By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In the case of Mahmoud v. Taylor, the Supreme Court ruled that parents with religious objections to books with LGBTQ+ characters must be allowed to opt their children out of related public school instruction. This decision, handed down along party lines, places a substantial new burden on public schools. The ruling requires schools to notify parents in advance and allow them to excuse their children from instruction involving such books, even without clear evidence of constitutional violations. Consequently, schools are likely to exclude books that introduce queer themes or characters to avoid potential lawsuits, potentially leading to a “Don’t Say Gay” regime across the nation.
Read the original article here
The Supreme Court just imposed a “Don’t Say Gay” regime on every public school in America, and the implications are far-reaching and unsettling. The court’s decision, handed down along predictable partisan lines, effectively allows parents with religious objections to opt their children out of any school instruction that uses books with LGBTQ+ themes or characters. This ruling, stemming from the *Mahmoud v. Taylor* case, is more than just a narrow legal interpretation; it’s a signal of a broader push to reshape constitutional law in a more socially conservative manner, particularly where religion intersects with education.
This decision places a significant burden on public schools. Many schools, facing potential legal challenges and the fear of non-compliance, are likely to err on the side of caution and simply exclude books that include LGBTQ+ themes or characters altogether. This is particularly worrying, as the original case itself lacked concrete evidence of any constitutional violations, with no clear understanding of how these books were actually being used in the classroom or what conversations they sparked. The court’s willingness to rule so broadly, without a fully developed record, suggests a pre-existing desire to impose this kind of restriction.
The consequences could be severe. As schools remove LGBTQ+ representation, they will face pressure to remove other books, and discussions, that conflict with religious objections. Parents who object to any aspect of instruction will likely attempt to leverage this precedent to shield their children from anything they deem religiously offensive. This opens the door to endless debates about curriculum content and, potentially, a fragmentation of the public education system, as parents seek to isolate their children from any ideas or information that might challenge their beliefs.
This ruling comes at a time when LGBTQ+ rights are already under attack, and it will embolden those who seek to restrict the visibility and acceptance of LGBTQ+ individuals. This decision risks creating a chilling effect in schools, where teachers may feel pressured to self-censor and avoid discussing LGBTQ+ issues altogether, and also limits open conversations about differing beliefs. The fear is that this could lead to a new era of enforced silence, where LGBTQ+ students and families are made to feel unwelcome, unseen, and devalued. This is not to suggest that it is not already that way.
There are many who believe this decision will only serve to create a more divisive and unequal society. Many feel like if they are LGBTQ, and do not share the same beliefs as others, they will lose their freedoms. They will be vilified by the people who make the rules. Many believe that the implications of this ruling are not limited to LGBTQ+ topics; the groundwork is now laid for further restrictions on curriculum content, potentially targeting issues like evolution and other topics considered to be outside the realm of conservative religious beliefs. The underlying assumption is that the mere mention or existence of LGBTQ+ people is somehow inappropriate for children, thus fueling a campaign of fear and misinformation.
This case provides a good opportunity to think critically. One question is this: what is the point of a school, in our modern world, if not to help children, of all backgrounds, get along with one another? Is the end goal of this regime to eliminate LGBTQ+ people, by eliminating empathy for these people from the lives of others?
The idea that parents can control what their children are exposed to, to this degree, will only exacerbate the sense of division. Instead of having a place of learning, the schools will now teach a version of facts. Some parents are likely to embrace this development, some schools will simply crumble.
Many people think that this ruling will come back to bite those who want to control the learning environment, because this will allow those with opposing religious beliefs to attempt to have a say in curriculum decisions. And, if this continues, it will result in less education, and less tolerance. The end result is that everyone loses.
The implications of this ruling are clear, but the future is not. It is, however, very likely that the Supreme Court has just opened the door to a new era of censorship and division in American public schools. This is just the beginning.