Protection is a spectrum disorder
The Supreme Court recently ruled that parents have the right to remove their elementary aged children from being exposed to literature and/or instruction with regard to LGBYQIA+ based on the religious beliefs of the parents. The case happened to be a Montgomery County Public Schools case beginning in Maryland. The decision was not a final ruling in the case but the Justices hinted strongly that the parents will likely win in the end.
The ability of parents to protect their children from certain experiences is not a new privilege. Parents can deprive children of vaccination based on religious beliefs. Parents can already require that their children be excluded from sex ed. As a society we exclude children from sexually explicit content in movies (but interestingly not specific violence in video games or the internet).
So what is different from this new parental prerogative that uses religion as the foil. In the other instances the prohibition was about a non-human experience. Now parents may exclude the recognition of humans from their children’s knowledge.
How much protection should parents provide for their children and how much it too much. When does that protection smack up against the dignity and protection of other kids. One of the first things parents who would deny access to their children should know is that the more something is forbidden the more it becomes fascinating. Kids who are removed from the group during instruction on these topics will be VERY curious about what they are missing. Probably more curious than they would have been with the lesson. Secondly, there is a chance that one or more of the kids in the class is wondering about his/her own sexuality. The question becomes “why am I so tainted that I can’t be seen in a story?” Thirdly, what happens when two same gender parents show up at a PTA event or other parent invitation events? How will the same gender parents be explained to the children who have been deprived?
Organizations such as Moms for Liberty will tell you the public schools were set up to meet the parents’ needs so therefore, parents should have the right to opt out of unacceptable instruction. Actually that is not true. Public schools were set up at the taxpayer’s expense to ensure an informed electorate for a democracy at a time when the majority of the population could barely read or write.
In the ‘50’s there was a Broadway musical, South Pacific. One song in the show, had the lyrics, “you’ve got to be taught to hate and fear, it’s got to be drummed in your dear little ear, you’ve got to be taught from year to year, to hate all the people your relatives fear, you’ve got to be carefully taught”.
The Supreme Court is always supreme. It just isn’t always on the right side of history. This is one of those times.
