Montgomery County Doubles Down on Denigrating Parents

A troubling update in Mahmoud v. Montgomery highlights the continued disregard for parental rights and religious freedom as Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) in Maryland persists in refusing to allow religious parents an opt-out for their children being exposed to sexually charged materials. Recent statements from school board members during public meetings reveal personal hostility toward the religious traditions of many parents.
 
In one striking exchange, Board Member Lynne Harris dismissed a parent’s objections to forced participation in the curriculum, saying the parent’s position was ‘just telling that kid, ‘here's another reason to hate another person.’” Couldn’t a dismissive statement like that count as “another reason to hate another person?” This kind of rhetoric doesn't just shut down dialogue – it delegitimizes parents’ deeply held religious values.
 
Even more egregious was Harris’s comment to a Muslim student who voiced her discomfort with the LGBTQIA+ content for conflicting with her faith. Harris said she “felt kind of sorry” for the student and went so far as to speculate whether she was “parroting [the] dogma” of her parents. The disdainful tone and dismissal of a young student's sincere religious beliefs underscore the problem – MCPS is not merely advocating for inclusivity. It is actively marginalizing the religious convictions of those who dissent from its progressive agenda.
 
Beyond the disrespectful treatment of religious families at these meetings, MCPS also took actions that restrict open participation in the democratic process.
 
When Foldi v. Montgomery County plaintiffs Matthew Foldi and Bethany Mandel, who write on education issues, sought to attend the June 27th school board meeting to cover and protest the curriculum, they were turned away. Foldi, a journalist, was barred from entry despite identifying himself as a reporter. Denying media access to a public meeting where major decisions were being made, including the denial of parental opt-out requests, raises serious First Amendment concerns. Such restrictions erode the public’s trust in the transparency of their government institutions.
 
No less troubling is MCPS's action toward dissenters in the digital space.
 
In the lead-up to the June 27th meeting, Mandel was blocked from the “@MCPS-StaffPRIDE” social media account, which had been used to share content and events related to instruction on sexuality. Blocking Mandel from viewing or engaging with the account, which is run by staff linked to the school, prevented her from participating in public discourse around the very topics the school board was debating.
 
A Maryland judge upheld the right of the school district to exclude Foldi and Mandel from the meeting, since they had missed a sign-in cutoff. Such a rule was permitted since it was viewpoint neutral. But the court found MCPS was in error when it blocked them from an official social media account.
 
Protect The 1st Legal Advisor Eugene Volokh observes: “The Supreme Court's Lindke v. Freed decision held that individual officeholders sometimes act in their private capacities when maintaining a social media page, and thus aren't constrained by the First Amendment in deciding whom to block from that page. But it left unaffected the lower court cases that have held that when government bodies maintain social media pages, they are indeed constrained by the First Amendment and may not block readers and commenters based on viewpoint.”
 
There is a troubling pattern of disregard for the First Amendment within MCPS. No one is trying to cancel its educational materials. The issue is that religious families are being denied an opt-out option for highly sexualized material. This infringement is made worse by a broader silencing of dissent, in person and online.
 
At the heart of this story is the right of parents to weigh in on how education impacts their religious traditions, as well as the right of citizens to speak out on matters of public concern. MCPS’s actions, both in its meetings and online, reflect a broader pattern of encroachment on First Amendment rights that should alarm everyone, regardless of their views on the underlying issues.
 
Protect The 1st will continue to monitor this story.