Apodaca: High Court directive to let parents opt children out of LGBT lessons lacks clarity

A recent controversial U.S. Supreme Court decision is bound to impact all schools, including those here in Orange County. But precisely how that impact will play out is about as clear as a foggy day along the coast.

In late June, the Supreme Court, reversing two lower court decisions, ruled that schools must allow parents to opt their children out of lessons due to religious objections. Specifically, the decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor was based on a Maryland school district’s purported failure to provide notice, and allow students to opt out, of lessons and materials that contain any LGBTQ+ references.

I have so many questions.

Such as: How will this be implemented? Will teachers be given specific instructions on how to proceed?

Are only required assignments at issue, or will schools be forced to remove some books from library shelves and recommended reading lists?

Can students be excused from any lesson as long as religious beliefs are cited, or will this ruling be narrowly applied in practice?

Does anyone even know the answers at this point?

The California and the Orange County departments of education have been gamely trying to provide some guidance, but even these agencies are hedging their advice with cautionary notes because the reality is that no one yet knows how this ruling will shake out in the real world.

The state, for instance, cautioned that “the ruling provides little or no direction for implementation by schools as to critical matters,” including how exactly schools are meant to figure out whether the religious impacts are significant enough to warrant any action on their part.

It’s also not clear whether schools will be held responsible for separating policies and materials that might raise religious objections from those that they assume would not, and what, if any, services should be provided to those students that do opt out of lessons on religious grounds.

It’s a lot to figure out, and the CDE recommended that schools consult lawyers to devise a plan that fits their specific circumstances. The court, it said, did provide some guidance about what to consider, such as the age of the child and whether the material in question is “hostile” to religious beliefs.

Still, not much to go on.

The CDE also took pains to include a rigorous defense of California’s established legal protections for LGBTQ+ youth.

“Years of in-depth and peer-reviewed research have amply demonstrated the substantial educational benefit yielded by representing students’ identities in public school curriculum,” it stated.

“Indeed, the Mahmoud ruling should not be interpreted to require or allow the erasure of any particular group from public school curricular content. In short, California state law continues to prohibit discrimination against any particular group in curriculum or instruction.”

I reached out to the OCDE with my questions, and spokesperson Ian Hanigan responded that “we’re all working through this together” to try to figure out the legal and policy implications of the ruling.

Schools may have an obligation to notify parents proactively about potentially sensitive topics, but as of now there’s no list or specific definition of what content should be deemed potentially objectionable enough to trigger a notification.

Also, he noted, the court did not define exactly what the notice that schools provide to parents about the opt-out should look like, how far in advance it must be given, or what specific steps districts must take.

The department’s understanding is that the ruling “doesn’t require schools to flag every potentially sensitive topic,” he said. “Rather, the focus is on identifying material that may reasonably be expected to raise significant religious concerns, especially when taught at a young age or in a values-based context.”

He also reaffirmed the department’s commitment to providing “safe, inclusive learning environments” for all students.

Yet it’s hardly surprising that some parents and students are worried that, no matter how the ruling is interpreted and applied by individual districts and schools, the fallout will inevitably lead to schools becoming less inclusive and more unwelcoming to LGBTQ+ students.

It also remains to be seen whether the ruling will ultimately result in other topics, in addition to those with LGBTQ+ themes, to be included in opt-out policies.

Indeed, there are concerns that this decision might be a step on the way to broader censorship of educational materials. For instance, questions have been raised about whether subjects such as evolution, slavery or even science itself will be next on the list of targeted subjects.

Again, we don’t have much in the way of specific answers as yet. At this point, I can only hope that this ruling is carefully and narrowly applied, and that it doesn’t portend a more comprehensive and successful project to micromanage the decisions made by local schools to ensure that they conform to a rigid ideological viewpoint.

It’s not much to hang hopes on, but right now that’s all we’ve got.