Wall Street Journal on Gender Storytime in Montgomery County

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for sharing the NYT op-ed. It's very good.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on WaPo's reporting, as predicted, it seems like MCPS is gonna lose: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/04/22/supreme-court-lgbtq-books-storytime-montgomery-maryland/

During more than two-and-a-half hours of argument on Tuesday, several justices read aloud from the text of the disputed storybooks, some of which referred to drag queens and same-sex marriage. Conservative justices repeatedly pressed the lawyer for the Maryland school system on why it could not easily accommodate the religious parents and allow their children to opt out of objectionable curriculum.

“What’s the big deal about allowing them to opt out,” asked Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

“I’m not understanding why it’s not feasible,” added Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, who said he was “mystified” by the school board’s actions in the Maryland county where he grew up in and still lives.

Montgomery County expanded its English Language Arts curriculum in 2022 to include books with LGBTQ+ characters to better reflect the diversity of families in its religiously diverse and politically liberal population. The elementary-school aged books included stories about a girl who finds that her favorite uncle’s marriage means she’s gaining another uncle, not losing one. Another tells the story of a young girl who has a crush on her female classmate.

I think they're probably going to lose, because the Supreme Court has a majority that shares the views of these particular parents, but it's a bad legal decision. Reading a book that espouses a view point contrary to your religious beliefs does not burden your ability to exercise your religion. It's an unworkable can of worms if applied broadly. Do the peace churches get an opt out to reading a book they think supports war? Does someone with a sincere religious belief in segregation get to opt out of books about the Civil Rights Movement? We read actual religious texts (from a number of faiths) in my days in public school, are we letting the atheists opt out of all of those?

I think we all know the answer to those questions will end up being "no," but not because they're actually different, just because their views are not shared by enough members of the Supreme Court.

You need to read NYTimes op-ed. Allowing opt-outs was a perfectly reasonable and status-quo solution.

The only reason it's being rejected is because of Lynne Harris and LGBTQ activists who have too much influence over MCPS.

I read it. You may find it a reasonable solution, but that doesn't make it a Constitutionally required solution, which is what the Supreme Court seems poised to say that it is. Once it's required, you have to deal with the scenarios I'm describing.

Which is why MCPS should considered that before digging in its heels and handing a conservative Supreme Court the opportunity to do what you're saying. That was precisely the point of the NYTimes op-ed that you claimed to have read.....

Yet another example of Dr. McKnight's ineptitude, that we're still dealing with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putting aside the emotional aspect of this argument, there is a link to the briefs filed by MCPS and the Plaintiffs. I'm not a lawyer, but it's a fascinating read.

MCPS Opposition to Writ of Certiorari:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-297/335502/20241218150621210_24-297%20-%20Mahmoud%20v.%20Taylor%20-%20Brief%20in%20Opposition.pdf

Plaintiffs Argument for Writ of Certiorari:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-297/336156/20241227173322003_Mahmoud%20Cert%20Reply%20FINAL.pdf

Link to the Documents filed with the case, including various amicus briefs and other replies by MCPS and plaintiffs:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docket/docketfiles/html/public%5C24-297.html

Looks like the question is if the inclusion of these books is just exposing students to ideas that are at odds with their religious beliefs, or if these books are part of an effort by MCPS to instruct students to think a specific way about gender and sexuality.

Interesting read. This is in MCPS's filing in the first link above:

At first, teachers and principals sought to accommodate these requests by excusing students when the
books were read in class. The growing number of opt-out requests, however, gave rise to
three related concerns: high student absenteeism, the infeasibility of administering opt-outs across classrooms
and schools, and the risk of exposing students who believe the storybooks represent them and their families
to social stigma and isolation.

I'm no lawyer so I have no idea about the legal side of this. But from a practical standpoint, if they are getting flooded with opt-out requests, maybe they should listen to such a large number of parents and just not read those books in class? Aren't they supposed to serve the interests of parents and their children? It would be one thing if it's 1 or 2 parents requesting it, but it sounds like a large number of parents opposed this.

(Also interesting MCPS is so concerned about student absenteeism in this situation and not other situations, but that's for another thread.)

But where does that end? What if the majority of families didn't want their kids exposed to any books that have gay people in them? People of color? Disabled people? Should schools just leave all those sorts of people out of books too? Besides being both morally and educationally problematic, that's also harmful to kids from those groups if they don't ever see people like them represented in school materials... avoiding books like that isn't a neutral choice, it's taking sides.

If a majority of families want X, the school system should probably do X. The schools are there to serve the parents and their children. We have an elected BOE, and open board meetings for this reason -- so the community can provide their input and the majority can vote for people who will steer the school system in the direction of the will of the people.

People did vote for the BOE members they wanted to steer the system. The candidate who was most outspoken about these issues was Bethany Mandel, and she came in third out of the three candidates in her primary.

As I stated before, there is a silent majority in MoCo that IS tolerant of LGBTQ rights and representation but does feel that some of the push with kids at the youngest levels is inappropriate. But they don't feel SO strongly about this that they're willing to protest and speak up about it, in part because they fear being labeled intolerant and homophobic.

Bethany Mandel didn't win her BOE seat because at the end of the day, MoCo is still a left-leaning county, and she was too right-wing and intolerant to be palatable with an electorate that WANTS to be progressive. But we are actually CENTER left, even though Takoma Park/Silver Spring can lean incredibly radical left and elect people that represent that extreme.

"Silent majority"? Bullcrap.

So many parents opted out that they had to cancel the “opt out” option.

You really have no evidence of how many opted out. Just your belief.

[Anonymous]

Muslim white supremacists strike again

[Anonymous]

My 4th grader learned about the Caliphate Mohammad. But he was presented as a historical figure not a religious one. I think in the future I’ll be opting my kid out of that type of lesson, as that seemed confusing to my child.

Imagine having a section taught to elementary students about Jesus, but only as a historical figure…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on WaPo's reporting, as predicted, it seems like MCPS is gonna lose: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/04/22/supreme-court-lgbtq-books-storytime-montgomery-maryland/

During more than two-and-a-half hours of argument on Tuesday, several justices read aloud from the text of the disputed storybooks, some of which referred to drag queens and same-sex marriage. Conservative justices repeatedly pressed the lawyer for the Maryland school system on why it could not easily accommodate the religious parents and allow their children to opt out of objectionable curriculum.

“What’s the big deal about allowing them to opt out,” asked Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

“I’m not understanding why it’s not feasible,” added Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, who said he was “mystified” by the school board’s actions in the Maryland county where he grew up in and still lives.

Montgomery County expanded its English Language Arts curriculum in 2022 to include books with LGBTQ+ characters to better reflect the diversity of families in its religiously diverse and politically liberal population. The elementary-school aged books included stories about a girl who finds that her favorite uncle’s marriage means she’s gaining another uncle, not losing one. Another tells the story of a young girl who has a crush on her female classmate.

I think they're probably going to lose, because the Supreme Court has a majority that shares the views of these particular parents, but it's a bad legal decision. Reading a book that espouses a view point contrary to your religious beliefs does not burden your ability to exercise your religion. It's an unworkable can of worms if applied broadly. Do the peace churches get an opt out to reading a book they think supports war? Does someone with a sincere religious belief in segregation get to opt out of books about the Civil Rights Movement? We read actual religious texts (from a number of faiths) in my days in public school, are we letting the atheists opt out of all of those?

I think we all know the answer to those questions will end up being "no," but not because they're actually different, just because their views are not shared by enough members of the Supreme Court.

You need to read NYTimes op-ed. Allowing opt-outs was a perfectly reasonable and status-quo solution.

The only reason it's being rejected is because of Lynne Harris and LGBTQ activists who have too much influence over MCPS.

I read it. You may find it a reasonable solution, but that doesn't make it a Constitutionally required solution, which is what the Supreme Court seems poised to say that it is. Once it's required, you have to deal with the scenarios I'm describing.

Which is why MCPS should considered that before digging in its heels and handing a conservative Supreme Court the opportunity to do what you're saying. That was precisely the point of the NYTimes op-ed that you claimed to have read.....

Yet another example of Dr. McKnight's ineptitude, that we're still dealing with.

In defense of McKnight, I think she thought if she did Lynne's bidding on the LGBTQ front that Lynne and the Board would have her back. But as Dr. McKnight learned when Lynne threw her under the bus after the Beidleman scandal, that was not the case. Painful lesson for her to learn.

[Anonymous]

Well at least we can stop thinking of Moco as progressive and too far left!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putting aside the emotional aspect of this argument, there is a link to the briefs filed by MCPS and the Plaintiffs. I'm not a lawyer, but it's a fascinating read.

MCPS Opposition to Writ of Certiorari:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-297/335502/20241218150621210_24-297%20-%20Mahmoud%20v.%20Taylor%20-%20Brief%20in%20Opposition.pdf

Plaintiffs Argument for Writ of Certiorari:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-297/336156/20241227173322003_Mahmoud%20Cert%20Reply%20FINAL.pdf

Link to the Documents filed with the case, including various amicus briefs and other replies by MCPS and plaintiffs:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docket/docketfiles/html/public%5C24-297.html

Looks like the question is if the inclusion of these books is just exposing students to ideas that are at odds with their religious beliefs, or if these books are part of an effort by MCPS to instruct students to think a specific way about gender and sexuality.

Interesting read. This is in MCPS's filing in the first link above:

At first, teachers and principals sought to accommodate these requests by excusing students when the
books were read in class. The growing number of opt-out requests, however, gave rise to
three related concerns: high student absenteeism, the infeasibility of administering opt-outs across classrooms
and schools, and the risk of exposing students who believe the storybooks represent them and their families
to social stigma and isolation.

I'm no lawyer so I have no idea about the legal side of this. But from a practical standpoint, if they are getting flooded with opt-out requests, maybe they should listen to such a large number of parents and just not read those books in class? Aren't they supposed to serve the interests of parents and their children? It would be one thing if it's 1 or 2 parents requesting it, but it sounds like a large number of parents opposed this.

(Also interesting MCPS is so concerned about student absenteeism in this situation and not other situations, but that's for another thread.)

But where does that end? What if the majority of families didn't want their kids exposed to any books that have gay people in them? People of color? Disabled people? Should schools just leave all those sorts of people out of books too? Besides being both morally and educationally problematic, that's also harmful to kids from those groups if they don't ever see people like them represented in school materials... avoiding books like that isn't a neutral choice, it's taking sides.

If a majority of families want X, the school system should probably do X. The schools are there to serve the parents and their children. We have an elected BOE, and open board meetings for this reason -- so the community can provide their input and the majority can vote for people who will steer the school system in the direction of the will of the people.

People did vote for the BOE members they wanted to steer the system. The candidate who was most outspoken about these issues was Bethany Mandel, and she came in third out of the three candidates in her primary.

As I stated before, there is a silent majority in MoCo that IS tolerant of LGBTQ rights and representation but does feel that some of the push with kids at the youngest levels is inappropriate. But they don't feel SO strongly about this that they're willing to protest and speak up about it, in part because they fear being labeled intolerant and homophobic.

Bethany Mandel didn't win her BOE seat because at the end of the day, MoCo is still a left-leaning county, and she was too right-wing and intolerant to be palatable with an electorate that WANTS to be progressive. But we are actually CENTER left, even though Takoma Park/Silver Spring can lean incredibly radical left and elect people that represent that extreme.

"Silent majority"? Bullcrap.

So many parents opted out that they had to cancel the “opt out” option.

You really have no evidence of how many opted out. Just your belief.

It was in their filing ffs:

“But a few months after introducing the books at the county’s elementary schools, the district announced, for reasons that remain unclear, that families would no longer be allowed to opt out when the books were taught. In its legal filings, the district explained that there were simply too many parents trying to opt out, causing complicated logistics, driving absenteeism, and creating a risk of “exposing students who believe the storybooks represent them and their families to social stigma and isolation.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putting aside the emotional aspect of this argument, there is a link to the briefs filed by MCPS and the Plaintiffs. I'm not a lawyer, but it's a fascinating read.

MCPS Opposition to Writ of Certiorari:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-297/335502/20241218150621210_24-297%20-%20Mahmoud%20v.%20Taylor%20-%20Brief%20in%20Opposition.pdf

Plaintiffs Argument for Writ of Certiorari:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-297/336156/20241227173322003_Mahmoud%20Cert%20Reply%20FINAL.pdf

Link to the Documents filed with the case, including various amicus briefs and other replies by MCPS and plaintiffs:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docket/docketfiles/html/public%5C24-297.html

Looks like the question is if the inclusion of these books is just exposing students to ideas that are at odds with their religious beliefs, or if these books are part of an effort by MCPS to instruct students to think a specific way about gender and sexuality.

Interesting read. This is in MCPS's filing in the first link above:

At first, teachers and principals sought to accommodate these requests by excusing students when the
books were read in class. The growing number of opt-out requests, however, gave rise to
three related concerns: high student absenteeism, the infeasibility of administering opt-outs across classrooms
and schools, and the risk of exposing students who believe the storybooks represent them and their families
to social stigma and isolation.

I'm no lawyer so I have no idea about the legal side of this. But from a practical standpoint, if they are getting flooded with opt-out requests, maybe they should listen to such a large number of parents and just not read those books in class? Aren't they supposed to serve the interests of parents and their children? It would be one thing if it's 1 or 2 parents requesting it, but it sounds like a large number of parents opposed this.

(Also interesting MCPS is so concerned about student absenteeism in this situation and not other situations, but that's for another thread.)

But where does that end? What if the majority of families didn't want their kids exposed to any books that have gay people in them? People of color? Disabled people? Should schools just leave all those sorts of people out of books too? Besides being both morally and educationally problematic, that's also harmful to kids from those groups if they don't ever see people like them represented in school materials... avoiding books like that isn't a neutral choice, it's taking sides.

If a majority of families want X, the school system should probably do X. The schools are there to serve the parents and their children. We have an elected BOE, and open board meetings for this reason -- so the community can provide their input and the majority can vote for people who will steer the school system in the direction of the will of the people.

People did vote for the BOE members they wanted to steer the system. The candidate who was most outspoken about these issues was Bethany Mandel, and she came in third out of the three candidates in her primary.

As I stated before, there is a silent majority in MoCo that IS tolerant of LGBTQ rights and representation but does feel that some of the push with kids at the youngest levels is inappropriate. But they don't feel SO strongly about this that they're willing to protest and speak up about it, in part because they fear being labeled intolerant and homophobic.

Bethany Mandel didn't win her BOE seat because at the end of the day, MoCo is still a left-leaning county, and she was too right-wing and intolerant to be palatable with an electorate that WANTS to be progressive. But we are actually CENTER left, even though Takoma Park/Silver Spring can lean incredibly radical left and elect people that represent that extreme.

"Silent majority"? Bullcrap.

So many parents opted out that they had to cancel the “opt out” option.

You really have no evidence of how many opted out. Just your belief.

It was in their filing ffs:

“But a few months after introducing the books at the county’s elementary schools, the district announced, for reasons that remain unclear, that families would no longer be allowed to opt out when the books were taught. In its legal filings, the district explained that there were simply too many parents trying to opt out, causing complicated logistics, driving absenteeism, and creating a risk of “exposing students who believe the storybooks represent them and their families to social stigma and isolation.”

For all that says, it might have been 3. The relevant issue was it being disruptive. It actually doesn’t say how many. Certainly does not imply anything like a majority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putting aside the emotional aspect of this argument, there is a link to the briefs filed by MCPS and the Plaintiffs. I'm not a lawyer, but it's a fascinating read.

MCPS Opposition to Writ of Certiorari:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-297/335502/20241218150621210_24-297%20-%20Mahmoud%20v.%20Taylor%20-%20Brief%20in%20Opposition.pdf

Plaintiffs Argument for Writ of Certiorari:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-297/336156/20241227173322003_Mahmoud%20Cert%20Reply%20FINAL.pdf

Link to the Documents filed with the case, including various amicus briefs and other replies by MCPS and plaintiffs:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docket/docketfiles/html/public%5C24-297.html

Looks like the question is if the inclusion of these books is just exposing students to ideas that are at odds with their religious beliefs, or if these books are part of an effort by MCPS to instruct students to think a specific way about gender and sexuality.

Interesting read. This is in MCPS's filing in the first link above:

At first, teachers and principals sought to accommodate these requests by excusing students when the
books were read in class. The growing number of opt-out requests, however, gave rise to
three related concerns: high student absenteeism, the infeasibility of administering opt-outs across classrooms
and schools, and the risk of exposing students who believe the storybooks represent them and their families
to social stigma and isolation.

I'm no lawyer so I have no idea about the legal side of this. But from a practical standpoint, if they are getting flooded with opt-out requests, maybe they should listen to such a large number of parents and just not read those books in class? Aren't they supposed to serve the interests of parents and their children? It would be one thing if it's 1 or 2 parents requesting it, but it sounds like a large number of parents opposed this.

(Also interesting MCPS is so concerned about student absenteeism in this situation and not other situations, but that's for another thread.)

But where does that end? What if the majority of families didn't want their kids exposed to any books that have gay people in them? People of color? Disabled people? Should schools just leave all those sorts of people out of books too? Besides being both morally and educationally problematic, that's also harmful to kids from those groups if they don't ever see people like them represented in school materials... avoiding books like that isn't a neutral choice, it's taking sides.

If a majority of families want X, the school system should probably do X. The schools are there to serve the parents and their children. We have an elected BOE, and open board meetings for this reason -- so the community can provide their input and the majority can vote for people who will steer the school system in the direction of the will of the people.

People did vote for the BOE members they wanted to steer the system. The candidate who was most outspoken about these issues was Bethany Mandel, and she came in third out of the three candidates in her primary.

As I stated before, there is a silent majority in MoCo that IS tolerant of LGBTQ rights and representation but does feel that some of the push with kids at the youngest levels is inappropriate. But they don't feel SO strongly about this that they're willing to protest and speak up about it, in part because they fear being labeled intolerant and homophobic.

Bethany Mandel didn't win her BOE seat because at the end of the day, MoCo is still a left-leaning county, and she was too right-wing and intolerant to be palatable with an electorate that WANTS to be progressive. But we are actually CENTER left, even though Takoma Park/Silver Spring can lean incredibly radical left and elect people that represent that extreme.

"Silent majority"? Bullcrap.

So many parents opted out that they had to cancel the “opt out” option.

You really have no evidence of how many opted out. Just your belief.

It was in their filing ffs:

“But a few months after introducing the books at the county’s elementary schools, the district announced, for reasons that remain unclear, that families would no longer be allowed to opt out when the books were taught. In its legal filings, the district explained that there were simply too many parents trying to opt out, causing complicated logistics, driving absenteeism, and creating a risk of “exposing students who believe the storybooks represent them and their families to social stigma and isolation.”

For all that says, it might have been 3. The relevant issue was it being disruptive. It actually doesn’t say how many. Certainly does not imply anything like a majority.

That is on MCPS to substantiate and explain, and based on the WaPo reporting, MCPS has failed to do a convincing job of explaining to the Supreme Court how the volume of opt-outs presented the kind of logistical and operational challenges the school system is proclaiming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My 4th grader learned about the Caliphate Mohammad. But he was presented as a historical figure not a religious one. I think in the future I’ll be opting my kid out of that type of lesson, as that seemed confusing to my child.

Imagine having a section taught to elementary students about Jesus, but only as a historical figure…

Seems like pushing too hard. Wouldn’t be surprised if this sort of thing was outlawed soon enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on WaPo's reporting, as predicted, it seems like MCPS is gonna lose: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/04/22/supreme-court-lgbtq-books-storytime-montgomery-maryland/

During more than two-and-a-half hours of argument on Tuesday, several justices read aloud from the text of the disputed storybooks, some of which referred to drag queens and same-sex marriage. Conservative justices repeatedly pressed the lawyer for the Maryland school system on why it could not easily accommodate the religious parents and allow their children to opt out of objectionable curriculum.

“What’s the big deal about allowing them to opt out,” asked Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

“I’m not understanding why it’s not feasible,” added Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, who said he was “mystified” by the school board’s actions in the Maryland county where he grew up in and still lives.

Montgomery County expanded its English Language Arts curriculum in 2022 to include books with LGBTQ+ characters to better reflect the diversity of families in its religiously diverse and politically liberal population. The elementary-school aged books included stories about a girl who finds that her favorite uncle’s marriage means she’s gaining another uncle, not losing one. Another tells the story of a young girl who has a crush on her female classmate.

I think they're probably going to lose, because the Supreme Court has a majority that shares the views of these particular parents, but it's a bad legal decision. Reading a book that espouses a view point contrary to your religious beliefs does not burden your ability to exercise your religion. It's an unworkable can of worms if applied broadly. Do the peace churches get an opt out to reading a book they think supports war? Does someone with a sincere religious belief in segregation get to opt out of books about the Civil Rights Movement? We read actual religious texts (from a number of faiths) in my days in public school, are we letting the atheists opt out of all of those?

I think we all know the answer to those questions will end up being "no," but not because they're actually different, just because their views are not shared by enough members of the Supreme Court.

You need to read NYTimes op-ed. Allowing opt-outs was a perfectly reasonable and status-quo solution.

The only reason it's being rejected is because of Lynne Harris and LGBTQ activists who have too much influence over MCPS.

I read it. You may find it a reasonable solution, but that doesn't make it a Constitutionally required solution, which is what the Supreme Court seems poised to say that it is. Once it's required, you have to deal with the scenarios I'm describing.

Which is why MCPS should considered that before digging in its heels and handing a conservative Supreme Court the opportunity to do what you're saying. That was precisely the point of the NYTimes op-ed that you claimed to have read.....

Yet another example of Dr. McKnight's ineptitude, that we're still dealing with.

In defense of McKnight, I think she thought if she did Lynne's bidding on the LGBTQ front that Lynne and the Board would have her back. But as Dr. McKnight learned when Lynne threw her under the bus after the Beidleman scandal, that was not the case. Painful lesson for her to learn.

Apples and oranges. The board certainly did have her back on removing the opt out. But she shouldn't have expected them to have her back on the Beidleman snafu.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putting aside the emotional aspect of this argument, there is a link to the briefs filed by MCPS and the Plaintiffs. I'm not a lawyer, but it's a fascinating read.

MCPS Opposition to Writ of Certiorari:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-297/335502/20241218150621210_24-297%20-%20Mahmoud%20v.%20Taylor%20-%20Brief%20in%20Opposition.pdf

Plaintiffs Argument for Writ of Certiorari:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-297/336156/20241227173322003_Mahmoud%20Cert%20Reply%20FINAL.pdf

Link to the Documents filed with the case, including various amicus briefs and other replies by MCPS and plaintiffs:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docket/docketfiles/html/public%5C24-297.html

Looks like the question is if the inclusion of these books is just exposing students to ideas that are at odds with their religious beliefs, or if these books are part of an effort by MCPS to instruct students to think a specific way about gender and sexuality.

Interesting read. This is in MCPS's filing in the first link above:

At first, teachers and principals sought to accommodate these requests by excusing students when the
books were read in class. The growing number of opt-out requests, however, gave rise to
three related concerns: high student absenteeism, the infeasibility of administering opt-outs across classrooms
and schools, and the risk of exposing students who believe the storybooks represent them and their families
to social stigma and isolation.

I'm no lawyer so I have no idea about the legal side of this. But from a practical standpoint, if they are getting flooded with opt-out requests, maybe they should listen to such a large number of parents and just not read those books in class? Aren't they supposed to serve the interests of parents and their children? It would be one thing if it's 1 or 2 parents requesting it, but it sounds like a large number of parents opposed this.

(Also interesting MCPS is so concerned about student absenteeism in this situation and not other situations, but that's for another thread.)

But where does that end? What if the majority of families didn't want their kids exposed to any books that have gay people in them? People of color? Disabled people? Should schools just leave all those sorts of people out of books too? Besides being both morally and educationally problematic, that's also harmful to kids from those groups if they don't ever see people like them represented in school materials... avoiding books like that isn't a neutral choice, it's taking sides.

If a majority of families want X, the school system should probably do X. The schools are there to serve the parents and their children. We have an elected BOE, and open board meetings for this reason -- so the community can provide their input and the majority can vote for people who will steer the school system in the direction of the will of the people.

People did vote for the BOE members they wanted to steer the system. The candidate who was most outspoken about these issues was Bethany Mandel, and she came in third out of the three candidates in her primary.

As I stated before, there is a silent majority in MoCo that IS tolerant of LGBTQ rights and representation but does feel that some of the push with kids at the youngest levels is inappropriate. But they don't feel SO strongly about this that they're willing to protest and speak up about it, in part because they fear being labeled intolerant and homophobic.

Bethany Mandel didn't win her BOE seat because at the end of the day, MoCo is still a left-leaning county, and she was too right-wing and intolerant to be palatable with an electorate that WANTS to be progressive. But we are actually CENTER left, even though Takoma Park/Silver Spring can lean incredibly radical left and elect people that represent that extreme.

"Silent majority"? Bullcrap.

So many parents opted out that they had to cancel the “opt out” option.

You really have no evidence of how many opted out. Just your belief.

It was in their filing ffs:

“But a few months after introducing the books at the county’s elementary schools, the district announced, for reasons that remain unclear, that families would no longer be allowed to opt out when the books were taught. In its legal filings, the district explained that there were simply too many parents trying to opt out, causing complicated logistics, driving absenteeism, and creating a risk of “exposing students who believe the storybooks represent them and their families to social stigma and isolation.”

For all that says, it might have been 3. The relevant issue was it being disruptive. It actually doesn’t say how many. Certainly does not imply anything like a majority.

That is on MCPS to substantiate and explain, and based on the WaPo reporting, MCPS has failed to do a convincing job of explaining to the Supreme Court how the volume of opt-outs presented the kind of logistical and operational challenges the school system is proclaiming.

Agreed. MCPS handles opt-out of family life curriculum without an issue. But for these books, they coudln't handle it?

[Anonymous]

So what else can we opt out of now? Certainly if we don’t believe in germ theory we can opt of that, yes? How would all of these various opt outs be handled? Where do students go? Home? Does the school need to hire extra people to monitor the opt outs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on WaPo's reporting, as predicted, it seems like MCPS is gonna lose: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/04/22/supreme-court-lgbtq-books-storytime-montgomery-maryland/

During more than two-and-a-half hours of argument on Tuesday, several justices read aloud from the text of the disputed storybooks, some of which referred to drag queens and same-sex marriage. Conservative justices repeatedly pressed the lawyer for the Maryland school system on why it could not easily accommodate the religious parents and allow their children to opt out of objectionable curriculum.

“What’s the big deal about allowing them to opt out,” asked Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

“I’m not understanding why it’s not feasible,” added Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, who said he was “mystified” by the school board’s actions in the Maryland county where he grew up in and still lives.

Montgomery County expanded its English Language Arts curriculum in 2022 to include books with LGBTQ+ characters to better reflect the diversity of families in its religiously diverse and politically liberal population. The elementary-school aged books included stories about a girl who finds that her favorite uncle’s marriage means she’s gaining another uncle, not losing one. Another tells the story of a young girl who has a crush on her female classmate.

I think they're probably going to lose, because the Supreme Court has a majority that shares the views of these particular parents, but it's a bad legal decision. Reading a book that espouses a view point contrary to your religious beliefs does not burden your ability to exercise your religion. It's an unworkable can of worms if applied broadly. Do the peace churches get an opt out to reading a book they think supports war? Does someone with a sincere religious belief in segregation get to opt out of books about the Civil Rights Movement? We read actual religious texts (from a number of faiths) in my days in public school, are we letting the atheists opt out of all of those?

I think we all know the answer to those questions will end up being "no," but not because they're actually different, just because their views are not shared by enough members of the Supreme Court.

You need to read NYTimes op-ed. Allowing opt-outs was a perfectly reasonable and status-quo solution.

The only reason it's being rejected is because of Lynne Harris and LGBTQ activists who have too much influence over MCPS.

I read it. You may find it a reasonable solution, but that doesn't make it a Constitutionally required solution, which is what the Supreme Court seems poised to say that it is. Once it's required, you have to deal with the scenarios I'm describing.

Which is why MCPS should considered that before digging in its heels and handing a conservative Supreme Court the opportunity to do what you're saying. That was precisely the point of the NYTimes op-ed that you claimed to have read.....

Yet another example of Dr. McKnight's ineptitude, that we're still dealing with.

In defense of McKnight, I think she thought if she did Lynne's bidding on the LGBTQ front that Lynne and the Board would have her back. But as Dr. McKnight learned when Lynne threw her under the bus after the Beidleman scandal, that was not the case. Painful lesson for her to learn.

McKnight was a problem but it is concerning that the BOE takes no accountability for anything in MCPS, including issues they caused. Ultimately they have the oversight and have failed.