{"id":935128,"date":"2025-04-22T10:45:43","date_gmt":"2025-04-22T14:45:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/glaad.org\/?p=935128"},"modified":"2025-04-22T11:16:53","modified_gmt":"2025-04-22T15:16:53","slug":"education-a-la-carte-legal-and-anti-censorship-experts-authors-and-students-on-the-stakes-of-the-supreme-court-book-ban-case-mahmoud-v-taylor","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/glaad.org\/education-a-la-carte-legal-and-anti-censorship-experts-authors-and-students-on-the-stakes-of-the-supreme-court-book-ban-case-mahmoud-v-taylor\/","title":{"rendered":"Education \u00c0 La Carte: Legal and Anti-Censorship Experts, Authors, and Students on the Stakes of the Supreme Court Book Ban Case Mahmoud v. Taylor"},"content":{"rendered":"

Today, April 22, the Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in a case brought by six parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, seeking to opt out their children from the presence of LGBTQ-inclusive books in public education.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThis case is about whether public school education can be a la carte, allowing parents to pick and choose and individually direct curriculums,\u201d said Kelly Parry-Johnson, a senior staff attorney for Advocates for Trans Equality (<\/span>A4TE<\/span><\/a>), a nonprofit that fights to protect transgender Americans\u2019 legal and political rights. \u201cThis is at odds with the reality of \u2013 and our American and democratic values of \u2013 a pluralistic society and goals of public education.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Mahmoud v. Taylor<\/span><\/i><\/a> was brought to the Court by six parents objecting to LGBTQ-inclusive children\u2019s picture books in Montgomery County Public Schools, which the district added after following district protocol as <\/span>nonmandatory<\/span><\/a> supplemental learning materials. The plaintiffs claim the books’ mere presence violates their freedom of religion, because they were not given the ability to opt their children out of the classroom with the books.<\/span><\/p>\n

Credit: Kevin Dietsch\/Getty Images<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Perry-Johnson explains a broad opt-out provision \u201ccould lead to exclusion of books that depict the experiences of other marginalized people \u2013 whether based on race, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristics,\u201d a consequence that eight Muslim groups raised in their <\/span>amicus brief<\/span><\/a> filed with the support of A4TE.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cIn a country where Muslims and LGBTQI+ students alike are being targeted simply for being who they are, it is more important than ever that our taxpayer-funded public schools are learning environments that are safe and respectful of all students no matter who they are or what they believe,\u201d said Gabriel Arkles, A4TE co-interim legal director.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Vox<\/span><\/i>\u2019s Ian Millhiser <\/span>warned<\/span><\/a> that a ruling in the parents\u2019 favor could lead to \u201cDon\u2019t Say LGBTQ\u201d-style restrictions in classrooms around the country. Such a verdict \u201cwould place such heavy obligations on teachers who discuss these topics that it is unclear whether they would practically be able to do so.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The American Library Association (ALA) and the Banned Books Week Coalition (GLAAD is a contributor) recently announced the <\/span>theme<\/span><\/a> for Banned Books Week 2025, which will be held October 5 \u2013 11: \u201cCensorship Is So 1984. Read for Your Rights.\u201d A nod to George Orwell\u2019s frequently banned <\/span>1984<\/span><\/i>, this year\u2019s theme is appropriate on more than one level. Just this year:<\/span><\/p>\n