This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Supreme Court's schedule for Tuesday included oral arguments in the Mahmoud v. Taylor case, which essentially involves a decision by school officials in Montgomery County, Maryland, to impose their ideological agenda on children and families by force.
They are doing this by requiring young students to be subjected to LGBT indoctrination, and giving parents no opportunity to opt their children out of the offensive lessons.
Parents charge that's a violation of their legal and constitutional rights. But even before the arguments, a constitutional expert and legal scholar has expressed his opinion: that such mandatory ideologies in public schools have gone way too far.
"Teachers and boards are killing the institution of public education by treating children and parents more like captives than consumers," explained Jonathan Turley, law professor and popular commentator.
He's also testified as an expert before Congress on constitutional issues, and has represented members in court on constitutional disputes.
"They are force-feeding social and political priorities, including passes for engaging in approved protests," he explained. "As public schools continue to produce abysmal scores, particularly for minority students, board and union officials have called for lowering or suspending proficiency standards or declared meritocracy to be a form of 'white supremacy.' Gifted and talented programs are being eliminated in the name of 'equity.'"
He explained when parents have a "choice" in education, then "these teachers lose a virtual monopoly over many families. They are no longer a captive audience."
He said the Maryland fight is over officials requiring children "to participate in instruction that includes LGBTQ+ themes."
He said at the heart of the issue is the fact that "parents object to the use of public schools to advance social and political agendas."
He explained while the school insists on using the ideological books to recognize "diversity," it is the parents who "have the stronger argument." And he said a ruling for the parents "could prove one of the most important victories for parental rights in decades."
He noted the Supreme Court already has recognized in Wisconsin v. Yoder that it was "beyond debate" that parents have a First Amendment right "to guide the religious future and education of their children."
He warned of the consequences of teachers and administrators "destroying public education by elevating agendas over academics."
He said, "There is an irony in the position before the Supreme Court by public educators. A reversal may be a critical change in slowing the departure of families from public schools. One of the families discussed in this case sold their house to afford private schooling for their children. By limiting such mandatory programs, some families may be less likely to seek alternatives to public schools. These families want to send their children to public schools while retaining their role in instilling religious values for their children. Montgomery County is forcing a choice that few parents will make against their family values."
He said, "Democrats will find that this is not partisan; it is primal for parents."
