Upholding diversity lessons
FEDERAL DISTRICT court judge Mark Wolf was right to dismiss the lawsuit a group of parents brought against the Lexington Public Schools because their children were taught diversity lessons that depicted same-sex couples. The decision Wolf issued yesterday is based on earlier court findings that parents do not have a constitutional right to dictate what their children are taught in the public schools. As such, the decision is a boost not just for tolerance and inclusion but for public education as well.
The parents brought suit after their children were exposed to diversity education materials that included children's books -- such as "Who's in a Family?" and "Molly's Family" -- that featured same-sex parents, along with others. They said their constitutional rights to free exercise of religion were violated, as were their rights as parents to raise their children as they see fit. Judge Wolf reasonably concluded that options remain for the parents, such as private school or home schooling, so their rights were not abridged.
Under a 1993 Massachusetts law, the state Department of Education requires that all public school districts develop curricula advancing respect for diversity, including for gays and lesbians. The Estabrook Elementary School was only following statewide curriculum frameworks that encourage instruction in "different types of families" and "the concepts of prejudice and discrimination." Such classroom material is as legitimate in today's society as the three Rs.
Among other remedies, the parents had demanded in the suit that they be allowed to "observe silently and record" any classroom discussions of gender identity, sexuality, or forms of marriage -- an obvious chilling effect on a school's ability to educate its students. Wolf left open whether the parents should have been able to remove their children from the lessons they found objectionable, finding that a matter for the state courts.
The decision makes for interesting reading as it traces the legal precedents involving parental rights in public education. Previous efforts to bar curricula -- all struck down by the courts -- included parental objections to material about AIDS (1995), to a particular science textbook (2004), even to dress code requirements (2001). In a pluralistic society, parental objections can run the gamut. Parents may have sincere religious objections to divorce, for example, but the reality is that divorced families exist. Parents are free to place that knowledge in the context of their religious beliefs, but they shouldn't be able to prevent children from learning the sheer fact of it.
As judge Wolf noted, fostering a respect for difference in today's society is a "rational goal" of public education for all students, besides protecting the children of diverse families from discrimination. The earlier most students learn that lesson, the better.
