s religious, deeply held religious convictions, but this is the world we live in. I also believe very firmly, that consideration needs to be given to the age of the student.”
Students don’t have to be in his class, but no one can tell him what to teach, Webber said. The court case outlines that students get to opt out of the curriculum due to “sincerely held religious beliefs,” but he questions what these religious beliefs are, and why they would conflict with what he is teaching, he added.
“Who gets to make that decision?” Webber said. “Who gets to judge your deeply held religious convictions? Because I don’t know your religious convictions. You don’t know my religious convictions. Quite frankly, they should be left at home, but the students have the right now to opt out of a lesson. So who gets to choose? Who gets to decide? That’s where the Union (Teachers Union) gets involved. We fully support that everyone is entitled to their deeply held religious beliefs, but I can’t talk about my religion in the classroom?”
Junior Dahlia Yu, who previously took Webber’s LGBTQ+ ethnic studies course, does not agree with the outcome of the court case, she said.
“I think the biggest reason for homophobia is they don’t understand,” Yu said. “If you educate people, they will have a better understanding and will be less afraid because people are afraid of things they don’t get.”
