More than 30 years ago, these parents fought in court for public school custody. Now they are weighing high court decisions in key Maryland cases.
Parents, activists respond to the Supreme Court of Parents’ Rights decision
Parents and activists have responded to the Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling on parental rights in public schools.
- On June 27, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Maryland parents who wanted to select their children by reading books with LGBTQ+ themes in public schools.
- Over the past decades, parents have had similar arguments in lawsuits over public school textbooks, sex education programs and health classes.
- Those involved in such cases had different views on the Maryland case. Some said the district should have allowed it to be opted out, while others said the opt-out of broad parents could be destructive.
On April 8, 1992, Suzanne Brown asked her son Jason Methic about her day at school.
“He said, ‘Probably the worst of my life,'” Brown recalled.
She said the statement was “somewhat dramatic,” but she was also interrupted by what her son, who was a sophomore high school student at the time, explained.
Methic had to attend a sex and AIDS prevention rally at his school in Chelmsford, Massachusetts. He explained how the program used “profan, obscene, and perverted language” and how at one point, female students included pulling condoms over male students’ heads.
Methis said such behavior made him feel “like you’re being punctured,” and Brown said he was “completely shocked” when he reviewed the transcript of the program.
His family failed because their parents’ religious beliefs were an important part of the incident.
Brown said he should be notified of the program’s contents and has the opportunity to opt out.
Now, more than 30 years later, parents have that right thanks to a ruling by the US Supreme Court on June 27th. This sided with a group of parents in Maryland who wanted to select their children from the English Arts curriculum of LBGTQ+ characters.
Montgomery County public schools initially allowed them to opt out, but later ended such accommodations after threatening to cause “serious disruption.” The case before the high court was one of the most famous after a group of parents sued, and was influenced by public school districts around the country this year.
In its 6-3 decision, the court said the district violated the parents’ initial right to amend the freedom of religion by not allowing children to read books containing LGBTQ themes at schools.
Judge Samuel Alito said parents have an established right to direct religious development of their children. The Maryland book “doesn’t mind conveying certain perspectives on same-sex marriage and gender,” he said.
The three liberal justice opposed. Public schools have a “core premise” that introduces students to “a set of concepts and views that reflect our society as a whole,” writes Judge Sonia Sotomayor.
“Until now, exposure to new ideas has always been an important part of that project,” she writes.
Sotomayor said the ruling could have a calm impact on disadvantaged public schools who may be wary of implementing curricula with the potential to “disrupt” in the public school system and pose logistical challenges.
Now looking at things, Brown said he doesn’t think that allowing parents to opt out would put a “overwhelming” burden on the school.
“If parents don’t care…it’s up to them, but I think if parents have the beliefs and truths they want to stick to for their children, then they should have the right to do that,” Brown said.
Opt-out may only provide the “myth of control,” the defendant says.
Suzi Landolphi, who created a programme in which Mesiti attended and named in a subsequent lawsuit, acknowledged that her tactics were unorthodox and could even “acquire trauma” for some students.
But she said school officials wanted students to join the program, given the AIDS epidemic, which killed tens of thousands of Americans each year at the time.
She said the school may have decided whether to request parental permission for students to participate in her program, but Chelmsford High School chose not to do so. USA Today reached the school for comment.
She “absolutely wanted” students to attend her program with permission from their parents, but Randolphy moved forward with the goal of using humor and theatricality to spread awareness of serious issues among high school students.
“The last thing I want to do in the world is to get up there and give lectures. First of all, we’re going to make sure that young people don’t come to perform or present, and this is important lifesaving information,” she said.
Randolphy, who now works as a therapist, said “it’s not a problem” with parents who want to prevent their children from being exposed to certain content.
However, she said such measures may support “the myth of control.” Parents can’t expect to protect their children from everything they think they are uncomfortable with in the age of smartphones and social media, she said.
Brown described her family as Christian followers, but said more than 30 years ago that her opposition to Randolphy’s program was driven primarily by “common sense.”
The district court dismissed the case in 1995. The decision was later upheld by the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
Landolphi told USA Today that he has opposed the children’s curriculum. These opportunities prompted conversations that “allowed deeper understanding and connections,” but she said she “doesn’t feel burdened” by such incidents.
Like her mother, Mesiti told USA Today that parents “have the right to do what they want to do” related to their children. At the same time, he opposes the ban on books and believes that students benefit from exposure to diverse beliefs and lifestyles.
“I think schools should distinguish between potentially harmful and age-appropriate content and legally necessary citizenship education,” Methis said. “The former could justify opt-out, while the latter must remain mandatory for informed citizenship and workplace preparation.”
But Methis said he is worried that public schools will “play safely” in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Maryland’s Mahmoud v. Taylor and “limiting essentially de facto curriculum.”
Similarly, Zach Schlin, an attorney with expertise in education law, reflects Sotomayor’s concerns. Public school districts may “have a very long and hard time thinking about including an essentially controversial curriculum,” he said.
Based on the court’s ruling, schools seeking to require such material without allowing opt-out must prove compelling interest in nullifying the burden of parents’ religious free movements.
However, he said details of the verdict suggest that “it would be difficult to meet that standard.”
The Tennessee incident was a “proxy war” in the 80s.
Stephen Bates, University of Las Vegas at the University of Nevada, speaks to the “basic and subtle nature of public education.”
This book is a 1987 incident in Tennessee, similar to the recent Maryland incident. Based on the HawkinsCounty Board of Education. It involved a group of evangelical parents who felt that requiring students to read material that conflicts with religious beliefs would require students to request that students be a violation of their initial right to revise.
The judge ruled in 1986 that parents had the right to send their children to public schools in other subjects “with appropriate regulations for home instruction” from the district’s reading program.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the following year’s decision and sent the case back to lower court with an “instruction to dismiss the complaint.”
It was ultimately a “political story,” Bates said. The incident was born as a local issue, but attracted attention from national groups and became a “type of proxy war.”
For example, parents were supported by American women, but civil liberties were American paths, and people supported schools on the ground that a ruling of their parents’ favor “may have caused chaos in public education across the country.”
The Maryland incident has similarly involved players across the country.
The Beckett Fund for Religious Freedom represents Maryland parents, who also supported them from the Southeast Legal Foundation and the Robertson Constitutional Law Center at Regent University.
However, the school district was supported by groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, Religious Foundation Freedom, and GLAAD.
Bates upheld the Supreme Court’s decision, saying the classroom benefits from housing students from a variety of perspectives.
“Public schools are one of the last places in American life, where people from different backgrounds mix together,” he said. “That kind of exposure is important in our age of polarization.”
He noted that some families have left Montgomery County public schools over a ban on opt-out. That is to say, “The curriculum designed to promote diversity has led to a decline in diversity in schools.”
“The family is doing their best behind every case.”
Corky Leebaert was in seventh grade when his father Turk Leebeert opposed his forced health lessons in 1998.
This course focused on topics such as drugs, alcohol, and sex. Connecticut law allowed parents to pick their children out of lessons related to family life, such as sexuality and family planning, but Turkish Liebert tried to remove his son from the course completely.
Corky Leebaert failed the course due to lack of attendance. His father later sued school officials and the town of Fairfield, Connecticut in 2002 on the 1 and 14th sections of the premises.
“I believe that God has strengthened humanity the right to raise children with correct moral principles when dealing with the issues taught in this course, not in the school system,” Turk Liebert wrote in an affidavit referenced in the lawsuit.
Corky Leebaert told USA Today, since he was a young child he “has not fully grasped the legal significance of what was going on,” but he felt “quiet tension” from faculty and staff.
“I wouldn’t describe it as an obvious abuse, but there was definitely a sense that it was “part of something” that made people uncomfortable,” he said. “It was subtle – the hesitation of conversation, the easy looks – but it was there.”
He did not personally challenge the material, but he respected his father’s beliefs and decision to pursue legal action.
He understands that schools have an “obligation to provide a consistent education,” but that is one of the reasons for district court judges’ awards against fathers, but he also believes that they should have the right to select children from a curriculum that they find “unethically or morally inappropriate.”
In cases like Maryland, he has comprehensive books in the curriculum, but supports schools that allow parents to opt out. If the majority were, he said the school should find alternative materials.
At the same time, he is “cautious about the broad opt-out rights.”
“Giving them opt-out of all issues that make someone uncomfortable risks damaging the integrity of public education,” he said.
Now, Liebert, the father herself, said, “Not because he is looking for something to reject, not because he believes engagement is part of responsible parenting, but he holds a tab in his child’s curriculum.
He ultimately believes that students will do their best when parents and schools build partnerships that have room for “flexibility and accommodation.”
“Leebaertv. Harrington has taught us that the legal system often moves impersonally, but behind every case we do our best to navigate difficult questions,” he said.
Brieanna Frank is USA Today’s first revised reporting fellow. Contact her at bjfrank@usatoday.com.
Reports on the First Amendment issue for USA Today are funded through collaborations between the Freedom Forum and Journalism’s fundraising partners. Funders do not provide editor input.
