Parental Rights Under Assault In Education

A seminal cultural issue is the tug-of-war over parental rights and children's education. Increasingly parents are demanding more involvement in what's taught in schools. School districts are pushing back, contending they know what's best for students. Parental rights stop at the school's front door.  

A high-stakes battle over the issue has reached the nation's highest court.  The case involves Maryland parents pitted against the Montgomery County Board of Education.  Parents sued the district over LGBTQ themed books for pre-Kindergarten and elementary-aged children. 

The Supreme Court is expected to hand down a decision in the case this summer.  The suit has reignited the simmering battle over school books, curriculum and teachers classroom guides. Many school boards and the teachers union have erected roadblocks to parental oversight of their child's education. 

At issue in the Maryland case, is the Montgomery County Board of Education's refusal to allow parents to opt out classes that use books with LGBTQ themes in elementary school.  Montgomery County is the 14th largest district in the nation with more than 160,000 students, including 70,000 elementary kids. 

In 2022, Maryland's largest district announced revisions to its curriculum would include new storybooks with young LGBTQ characters to foster diversity and inclusion.  Parents decided to take the issue to court in 2023 after the district refused to honor opt-out requests for students after saying it would.  

Maryland has a law as many states do that requires parental notification and the ability to opt-out of sexual education classes and controversial readings on related topics. The board's own guidelines guarantee parents may seek opt-outs and alternative assignments.  

The board reversed course when a vocal group of parents protested that the opt-out amounted to a violation of their First Amendment rights. Three families took issue with the powerful board, arguing the books subject matter infringed on their free exercise of religion. 

It's worth noting that the opposition group included members of the Catholic, Muslim and Ukrainian Orthodox churches.  They did not challenge the curriculum or demand the school district stop reading the books to other students.  All they asked was the right to have their children excused from the class.

The media has tried to frame this as book banning.  That is patently untrue. Others have contended that religious beliefs don't belong in public schools. But the parents are not lobbying to teach a religious point of view on LGBTQ.  They just don't want their kids exposed to gender affirming messages.

A Montgomery County district board member defended their decision by claiming if books "offend your family's religious values or your core beliefs is just telling (your) kid, 'Here's another reason to hate another person.'"  That irrational judgment reflects the board's contempt for parents. 

Parents should not be asked to surrender their right to instill religious upbringing for their children. Issues surrounding family life and human sexuality are at the heart of many religions teachings. Parents are the best guides on these matters, especially at the elementary and pre-K level. 

It helps to know the content of the richly illustrated books to understand the parents' position. The books, read to pre-K and elementary school-age children, champion pride parades, gender transitioning and pronoun preferences for children.  

As one example, a book tasks three-and-four-year olds to search for images from a word list that includes "intersex flag," "drag queen," leather and the name of a celebrated LGBTQ activist and sex worker. Teaching guides suggest it is "hurtful" if students question these ideas.

The books included "My Rainbow," about a mother who makes a rainbow colored wig for her transgender daughter. Another, "Love Violet," tells the story of a girl who develops a crush on her female classmate Mira. Only Mira made "Violet's heart skip," the book emphasizes. 

One book describes the story of a girl attending her uncle's same-sex wedding. Another, innocently named "Puppy Pride," tells the story of a dog that gets lost during a pride parade.  The deceptively disguised LGBTQ ideology unfolds on the pages. 

The books were front and center when the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in April.  The case landed at the high court after the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the parents of children enrolled in Montgomery County public schools had no right to be notified or opt-out their kids.

The high court has an opportunity to ratify parental rights and religious freedom in its decision.  In addition, the justices should make it clear that parents--not the state or school district--should have the right to decide when to introduce their children to sensitive issues about gender and sexuality.

Racial Quotas Are Another Form of Discrimination

Racial preferences in American college admissions are anathema to those who share the views of Dr. Martin Luther King. The civil rights icon preached judging people on the content of their character not the color of their skin. Yet most colleges today use some form of race-based formula to admit students.

Perhaps, the most egregious example is that Ivy League bastion Harvard. Students for Fair Admissions (SFA) sued Harvard in 2020 for using "racial classification" to discrimination against Asian Americans. In that case, the U.S. attorney general for civil rights argued before the First Circuit Court:

"Harvard monitors the evolving composition of the class by race at evert stage in the process. The application summary sheets used by admissions officers use race. First readers use race, second readers use race, subcommittees use race. The overall rating Harvard assigns each applicant uses race."

In the quest to achieve equity, Harvard's rules discriminate against primarily Asians, but whites too. Colleges continue to argue for racial preference based on the discrimination against African-Americans 60 years ago. Institutions cling to the rationale that blacks are unable to compete on a level playing field. 

Harvard's race-based policies are unambiguous. Here's the racial make-up of Harvard 2026 class: 42.5% white; 14.4% black; 27.6% Asian; 11.9% Hispanic and 3.6% Native American or Hawaiian.  The university's de facto policy is to exclude Asian applicants because they are overrepresented.  

Harvard, despite its liberal reputation, has a shameful history of discrimination,  In 1925, students of Jewish faith represented 27.6% of the campus.  Their numbers had increased from 10% in 1909.  The university decided it had a "Jewish problem" and was determined to limit admissions to Jews.

In 1926, the university discarded its academic admissions standard and changed its policy to focus on "character," a subjective tool to exclude "brilliant scholars."  It was a charade based on its desire to lower standards to admit more non-Jewish students of "average intelligence."  

Harvard and other universities believe without subjective admission policies, blacks would fail on their merit. This is demeaning to African-Americans and blatant racial discrimination. This isn't equality. It's the height of hypocrisy that universities embrace Critical Race Theory yet practice discrimination. 

This year the U.S. Supreme Court will take up racial allotments when it hears arguments involving the Harvard case and one associated the University of North Carolina.  The court has the opportunity to overturn a precedent set in 1978 when the justices first ruled on affirmative action in higher education. 

This should be a slam dunk decision for the court based on the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act.  Racial preferences violate Title VI of the Civil Rights act of 1964.  The 14th Amendment prohibits the denial of any person "the equal protection of the laws." 

But the court has shied away from overturning racial preferences because justices fear being branded anti-African American. The high court also is reluctant to overturn precedence set in past decisions upholding affirmative action. 

Public opinion supports an end to racial preference. A Pew Research Center poll in 2020 found 73% of Americans did not believe that race or ethnicity should be a factor in college admissions. Majorities of white, black, Hispanic and Asian respondents agreed. Pew ran the same poll this year.  The numbers had not changed.

Dr. King passionately championed equality for all races, black or white or brown.  He abhorred the idea of favoring one race over another. He believed America should stand for equality for all.  That concept should overcome whatever case precedent has been established by the Supreme Court. 

Washington: No Town For A Fair Hearing

Fairness, decency and decorum were nowhere to be found in the halls of the Senate building in Washington last week.  Those principles were shredded in the name of partisan politics.  The conduct of some senators turned a serious subject, sexual misconduct, into a farcical circus.

No matter whether you believe Christine Blasey Ford or Judge Brett Kavanaugh, everyone should be chagrined by what they witnessed during the Senate Judiciary hearings.  Instead of collegial etiquette, they were treated to political grandstanding, bickering and backbiting  What a national disgrace.

Normally,  confirmation hearings are somber and sober affairs even in the worst nomination battles.  But not this time.  On opening day, 70 screaming, unruly hecklers were arrested for interrupting the proceedings.  The unprecedented rowdiness set the tone for the remainder of the hearings.

The so-called protest was orchestrated by Democrat activists.  Several were caught on camera paying the demonstrators.  Each person who showed up was paid $50 to disrupt the hearing, received free breakfast, lunch and was given money for bail, according to news sources.  It was a blatant charade.

Despite the obvious theatrics, California's Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein praised the protesters for their outburst against the nominee.  Senator Feinstein, 85 years old and seeking another six-year term, should have condemned the outrageous behavior.  But she was just warming up for her hit job.  

After days of contentious hearings, it was clear Judge Kavanaugh had emerged unscathed.  That is when Senator Feinstein sucker punched the nominee with allegations of sexual misconduct.  She had kept the allegation secret since July, hiding the information from Republicans and Judge Kavanaugh. 

In spite of denials, Senator Feinstein or her proxy leaked the sexual abuse charges to news outlets. No one else had knowledge of the bombshell. She knew the salacious details would ignite a media frenzy that would put her in the national spotlight and boost her campaign.  Shameless political pandering.  

Judge Kavanaugh and Republicans were caught flat-footed.  The nominee and Senator Feinstein huddled privately prior to the hearings.  Never once was the issue of sexual assault raised during the meeting.  Her scheme was to back stab the judge and torpedo the nomination.  Fair play be damned. 

Once the alleged victim's story was made public, it was a matter of time before two unsubstantiated  charges followed.  It was obvious to all but the most partisan Democrat these were orchestrated to create a narrative that Judge Kavanaugh is a serial abuser.  Yell rapist enough times and it sticks.

The stories of abuse have a couple of things in common.  The alleged incidents happened 32-36 years ago.  There are no corroborating witnesses or sworn testimony to support the charges  Democrats cared nothing about the presumption of innocence.  Women should be believed, they bellowed. 

Every victim--male or female--has a right to be heard.  But in America, allegations are just that--allegations--until proven.  Democrats tried to turn the country's standard of due process on its head.  As a result, the hearings devolved into a Kangaroo Court with the accused convicted by the mob.

Democrats attempted to justify their lack of fairness by comparing the hearings to a job interview.  Really?  Please raise your hand if you have ever been on a job interview where you were unexpectedly confronted by a sexual abuse charge?  Waiting.  Still waiting for a show of hands.

As a delay tactic, the Democrats brayed for an FBI investigation.  Senator Feinstein in July could have demanded and been granted an FBI inquiry the moment she received Ms. Ford's letter.  Why didn't she? The senator contends she wanted to honor Ms. Ford's request for confidentiality.

Her claim is not credible since the story including Ms. Ford's name was surreptitiously leaked to the media.  Additionally, the committee chairman offered to fly to California to interview Ms. Ford privately.  The invitation was declined.  Senator Feinstein wanted to engineer a spectacle.

At the eleventh hour the committee majority agreed to ask the FBI to investigate the matter.  Democrats know this a red herring.  The FBI will interview the judge, Ms. Ford and witnesses.  That's it.  The agency will NOT issue an opinion or evaluate the truthfulness of statements.

Democrats know full well the FBI's role.  This is just another stall tactic. Expect Democrats to claim a one-week investigation is not long enough.  Anticipate more baseless allegations to drip...drip..drip into the overflowing bucket of media slime.

Democrats announced minutes after Judge Kavanaugh was chosen for the high court that his nomination was dead on arrival.  Party financial backers and their liberal base demanded it after Judge Neil Gorsuch won Senate approval.  Democrats have every right to vote against this nominee.

But Democrats have no right to irreparably damage a once collaborative process of advice and consent for political gain.  The have perpetrated an injustice on both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh. The Democrat Party will one day reap what it has sown.  That day can't arrive soon enough.  

The Supremes: Court Nominees Endure Inquisition

When President George Washington named John Jay as the first chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, he could never have imagined the gauntlet future nominees would face.  Almost 230 years later, court appointees endure fierce partisan attacks and personal vilification.

Once presidential nominees to the nation's highest court were treated with polite deference.  Those days disappeared during the presidency of Richard Nixon when two appointees were rejected in votes by the Senate in 1969 and 1970.  That had not happened since 1930 under President Hoover.

While some nominees have voluntarily withdrawn their names in the past, only a dozen nominees in two centuries have been voted down by the Senate.  While scrutiny of any Supreme Court appointment is part of the Senate's role, it has evolved into political theater unfitting of the office.

As evidence, the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy touched off a firestorm of opposition before his replacement was even named. When President Trump tapped Brett Kavanaugh, a respected judge on the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the verbal knifing began.

It is an omen that his confirmation hearings will feature political teeth gnashing instead of serious judicial inquiry.

A powerful Political Action Committee (PAC) funded by George Soros has already begun digging into Kavanaugh's background. The American Bridge 21st Century, founded in 2012, specializes in opposition research, a polite term for trolling for dirt on those the PAC deems its enemies.

In fact, the group has made no pretense that it is less interested in combing through Judge Kavanaugh's legal scholarship than it is in uncovering details of his personal life or views on political and religious issues.  The latter may garner the spotlight since the nominee is a practicing Catholic.

The nation was treated to a precursor of what Kavanaugh likely will encounter when President Trump nominated Notre Dame University professor Amy Coney Barrett to an appeals court.  Led by California's Senator Dianne Feinstein, the hearings denigrated into a religious inquisition.

The senator delved deeply into how Barrett's faith might influence her rulings, suggesting she wore her Catholicism too "loudly."  This represented the worst kind of intolerance and bigotry.  Expect more of the same when Kavanaugh is grilled by Democrats during the confirmation hearings.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has already signaled that "women's health care" will be a central issue.  His choice of words is political code for abortion.  Democrats will hammer that theme to raise the specter that Roe vs. Wade will be overturned if a Catholic justice is confirmed.

(Note to Liberals: A 2017 Pew Research poll of adults nationwide found 57 percent support abortion in all or most cases.  Among Catholics surveyed, 53 percent held the same position.  That means Catholics or no more likely to oppose abortion than any other adult.)

This red herring survives despite the fact there has never been a direct legal challenge to the 1973 Supreme Court decision that ruled unconstitutional a state law banning abortion to save the life of a mother. The ruling has stood for 45 years. In the interim, there have been 60 million U.S. abortions.

The other issue likely to be front and center is the #MeToo movement.  In today's hyper-charged atmosphere any whiff of sexual impropriety is enough to destroy a public figure.  A left-wing outfit Ultraviolet has made its mission to sabotage the nomination with scurrilous sexual accusations.

Ultraviolet is shopping a six-page memo to senators and the media insinuating Kavanaugh knew about sexual harassment accusations against a federal judge and failed to act.  The sleazy dossier offers no incriminating evidence to back its claims against Kavanaugh, who clerked for the judge.

It matters little the alleged incident happened 25 years ago and there has never been a hint of impropriety on Kavanaugh's part.  It also is no coincidence that Ultraviolet has links to MoveOn.org, another activist group that enjoys generous financial support from the irascible Soros. 

Over the next month,  expect activists armed with war chests to nitpick every email, memo and private utterance of Judge Kavanaugh to find a smoking gun. The ruthless efforts will yield no real proof but insidious innuendos.  Thus the hearings likely will be uncivil and uninformative.

Kavanaugh has a 12-year record on the court of appeals.  There are more than 300 of his cases that provide a window into his views on the Constitution as well as insights into his integrity, knowledge of the law and judicial competence.  His judicial record should determine his fate, but it won't.

This is Washington and nothing inspires political grandstanding and personal bullying like hearings for a Supreme Court nominee. Ultimately, Kavanaugh will be approved but not until senators have shredded every last remnant of their already tattered cloak of dignity.