Two rainbow flags waving in front of the US Supreme Court building.
I’ve been reeling. We are starting to discover the real-life implications of Mahmoud v. Taylor – the Supreme Court case on school opt-outs that named Love, Violet and eight other LGBTQ+ picture books. Some I expected and even warned about during the case. Others…I did not see coming. (What follows is from my social media post on Monday, Dec. 8, edited and updated, with new links.)
Does Mahmoud Even Apply to Crowd Images?
As I described in a previous post, a father in Lexington, Mass., has sued his school district, claiming that his child’s innocence was destroyed by two picture books, All Are Welcome (Penfold, Kaufman) and Familes, Families, Families (Lang, Lang).
His objection? All Are Welcome has a crowd illustration of a school fair that includes what might be a two-mom family among many families. That’s it. The other book shows many types of families, including those with lots of cousins, or no siblings, one mom, two dads, or grandparents. These are the kinds of families children already live in or observe around them.
This case is not strong. But if it does win, it could mean that educators must notify parents in advance of any portrayal of people they “don’t approve of” or don’t want to explain to their children, per his complaint. Think about that.
Consider the utterly impossible and immoral burden that this places on teachers who are supposed to 1) tell the truth and 2) support all students, not participate in erasing some because of the prejudices of others. The possibility of such extreme and unreasonable lawsuits could pressure educators to self-censor – though I hope schools choose to embrace and defend basic human decency. I hope communities support them in this.
Today this case is about erasing same-sex parents. Tomorrow it could be a white Christian parent demanding that teachers help them censor anyone of another religion or race — in every single book illustration. This goes far beyond religious liberty into violating children’s First Amendment rights and equal protection.
While extreme, many of the authors and illustrators involved in Mahmoud warned such applications were likely. But I never expected what happened next…
From LGBTQ+ Books to Vaccines?!
Monday morning, I woke to learn that SCOTUS has rejected a 2nd District case allowing New York schools to require vaccines for private AND PUBLIC school students without religious exemptions. (The vaccine requirement had been established after high numbers of religious exemptions had lead to a severe measles outbreak.) In their rejection, SCOTUS directed the 2nd District Court to look at Mahmoud – which allows parents to opt out of LGBTQ-inclusive picture books for religious reasons. They are suggesting that parents can send unvaccinated kids to any school if that choice is based on religion.
If this happens (which is still undecided), it will shift the danger and burden of this religious choice onto the whole public. Any family with a medically vulnerable person – an infant, immuno-compromised or elderly or severely ill person (like me), or someone going through chemo – those families would no longer have safe access to public schools because of the religious choices of others.
A family like mine would be forced to home school, even if they are already caring for a sick family member and don’t have anyone healthy available to do this. This feels like gross overreach again. People who make an ideological choice not to vaccinate should bear the responsibilities and danger of that choice themselves, and help to limit the danger they are imposing on others as much as possible. That includes finding a way to educate their children that doesn’t put other families at risk.
(It’s important to note that there are medical reasons some people cannot tolerate vaccines. If most of the public is vaccinated, that protects at-risk people. But that protection is fast disappearing. And now my picture book may be used to advance this danger – to put children at risk of catching preventable and series illnesses that can kill.)
In keeping with the current direction of this administration, the burden of these choices would be shoved on the already-ill and disabled and their families – in the name of religion. Just like the days before disability rights, families like mine would again be denied access to public spaces, including public schools. And this is being suggested on the basis of a SCOTUS case that demonized and mischaracterized LGBTQ+ people and our picture books, rather than discussing our lives and stories honestly.
Religious rights are sacred. My spouse is a military chaplain, who safeguards religious liberty and protects against religion-based oppression. Religious liberty must be protected. But “free exercise” may not cross into erasing and oppressing others, or imposing direct harm. That’s no one’s right. That’s discrimination.
My Dream…
What I long for is a country committed to valuing every single human as fully human, as worthy of equal representation, rights, and safety. Including people of color, LGBTQ+ people, disabled and ill people. That is not happening right now. We cannot rely on this government or these courts to protect people equally. This falls to us.
And. If we all keep showing up in our own communities, with library check-outs, with book purchases, by communicating with our local educators and school boards, by modeling kindness and respect to our children…I have to believe that one day, this ugly, hateful tide will turn. We can be better than this.
We must be better than this.
This dream is why I write. And why I won’t stop.
We must never stop.
***
(See also how SCOTUS this week turned down this book banning case from Llano, TX, denying First Amendment rights to libraries in TX, LA and MS. This is a massive blow and seems to be a complete denial of the First Amendment. Response from PEN America.)
Recent Comments