First Amendment topicsAbout the First Amendment
News Story
 
print this   Print

Federal judge: Parents don't have right to dictate curriculum

By The Associated Press
02.26.07

BOSTON — A federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit filed by parents who objected to discussions of gay families in their children's classrooms, ruling the parents do not have the right to dictate curriculum in public schools.

U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf said federal courts have decided in other cases that the constitutional right of parents to raise their children does not include the right to restrict what a public school may teach them. Those earlier rulings also have held that teachings that contradict a parent's religious beliefs do not violate their First Amendment right to exercise their religion, Wolf said.

"In essence under the Constitution public schools are entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy," he wrote in the Feb. 23 ruling Parker v. Hurley.

"Diversity is a hallmark of our nation. It is increasingly evident that our diversity includes differences in sexual orientation," he wrote.

Wolf dismissed both the federal and state claims made in the lawsuit, but said the parents could refile the lawsuit in state court.

The case has attracted attention in part because Massachusetts is the only state in the nation that allows same-sex marriage.

Tonia and David Parker, of Lexington, sued last year after their son brought home a book from kindergarten that depicted different kinds of families, including a gay family. Another Lexington couple, Joseph and Robin Wirthlin, joined the suit after a second-grade teacher read to the class, King and King, a fairy tale that tells the story of two princes falling in love.

Both couples said they have religious beliefs that homosexuality is immoral and that marriage is a holy union between a man and a woman. They argued that Lexington school officials violated their parental rights to teach their own morals to their children.

"It boils down to this simple thing: The parents have a fundamental right to be the primary directors of their children's upbringing and moral education," David Parker said on Feb. 23.

"At the very least, this translates to monitoring the curriculum and conversations going on in elementary school," he said.

Jeffrey Denner, an attorney for the parents, said they would appeal Wolf's ruling to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and also refile the claims in state court.

Parker said Lexington school administrators violated a state law requiring that parents be given notice and an opportunity to exempt their children from any curriculum that "primarily involves human sexual education or human sexuality."

But John Davis, an attorney for Lexington school officials, said the books cited by the Parkers and the Wirthlins did not focus on sex education, but merely depicted various families, including same-sex families.

Davis said school officials view the decision as confirmation they can teach diversity and tolerance to students without violating student or parental rights.

In his ruling, Wolf said parents have a fundamental right to raise their children and are not required to abandon that responsibility to the state. But he said the Parkers and the Wirthlins have alternatives if they do not approve of the curriculum at public schools, including private schools, home-schooling and working to elect a Lexington school committee that will choose a curriculum more compatible with their beliefs.

"However, the Parkers and Wirthlins have chosen to send their children to the Lexington public schools with its current curriculum. The Constitution does not permit them to prescribe what those children will be taught," Wolf said.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, which supported Lexington school officials, praised the ruling.

"This is not a case about teaching about homosexuality. This is a case where Lexington sought to teach about diversity and about having respect," said Sarah Wunsch, staff attorney for the ACLU.

"It's not about sexuality; they were teaching about different kinds of families."


Update
1st Circuit backs schools' lessons on gay families
Panel finds Lexington, Mass., parents' rights to exercise their religious beliefs aren't violated when their children are exposed to contrary ideas in school. 02.01.08

Related

Federal judge dismisses suit against New York college's sex course

Plaintiffs argued course was hostile to Christian and Jewish religious views. 02.04.99

7th Circuit throws out Indiana curfew law

Rewritten law still too restrictive, federal appeals court finds, because it views minors' protected First Amendment activities as a defense after an arrest is made, rather than as providing immunity against arrest. 01.23.04

Chicago police will enforce new curfew ordinance
Law revised to take First Amendment-protected activities into account, in response to 7th Circuit decision striking down curfew in Indiana. 03.21.04

Alaska high court upholds Anchorage curfew
Unanimous ruling finds municipality has 'compelling interest in protecting juveniles and curbing juvenile crime.' 05.17.04

News summary page
View the latest news stories throughout the First Amendment Center Online.



Last system update: Tuesday, August 4, 2009 | 07:55:35
 SEARCH  MORE
About this site
About the First Amendment
About the First Amendment Center
How to contribute
Video/RSS/podcasts
First Amendment programs
State of the First Amendment
reports

Religious liberty in public schools
First Reports
Supreme Court
Columnists
Experts
First Amendment publications
First Amendment Center history
Glossary
Freedom Sings™
Events
First Amendment
Schools

Congressional Research Service reports
Guest editorials
FOI material
The First Amendment
Library

Lesson plans
freedomforum.org
Newseum
Contact us
Privacy statement
Related links