Massachusetts ruling promotes respect for diversity in public schools Commentary
Massachusetts ruling promotes respect for diversity in public schools
Edited by:

Katherine Triantafillou [founding member of Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Bar Association and current Vice-President of MassEquality]: "Too bad the news piece on Parker v. Hurley misstated the holding of the case, but perhaps we shouldn't be surprised as those of us from Massachusetts are used to being misunderstood and denigrated for our progressive ways. Consider the criticism heaped on Horace Mann, a lawyer, the "father of public education" and former Secretary of the Board of Education of Massachusetts. He had the radical idea that everyone should be entitled to an education, even those who were not wealthy!

The Parker children (and the co-plaintiff's children) were read books in grade school that included same sex couples with children and a fairytale with two princes who fall in love with each other, marry and live happily ever after. The complaint alleged that such exposure was "indoctrination" and violated the parents' right to religious freedom as well as the state's statute allowing parents to exempt their children from any curriculum that primarily involves sexuality issues. Not so, said the lower court, in a memo heralding diversity in public schools. Notification wasn't necessary as this wasn't about sex.

"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. Diversity is a hallmark of our nation. It is increasingly evident that our diversity includes differences in sexual orientation. Our nation's history includes a fundamental commitment to promoting mutual respect among citizens in our diverse nation…It is reasonable for public educators to teach elementary school students about individuals with different sexual orientations and about various forms of families, including those with same-sex parents, in an effort to eradicate the effects of past discrimination, to reduce the risk of future discrimination and, in the process, to reaffirm our nation's constitutional commitment to promoting mutual respect among members of our diverse society."

Moreover, the rationale for the lower court holding was not just that Massachusetts law recognizes equal marriage, but that we have in Massachusetts (and have had since the early 90's) a panoply of state laws that protect lesbians and gay men from discrimination including one that prohibits public schools from discrimination based on sexual orientation (M.G.L. c. 76 §5) and one that requires the Board of Education and the Commission of Education to develop curricula standards that "inculcate respect for the …diversity (M.G.L. c69, §1D).

While not nearly as eloquent as the District Court on the subject of diversity, the Circuit Court affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the parties' constitutional claims stating that "Public Schools are not obliged to shield individual students from ideas which potentially are religiously offensive, particularly when the school imposes no requirement that the student agree with or affirm those ideas, or even participate in discussion about them." Furthermore, in a lengthy opinion discussing the standard of review, the Free Exercise Clause, the distinction between parents' and children's rights under the First Amendment, and the public school's interest in implementing its curriculum, the court held that the school district struck the right balance between competing "demands on government" therefore not offending the Free Exercise or Due Process Clauses of the Constitution.

Headlining the case as one focused on "same sex marriage teaching," certainly is eye-catching but woefully simplistic."

Opinions expressed in JURIST Commentary are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST's editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.