Folks, it’s on rare occasions that I need to actually think before writing a blog post. Usually I only describe and transcribe the bizarre and dysfunctional events unfolding around us, such as the recent trial Tamer Mahmoud v. Monica B. McKnight. This was the landmark trial and ruling by Judge Deborah Boardman that denied the ability of MoCo parents and students to opt-out of forced LGBT studies in the public schools. (Technically, she denied an injunction that would have stayed the Board of Education’s forced LGBT curriculum until further litigation.)
As part of her ruling, Judge Boardman cited legal concepts such as preliminary injunction, irreparable harm, free exercise of religion, due process, and hybrid rights—all of which are beyond my training to adequately address. Nevertheless, she clearly demonstrated intimate knowledge of the case, and followed many years of precedent pertaining to conflicts between parents and public school curricula, so we should not be surprised at her ruling. Below are a few excerpts.
Every court that has addressed the question [of mandatory public-school curriculum might burden the religious exercise of students or parents] has concluded that the mere exposure in public school to ideas that contradict religious beliefs does not burden the religious exercise of students or parents.
Forcing students to learn LGBT does not inherently contradict their or their parents’ religious beliefs or practices.
Although the Supreme Court has never been called upon to define the precise boundaries of a parent’s right to control a child’s upbringing and education, it is clear that the right is neither absolute nor unqualified.
There is a limit to parents’ objections to forced LGBT studies.
While parents may have a fundamental right to decide whether to send their child to a public school, they do not have a fundamental right generally to direct how a public school teaches their child.
Parents can choose to send their children to public or private or home schools; once in the public schools, they have no fundamental right to influence the curriculum regarding LGBT. This is the critical point.
We’ve written before that our Board of Education is the product of illegitimate elections in which a small group of voters elects 100% of the winners. We’ve written many times about the prejudice exhibited by Council Member Kristin Mink and Board Member Lynne Harris. We’ve written before about the County Council’s pusillanimous refusal to censure (not to mention remove) Harris for insulting her own students. (In the business world, executives and employees alike get fired for misconduct far less egregious than this.) Because Judge Boardman concurs that parents in the public schools have no right to influence the curriculum regardless of how that curriculum was conceived, we now know that the opt-out crowd has run its course, and will find no remedy against the handful of coercive progressives running our schools.
Except for one remaining move: school choice and school vouchers. In a school voucher scenario, parents receive vouchers that they can apply toward tuition at a school of their choice. If the students want LGBT, French immersion, vocational skills, conservatory performance, science and physics, or any other curriculum, those students enroll in a school that offers that curriculum, and the county government foots all or part of the bill.
The road to school vouchers is long, and involves effort and hardship to achieve. Regardless, with every “victory” the intolerant progressives engineer in their favor, that goal is coming closer.
