public schools, which introduced curriculum promoting gender ideology for children as young as kindergarten during the 2022 2023 school year. If a student dared to even question the content of these lessons, the district coached teacher teachers to chastise students
and repeat the same line. That comment is hurtful. These teachings conflict with the sincerely held beliefs of many parents who are concerned about the rise of classroom content that is not age appropriate for young children. A group of parents from many faiths, including
Muslim, Catholic, and Ukrainian Orthodox families, asked the Montgomery district for advanced notice of days on which these concepts would be taught so they could opt their students out. The parents did not ask to dictate curriculum nor forbid other families from participating in these lessons. They merely wanted the opportunity to
keep their kids home for a day in accordance with their beliefs. The district said no. The case went to the Supreme Court in Mammud v. Taylor. The court granted a preliminary injunction on the grounds that the parents right to opt out of the district's gender and
sexuality teachings was protected under the free exercise clause of the US Constitution. The court held that quote, "A government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses a very real
threat of undermining the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill." The court concluded that quote for many people of faith there are few religious acts more important than the religious education of their children thereby
receiving quote a generous measure of constitutional protection. These are common sense principles. Religious freedom is a cornerstone of American life and parents do not surrender it for their children when they enroll them in public school.
Unfortunately, we'll hear testimony today that some districts are trying to circumvent or even defy the court's holding in Mammud. The state of California is attempting to minimize the scope of Mammud by giving local districts vast discretion over how and
when optouts are allowed. Seattle public schools have gone even further by banning parental optouts from certain classes. These reports are gravely concerning to this committee. For the past century, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held
that parents have a fundamental right to direct the upbringing, health, and education of their children, including faith. As recently as 2000, the court called it perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized. Today's hearing will examine the Mammud
case, the state of parental rights in America, and whether districts are complying with the law. In a world where new and controversial types of content are finding their way into classrooms, it is essential that parents maintain control over their child's education. The committee stands on the side of
parents, students, and the Constitution. With that, I yield to the ranking member for an opening statement. >> Uh, thank you very much, uh, Mr. chairman and thank you to the witnesses for being here today. Public K12 schools across the country are right now facing a deluge of crises that affect the
safety, security, and academic future of students. According to Sandy Hook Promise, nearly 400,000 children have experienced gun violence at school since the turn of the century, and that's far more than any other developed country. Some kids go to school with built-in bullet shields in their backpacks, and
parents live in fear that their child might not come home. Children across the country are also experiencing trauma at the hands of their own government. As ICE rips families apart and prays on people near schools and hospitals, right now, educators are asking me what to do
when ICE agents appear on their school grounds. They're sharing stories of children distracted by fear, families afraid to ask for help, and staff struggling to support students who are carrying adult-sized burdens into the classroom. One superintendent told me about a first grade classroom where
every student had a story about being afraid of ICE. These stories are heartbreaking and they demand our attention and action. And as our communities experiencing this overwhelming fear, Donald Trump and Secretary McMahon continue to illegally dismantle the Department of Education.
Students who dis experience discrimination are left without recourse. as Secretary McMahon has uh implemented a mass reduction in force that essentially emptied the office of civil rights and a new J GAO report confirmed that the agency has dismissed
90% of the discrimination cases that have been filed. Add to that post-pandemic loneliness, device addiction, gun violence, and social media addiction. It paints an alarming picture for both K12 education and the overall well-being of our nation's children. This committee and especially
this subcommittee has a responsibility to help children thrive regardless of their neighborhood, their family income, or according to the United States Supreme Court in 1982, immigration status. But instead of addressing these many real dangers to students, my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle are once again turning classrooms into an epicenter of culture wars to the detriment of students and families. No one is arguing that parents should not be involved in their children's education. I know that firsthand because I was an active parent volunteer for years and know firsthand that family
involvement is critical to a child's development and educational success. We all agree on that. But unfortunately, instead of focusing on community schools or other support that would help students succeed, today's hearing will further perpetuate a culture of fear and
censorship. Instead of having a meaningful discussion about how to improve education or conducting oversight on what's left of the Trump department's department uh department of educa Trump Trump administration's department of education, Republicans are using parental rights as another means
to undermine public education. Students deserve to learn all of the nuance and intricacies of the world around them in an age appropriate manner, preventing students in public schools from learning certain material based on the religious objections of a vocal minority. sets a
sets a dangerous precedent. Further, it increases the administrative burden on already resourced schools and educators who fear retribution for teaching about topics that some might think is controversial. World religions, classic literature, African-American history,
evolution, climate science, and the history of the LGBTQ community. Inclusion is not indoctrination. Differences exist in the world around us. And part of a good education includes teaching students about tolerance and understanding. Banning books or preventing students from
learning about differences serves to perpetuate a culture of hatred and fear. I do want to note uh some hypocrisy here. Countless times in this committee. My colleagues have said they want to give education back to the states. I've heard that numerous times over the
years. For the most part, they're talking about curriculum. As we have repeated again and again in this committee, the federal government is not in charge of curriculum or what books are in schools. If parents don't like books or curriculum, they can go to the school board and ask for a change. And
if they don't like the school board's decision, they can elect a new school board. That's the kind of local control I thought my colleagues wanted. My Democratic colleagues and I are committed to fighting against politicizing education. We will continue to work with students, parents,
educators, and communities until every student receives an accurate and highquality education in a safe, well fun wellfunded environment without fear of gun violence or masked federal agents breaking down the classroom door. I look forward to the conversation, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my
time. Pursuant to committee rule 8C, all members who wish to insert written statements into the record may do so by submitting them to the committee clerk electronically in Microsoft Word format by 5:00 PM 14 days after this hearing. And without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 14 days to
allow such statements and other extraneous material noted during the hearing to be submitted for the official hearing record. I will now introduce our witnesses. Our first witness is Mr. Eric Baxter, the vice president and senior counsel at the Beckett Fund for
Religious Liberty from Washington DC. Our second witness is Donald Dokerty, a senior litigation council for Defense of Freedom Institute from River Hills, Wisconsin. Our third witness is Mr. Zman Rothschild, an assistant professor of law at Yeshiva University, Cordova School of Law from New York City. And
our fourth witness is Miss Sarah Parshel Perry, a vice president and legal fellow at Defending Education from Arlington, Virginia. We thank our witness. We thank the witnesses for being here today and we look forward to your testimony. Pursuant to committee rules, I would ask that each limit your oral presentation to a
threeminut summary of your written statement as committee members have many questions for you. The clock will countdown from 3 minutes. However, pursuant to committee rule 8D and committee practice, we will not cut off your testimony until you reach the five-minute mark. I'd also like to remind the witnesses to be aware of your
responsibility to provide accurate information to the subcommittee. I will first recognize Mr. Baxter for your testimony. >> Good morning, Chair Kylie, Ranking Member Bonamichi, and distinguished committee members. I'm Eric Baxter from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, and the lead attorney for the plaintiffs
in Mahmud v. Taylor. Mahmud is the Supreme Court's most significant parental rights case in half a century. It affirms parents right to opt their children out of public school instruction that violates their religious belief, but it also signals a move to strengthen religious liberty
more broadly. The case arose after the Montgomery County, Maryland, school board introduced LGBTQ story books with a stated goal of disrupting students thinking about gender and sexuality. The curriculum introduces children as young
as three to pride parades, playground romance, and gender transitions. Teachers are instructed to emphasize that doctors only guessed at students sex at their birth and to frame contrary views as unfair and hurtful. The curriculum was immediately
controversial. Even the elementary school principal union warned it was age inappropriate, factually dubious, and dismissive of religious beliefs. Parents were first told they could opt their kids out, but the board soon reversed,
saying they could not even be notified when the books were read. At a board meeting, over a thousand parents, largely Muslim and Ethiopian Orthodox, expressed concern. The board responded by comparing them to
xenophobes and white supremacists. The parent sued, seeking not to remove the curriculum, but simply to restore the optouts. After two lower courts rejected the parents claims, the Supreme Court in a 6-3 ruling reversed. It said the
curriculum was unmistakably designed to impose values hostile to many faiths and that it exerted psychological pressure on young children to conform. The court concluded that parents right to direct the religious upbringing of their children would be an empty promise if it
did not extend into the classroom. This ruling has enormous significance. Schools nationwide must now adopt policies to accommodate students religious beliefs or risk financial exposure for themselves and their employees. The ruling also calls into
question the widespread school policies that support gender transitioning behind parents' backs. Any effort to undermine parents on such religiously sensitive matters cannot be squared with Mahmud. Beyond this immediate impact, Mahammud also bypassed Employment Division versus
Smith, an earlier Supreme Court ruling that significantly limited free exercise protections. That move undermines Smith's continued viability. If the parents here get to bypass Smith, why should teachers challenging the same policy have to satisfy its higher
standards? And if not teachers, why anyone else defending their own religious liberty? In this sense, Mahmud pretends Smith's demise, which will strengthen religious liberty for all. Thank you for shining a light today on this remarkable Supreme Court opinion.
Thank you very much. I'm recognize Mr. Doerty for your testimony. >> Chairman Kylie and Ranking Member Bonamichi, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Don Dockerty and I'm senior litigation counsel for the Defense of Freedom Institute. In my time, I'm going to
focus on the implications of Mimmude V. tailor. Going forward, parents of faith will be able to use Mimu to push back against overreach by public schools and the case should lead to more curriculum transparency. For example, now in Montgomery County, each semester, students re receive
refrigerator magnets detailing the upcoming curriculum, including books to be read so that their parents can decide whether they want to opt out or not. Also, another case in late December uh in Massachusetts, a federal court there relied on Mimmude to enjoin Lexington
public schools when the the schools refuse to allow parents to opt their 5-year-old out of LGBTQ themed books that violated the family's Christian faith. That's just a very recent case. At the same time, Mammud is not a license for parents to micromanage the
curriculum and courts will need to define more clear clearly what the this free exercise parental right encompasses. Some parents in Mammud objected to the storybook series on purely secular grounds. And the Supreme Court has recognized that under the due process
clause of the 14th amendment, that is apart from the free exercise clause of the first amendment, parents have a substantive right to direct the upbringing and education of their children generally, not just in matters of religion. Guidance from the federal courts will be needed on this issue as
well going forward. Finally, a mystery surrounding Mimmude is what critical p principle was the Montgomery County Board of Education trying to vindicate by defending its no opt- out policy all the way to the Supreme Court. Many people wondered about this. In addition
to Montgomery County families, many Montgomery County principles and teachers in public schools questioned the use of the storybook series. Before the case was decided, the Washington Post and the New York Times criticized the board's decision to force parents to
go to court and uh the board expended considerable taxpayer dollars fighting those parents when they could have easily reached, I believe, an out of court settlement. During oral argument at the Supreme Court, Justice Kavanaaugh, who pointed out that he is a lifelong resident of Montgomery County,
he stated that he was a bit bit mystified how it came to this, noting that Maryland was founded on religious liberty and expressing surprise that the board that the board had decided that this is the hill we're going to die on. Justice Alo similarly asked the board's
attorney, "What's the big deal about allowing parents to opt their children out?" And even Justice Elena Kagelan Kagan, who ultimately dissented, said she suspected that there were a lot of non-religious parents who weren't all that thrilled about this. Although no
one can read the board's minds as to what they hope to achieve through this case, at the least, Mammud did reveal how disconnected some public schools have become from the families that they serve. The First Amendment and the Bill of Rights generally exist to protect individual rights from a tyranny of the
majority. As public schools more and more encroach on aspects of a children's upbringing beyond the core curriculum, the importance of constitutional bull works only increases. In Mimmude, the Supreme Court wisely reinforced the free exercise of bull work. At the same time,
parents cannot allow themselves to be treated like a captive audience by their elected representatives. Mammud shows that parents can and must take back their children's public schools and that the First Amendment is one way to assist them in doing so. Thank you.
>> Thanks very much. I'll next recognize Mr. Rothschild for your testimony. >> Chairman Kylie, Ranking Member Bonamichi, and members of the committee. My name is Zman Rothschild. I am an assistant professor of law at Cardoza School of Law. I'm also an ordained rabbi and have a PhD in Jewish studies.
Uh thank you for the opportunity to testify uh today. This hearing concerns an issue that has generated intense public attention. In Mahmud v. Taylor, the Supreme Court held that religious parents have a constitutional right to remove their children from public school instruction that conflicts with the
religious values they seek to instill. The decision has been celebrated by many religious liberty advocates and by broader parental rights movements as it is being celebrated this very morning. That celebration is misplaced. To understand why, it is necessary to
situate Muhammad within a longer constitutional tradition, one that has governed for nearly a century. That tradition did not deny the importance of parental authority or religious liberty, but it recognized the need for limiting principles. Mahmood departs from that tradition even as it presents itself as
continuing it. I want to highlight just two decisions from that tradition. Barnett decided in 1943 and Yodar decided in 1972. Both are often invoked as victories for parental and religious rights in education. Both were far more limited.
In Barnett, the court held that public schools could not compel Jehovah's Witness cho Jehovah's Witness children or any children to salute the flag and recite the pledge of allegiance. Barnett drew a line between compelled affirmation and mere instruction.
Schools could teach contested ideas. they just could not require students to profess them. Second, the court went out of its way to clarify that quote, "The issue as we see it does not turn on one's possession of particular religious views or the sincerity with which they are held. Religion supplied the
plaintiff's motive, but the constitutional violation was compelled speech, not religious burden." This distinction mattered immensely. Because the injury was compelled speech, the remedy was to invalidate the policy across the board. Barnett did not create a system of individualized opt-outs.
Yoda was also limited. It exempted Amish parents from compulsory high school attendance, but only because enforcement threatened a cohesive religious community's very survival. The court stressed the collective nature of the risk. Compulsory schooling carried quote a very real threat of undermining the
Amish community and religious practice as they exist today. End quote. The best reading of Yodor is that it reflected a pluralistic compromise. It protected a community's mechanism of cultural and religious transmission while still expressing concern about children's later ability to exit that community. It
was not a general endorsement of parental optouts from public school instruction. For 80 years, courts uniformly applied these distinctions. Parents could choose either public or private education. Students could not be compelled to affirm beliefs. and religious
communities could, in rare circumstances involving threats to their survival, obtain narrow exemptions from high school compulsory education laws. But parents had no general right to opt out of public school curriculum simply because it conflicted with their values.
This consensus, it should be noted, was not invented by progressive courts. It emerged from decisions often associated with constitutional conservativism. Parental rights and religious liberty are part of America's constitutional history, and for good reason. But that
tradition also embodies hard-earned judgments about how those values must coexist with others, including child welfare, public education, and public health. Barnett and Yodar represent the best of our constitutional tradition, a careful balance among parental liberty,
state authority, and children's welfare. They reflect wisdom about how to sustain religious pluralism without eviscerating public institutions. Mahmood upends that settlement while pretending to preserve it. The celebration of Mahmud by religious liberty and parental rights
advocates may prove short-lived once the decisions logic is deployed by parents across the ideological spectrum and once states lose the ability to ensure that all children receive basic education, health care, and protection. There is a reason the constitutional
consensus held for nearly a century. The court seems to now be dismantling it without fully grappling with the wisdom it embodied or the problems its destruction may create. This deserves more careful consideration than it has received. Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
>> Thank you very much. I'll uh lastly recognize Miss Partial Perry for your testimony. Chairman Kylie, Ranking Member Bonamichi, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Good morning. As a legal scholar, a policy analyst, and a mother, the issue we're here today to discuss is near to my heart, and I
commend the committee for holding this hearing. Mahmood wasn't simply an extraordinary case because of its well-reasoned holding and sound jurist prudence. It was extraordinary in so far as the petitioner's challenges were necessary at all. that their yearslong effort to opt their children out of
questionable material pursuant to their free exercise rights even required the Supreme Court's deliberation is a grave condemnation on the state of American education at large. Rather than orienting public classrooms toward the urgent task of reversing the nation's
flagging NAPE scores, indicating that only 22% of our high school seniors are numerate and only 35% are literate. Most schools seem content instead to educate for activism. social justice and queer propaganda. Consider a few of our
unearthed examples. In Lexington, Massachusetts, kindergarten students are subjected to DEI curriculum that includes instruction on changing their bodies to fit their gender identity. In South Burlington, Vermont, the elementary school curriculum directs students to become active anti-racists
with resources from the groups Reading is Resistance and Woke Kindergarten. in Los Angeles, California. They offer a queer allyear school calendar, providing teachers and students with new LGBTQ resources every month, like reading the rainbow, a guide to literacy through a
queer lens. Wawaossa, Wisconsin public schools have instituted sexed curriculum that teaches children as young as five about gender identity and eliminates the word men and women from the kindergarten lexicon. In Seattle, Washington, teachers are instructed to hide students gender
identity from their parents, making it more than 1,200 school districts now that we've identified with similar deceptive policies. Postmood, it also refuses to allow optouts from queer themed curriculum for religious parents and has solicited supplies for a
community health locker project, including chest binders, nipple guards, and tuck friendly underwear. Our organization has tracked thousands of incidents like these. They evidence the astonishing misconception under which many American schools operate, that the
child is the mere creature of the state. But the Supreme Court, however, has held precisely the opposite more than a hundred years ago in Pierce versus Society of Sisters when it struck down Oregon's compulsory public education law. 20 years later, it reinforced Pierce in
Prince versus Massachusetts, holding that the custody, care, and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state cannot supply or hinder. Yet again, in Wisconsin versus Yodar, the court heeded closely to precedent,
determining that a parent's interest in the free exercise of religion outweighed the state's interest in compelling school attendance beyond 8th grade. Mahmood was the capstone in the court's parental rights and religious liberty cannon, reinforcing the pre-political,
natural, and ancient right of a parent to direct their child's upbringing. But the status notion that children belong to all of us, that schools, not parents, know better is both intractable and persistent. Despite Mammud's unequivocal edict, then the battle for parental
primacy is only just beginning. Thank you, and I welcome your questions. Thank you very much to all of our witnesses. Under committee rule nine, we will now question question the witnesses under the five-minute rule. And I'll first recognize the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Wahlberg, for five
minutes. Thank you for your kindness on that, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the witnesses for being here. um as a parent who gave life to three children
and as a grandparent who saw my kids give life to seven grandchildren. I appreciate the fact that we're talking about this is this issue because frankly it's it involves the very survival of
the family itself and the primacy of parental responsibility let alone rights. Not one school board member gave life to my three kids. And in a time when we are about to see a
rapid increase of lawsuits coming from transgendered young people who have finally seen they were lied to. I'm hoping that Montgomery County schools will receive significant lawsuits in the process.
We need to remember as well that parents can't opt out of paying local public school taxes. That's the difference, Mr. Rothschild that we're talking about here. They can't opt out of paying for something that they disagree with strongly. Though they can leave the
schools, they still pay the taxes. Mr. Baxter, thank you for your work at the Supreme Court to defend parents. You are doing the Lord's work. Truly the designer's work. It's been over six months since Mammud was decided. Have states been adjusting their policies to
align with the court's decision in Mammud or are states looking for ways to work around the court's decision? >> Microphone. >> I think it's important to remember that school boards across the country have long had opt out policies including
Montgomery County itself. It was only when this particular curriculum was introduced that the board withdrew the opt outs. And so when Mr. Rothschild asked where will this all go? We're really this was an extreme outlier situation where this and there are other schools doing this pushing an extreme
ideology and then trying to block the parents. We're simply asking to maintain the status quo in Mammud to allow parents to continue to make these decisions especially on issues of gender and sexuality where all 50 states require some kind of parental consent. But there are some states that are continuing to buck the rule from the court.
>> We'll have to be we'll have to be watching that carefully. Um, thank you, Mr. Dookerty. Uh, Christian parents have drawn a lot of attention in this case, but it wasn't just Christians who objected to what, uh, the Monro the
Montgomery County Public Schools did. Can you talk about why parents from other faiths found the school systems policy so concerning? >> Sure. uh as a as a as a practicing Catholic, I know that tradition best and I
understand how it violates, you know, that tradition. But certainly, as uh as Mr. Baxter knows, his clients included Muslims, uh Eastern Orthodox, um I think there were some Jewish parents involved. So all the Abrahamic religions uh were
represented. Um and I think you know just you look to uh um you know scripture and things like that that show that these types of lessons that were being taught by this storybook series violate that. And again as we talked about um some parents who were completely secular not religious they
too objected thinking that you know my child and this started like with prek then kindergarten up to to K to five fifth grade I should say that these ch no children should be exposed to this kind of stuff at that young age and the notion that um the school board was
trying to do so offended a lot of people religious and even non-religious. Yeah, they could see it went against science and even common sense. Um, Miss Partial Perry, you mentioned in your testimony, and I quote, that parental rights are pre-political, ancient, and
fundamentalist. I agree fully. Can you explain more what that means and how these three pillars are essential to preventing government tyranny? >> Absolutely. These are connections that are rooted in biology, the very nature of the parent child relationships with
predates not only government but the constitution itself. In fact, some of the earliest writings that we see are from the 13th century in Thomas Aquinus's Suma Theological in which he wrote about the nature of the parent child relationship and how it is fundamental. It is that basic building
block of all civilized societies and it is something on which the Supreme Court first weighed in in 1923 in Meer versus Nebraska recognizing that this was a right that simply had to be found somewhere in the Constitution because we knew it had always existed from time
immemorial. We lose our country if these fundamental principles are broken down starting with the family and the parents in controlling their children for the best interests of our country. Thank you so much. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
>> I'll now recognize the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Scott. >> Thank Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um [snorts] Mr. Rothschild, is there anything in the Mahood decision that would allow a parent or group of
parents to veto information given to other children other than their own? Uh part of the problem with the decision I am Mammud is how uh confusing it is. Um on the one hand, it presents itself
as very narrow. Uh an interpretation [snorts] that was echoed by uh Mr. Mr. Baxter. Um, and the court goes on and on for about 10 pages explaining how indoctrinating these picture books were, suggesting that that would be the limiting principle. Um, but then
somewhat cryptically, Justice Alto adds a paragraph at the very end saying, "In any event, it doesn't matter. Essentially, everything that I just said doesn't matter. And the only question is does this interfere with the parents ability to instill within their child
their religious values or their religious beliefs? Uh there's no there's no end point to that. >> Well, but they can they can opt their own children out. Can they veto the the material being shown presented to other
children? Ostensibly not because the decision is framed around optouts specifically. >> Okay. Now to opt out, do you have to have a legitimate claim of religious liberty or can you opt out for values or
opinions like I don't want um climate change presented or not for religious purposes but I just don't think LGBTQ material ought to be presented to that. It's just age inappropriate. Do you have to have a legitimate
claim of religious liberty? >> Immud is a religious liberty case. Yes. >> So, you just can't opt out on opinion, >> right? Um, Alito had some other information in there about a threat to religion. It can
be contrary to your religion. Does it have to be a threat to your religion? >> Well, that language of a a threat comes from Yodar. um where the threat that the court is articulating in Yodor is a threat to the survival of this distinctive
uh religious community, the Amish community in Wisconsin. So it somehow gets transported to optouts in public schools even though Yodor is talking about opting out of compulsory education laws for 2 years um the ages of 14 to 16 under very specific circumstances. Um,
so the language of threat now is used in MAMU to suggest that so long as anything in the curriculum threatens the parents ability to instill the parents religious values in their children, that threat is constitutionally protected.
>> Okay. Um, is there any consideration being given in this decision to the harm that may be inflicted on other children when they see some of their classmates opting out? All of a sudden, it puts a different um
view on the material they may be given. Is any consideration being given to the effect of all these optouts on the other children? >> The court gives no consideration to that. It just dismisses it out of hand. So, one of the arguments that the board
made was that there's inherent value to teaching inclusivity to children. Um, and you can infer from that that it very much undermines the message of inclusivity when um a group of students, you know, stand up and walk out. Um,
it's like a walk out essentially um from that particular teaching. And the Supreme Court was just extremely dismissive about that particular interest that the state had articulated. Um and and finally, if you have a complaint about this, what agency in the
federal government would you um seek guidance from? Would it be the um office of civil rights in the department of education? >> I would assume so. >> And um are you aware of what's happening to that agency >> being dis being dismantled along with
the rest of the department? >> Yes. >> Um thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. I'll recognize myself for five minutes. Um, Mr. uh Rothschild, thank you for being here to testify today. I just want to get some clarity on your position. I mean, you disagree with the Mamu decision clearly, right? >> Yes.
>> And so, nevertheless, it is the law of the land now. So, what is the what do you want the takeaway to be from your testimony today? What what action would ideally you want to follow from it given that Mahmud is the law? Well, to the extent that Congress is contemplating any legislation in the aftermath of Mahmood, which itself would, I mean,
somewhat be unconstitutional unless it's authorized by the Supreme Court. In other words, unless the Supreme Court has interpreted that into the Constitution itself. But to the extent that Congress is is contemplating going further than that, um my point is is that Mahammud should be celebrated less
than it seems to be celebrated. >> I see. So you you kind of paint this picture of how uh Mahmud has uh unsettled this you know settled body of of law uh on this particular issue but it is true that even prior to Mammud
schools across districts across the country do allow optouts right >> the key the key there is that it's the districts that allow the optouts >> right but the existence of opt outs is not inherently destabilizing in some sense is it >> absolutely not what what's what's destabilizing is constitutionalizing
optout Do you think opt- outs are appropriate in some circumstances? >> Sure. >> Okay. So, but you think that uh that there's no constitutional basis for that? >> There's no broad general constitutional basis for that. It should be a local decision made by the districts themselves. >> I see. So, for the parents in Montgomery
County who had very strong objections to this content, what was their recourse in your view of the law? >> They may not have had recourse. Democracy would would be their recourse. >> Democracy would be their recourse. Okay. And so you don't think there are circumstances in which there might be rights that individuals hold
irrespective of what uh you know the the overriding uh policy of their jurisdiction is? >> Well, the question isn't are there rights. The question is is this the right? >> Mhm. Yeah. I mean, I think that uh you just made an important concession, which is that you would leave parents without
a recourse, no matter how vile, no matter how uh you know, discriminatory uh the curriculum that presented in their classroom is. And I think that's a a serious problem. And I think that you paint this decision as somehow some sort of rupture and juristprudence or
destabilizing. But actually, I think what's different now is the type of content that's coming into classrooms and the fact that districts are refusing to provide optouts for that content. So, um, Mr. Baxter, do you think that is an appropriate characterization? >> It's important to remember that American
democracy is is tempered by the Bill of Rights, which protects the rights of individuals to live uh, consistent with their religious beliefs, their own speech. And um, every you know, I had a spoke to a Washington Post reporter who had a similar view to Mr. Rothschild, but he wanted to object his children um on issues that were concerning to him.
And so, every parent has their own optout outs, and it's important to realize that Mammood protects the rights of all parents. Yeah, it's interesting. I thought he might say that the recourse is to go to private school, which is in fact what you know uh various briefs and and the lawyers for the the uh the
county argued, but there's a problem with that as a legitimate recourse for folks as well. Right. >> Right. Most parents can't realistically afford to send their children to to private school or to homeschool them as was the case of most of our clients. >> Yeah, it's it's ironic because uh you
know uh there's this often opposition to school choice that exists uh among um you know certain segments of the education establishment. Uh but when it comes for th to those who have the means to enroll their child and to exercise that choice uh they're all for it. Uh do
you agree Mr. Dogerty? >> Yeah. No, I mean the notion that you have to choose between either raising your children in your faith or going to a public school uh to me that that's an unconstit unconstitutional kind of choice. And the notion that just well people can easily send their children to
public to private schools I should say or homeschool them to some extent that to me is reminiscent of you know let them eat cake. I mean for example just because uh you know you you have these other uh ways of of dealing with this but those ways cost a lot of money a lot
of time resources. So to me it is kind of almost let them meet kink kind of kind of choice for uh for parents who object to um things like occurred in Montgomery County. >> Yeah. What do you think, Miss Parshel Perry, about this idea that we should just be satisfied with the idea that
parents have no recourse no matter how uh you know vile or how controversial or how threatening to their fundamental values content in classrooms is >> well that invokes the arguments that we heard in the colloquy with uh justice Jackson during oral arguments in Mammud when she herself talked about sending
kids simply to private school. Private school is about 10% of American school kids. Nearly 90% of them go to public schools. It is a function of necessity for many parents. It was for my three children. I have two sons who have disabilities who specifically benefit
from the civil rights laws that are enforced through public education and will continue to be regardless of the future of the department of education. They will be offloaded to other agencies per inter agency agreement or congressional action. But it is, I think, a false choice to say you must
participate in a mandatory tax scheme, but you also have to give up your religious liberty rights. >> Thank you very question. I actually appreciate your sort of honesty, Mr. Ross, and just saying there there is no recourse rather than pretending that there is some recourse, but I think that's an alarming thing for many parents who are concerned about what's
going on in some of our schools. So, uh, with that, I'll now recognize, uh, the ranking member for five minutes. >> Uh, thank you, chairman, and I I want to follow up on this conversation because I was here listening and Mr. Ross didn't say there was no recourse. He said there was democracy. And I remember years ago in Oregon, the school board had made a
decision that the majority of the residents of the district didn't support. So they ran candidates and they changed the school board and they changed the decision. So that is democracy. So I don't want to put words in Mr. Rothschild's mouth, but I don't want there to be a perception that there's no remedy because there is. Um
again, Mr. Chairman, um I I wish we were here talking about the the armed masked agents that are lurking outside of schools and the gun violence that students are uh are experiencing. Um, and you know, we're here today because some people are claiming that their religious beliefs are threatened by some
school lessons that may perhaps just acknowledge existence of gay people. And to me, it's concerning. Um, I want students to learn critical thinking and and know that their parents are involved in that. And I think that's really critical. But we do have an expert here on the intersection of religious belief.
And I just want to ask you, Mr. Rothschild, how did your hidic background and your rabbitical training uh shape your um experiences and influence your understanding about the debate concerning Mahmud? >> So, I grew up in aidic community um
which in many ways was a a really um beautiful upbringing, childhood and education. Um but but it it also is quite lacking in particular with respect to basic secular education. It's no secret um that the community schools do
not teach basics including science, math, um literacy. Um and so attending law school, I was particularly interested in in understanding how it could be that society would allow so
many children um over a 100,000 of them in New York alone to be deprived of what is considered a basic right for every child. >> Thank you. I I I appreciate that very much. and and your your insight and what you bring to the conversation. I want to talk a little bit about the limiting principles that you were discussing. I
know Pierce because I'm from Oregon. I was more than a century ago, but if you if you think about back in 1972 with the Wisconsin versus Yoda where where Yodor where they um addressed the free exercise of religion by the Amish and there was discussion about that today.
Previous rulings had rejected the view that mere exposure to educational materials or ideas conflict with the students or parents religious beliefs. um and why that does not violate the free exercise clause. So, how did Mahammude change that? What what are the limiting principles that we're going to
need to be aware of? >> Um so, on the one hand, Mahammud seems to be suggesting there is a limiting principle which is that it's fact dependent um case specific that the courts would have to parse uh the
curricula that's in dispute. uh in Mahmud, it's picture books for three to five year olds um to determine whether that curricula is in any way indoctrinating. Um but like I said before, the court
also walks that back at the very end, just sort of sneaks that in there by saying that in any event, those are the exact words, none of this matters. Um, so if none of this matters, the ostensible limiting principle, which itself is not all that much of a limiting principle, um, because
indoctrination isn't something that is objectively recognizable. One could argue that all of education is indoctrinating or none of it is indoctrinating. I don't know how anybody could really tell the difference, but then the court seems to walk it back by saying so long as there is an interference with the ability of parents
to raise their children according to their religious beliefs, that's constitutionally prohibited. So, if there has to be some sort of fact-intensive analysis to determine if there's a threat and whether there's interference, how is that determined and by whom? Could a Christian scientist say, "I don't want my child to learn anything about health or science and opt
out of that." I mean, I just don't understand how this is going to work. Do you have any sense? >> Um, I don't uh have a sense of how this will work, but I could imagine a whole host of very problematic scenarios, including, for example, say a teacher tries to teach the value of
non-discrimination against religion. uh and specifies and says it's wrong to discriminate against Jews or against Muslims and some parents have a problem with that because of their sincerely held religious beliefs because you know chapter 16 of Mark says that those who are not baptized are condemned. Um so so
I have no idea uh h how in any sense this can be bounded. >> I share your concern and before concluding Mr. Chairman, I want to note that we have heard in this committee again and again about returning education to states. But here we are using this hearing as an attempt to dictate what can and cannot be taught in
schools. And we've heard countless times in the committee that is not the federal government's role to interfere in local curriculum decisions. We should not be using our time and resources to perpetuate a culture where that most American families don't want. And I encourage uh my colleagues to select hearing topics that actually matter like
gun violence, trauma inflicted by ICE, and how dismantling the Department of Education affects schools and students. And Mr. Chairman, I do ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from Americans United for Separation of Church and State on Religion and Public Schools as well as
as well as a scholarly scholarly article by Richard Katsy and Ira Lupo called Mammud versus Taylor cause or effect of disruptions in the public schools. >> Without objection, I now recognize uh Mr. Owens of Utah for five.
>> Thank you. Thank you so much. Um, as a dad of six kids and 18 grands, this makes my blood boil. I I am not I I cannot understand how we're sitting here talking about
strangers to raise my kids. Now, if you want to know how this opt out's going to look, we got it. It's called choice. And you're going to see the mass op out outing of programs like this. third three and four year old kids being
taught this sexual smut and we're sitting here as adults thinking it's okay. I'll say this just to summarize before I get into my questions. We're seeing adults, grown people that have the power
of having little children in their class that they cannot escape. They're captured, hiding from their parents the curriculum that they're going to teach no matter what the parents think or don't think. By the way, that's the way the communist and socialist work. If you want to know
how that looks, it's not hypothetical. And then hiding behind unions so they won't get fired. I I I say two things about these kind of people. They're bullies and they're cowards. And I don't want them anywhere close to my kids. So I will be choosing
opt out. And my parents, my kids will be choosing and my grandkids will be choosing opt outs whenever we have a situation like this. And I tell you what's going to happen. The free market is going to show itself in a big way. Schools like districts like this will go out of business. We will not fund this anymore and
parents will not show up anymore. And schools out there that are doing the right thing, teaching our kids how to read, write, think, communicate, articulate, debate, and succeed will prosper. And we won't have to worry about going through this democracy mess
that takes forever as our kids being indoctrinated. Boy, I I I just cannot believe we're having this conversation with grown people. I just I I don't get it. I just don't get it. Anyway, no, I do get it. But anyway, um Mr. Nory, you mentioned
that some parents objected to an inappropriate teachings had no religious faith. Well, I'm glad that uh the court protected the rights of these religious parents, but I'm concerned about the school boards that still force non-religious parents to have their kids indoctrinated. your written written
testimony uh uh quoted that uh Justice Ko Kagan mentioned that probably a lot of non-religious people who aren't really thrilled about this either. How do you think courts will look at protecting rights of the non-religious parents? Well, as uh as as I think um um
Miss Perry noted, there's a case called Pierce that says that among other things, well, it says that parents have parental rights under the 14th amendment, substantive duke process clause. And it says critically creatures should say children are not create mere creatures of the state. That's very
important. Children are uh their they belong to their their parents who have a duty uh to love them and raise them. And that's really where the uh the first uh the first line of child development begins. The notion that um now that uh
educational bureaucracies distrust parents and exclude them from decisions, that's gotten, I'm afraid, too far out of hand uh in this country. And a case like uh Mimmude is a case uh when they push back. And I do I must disagree. I think there are limiting principles. I
don't think this is going to be hard to deal with. As I mentioned in my testimony in Montgomery County now, these uh issues are addressed by simple refrigerator magnets. Each semester, uh each student gets a refrigerator magnet that says what's going to be taught, the books they're going to be taught, and if
they are uh those are lessons are um violate sincerely held religious beliefs of parents, parents can opt out. So I don't think this is any kind of difficult um you know ownorous problem for schools to deal with. If anything, I think schools, public schools, pe public
teacher unions, uh, overreached. They got perhaps a little ideologically arrogant and, uh, this is a good way of pushing back on that. >> I think you said something. I just want to make a point. It's called arrogance. The district, uh, argument was a parents free exercise was not burdened because
they could remain free to enroll their children in other private schools. Yeah, >> that's pure arrogance. Well, guess what? It's coming. school choice can allow them to go to private, public, charter, homeschool, parochial, you're going to see a remarkable opt out. And I'm excited about that. Real quickly, Mr.
Baxter, um, uh, many opposed the lawsuit against, uh, the district, believe that the parents should have engaged in the democratic process to make their voices heard rather than resorting to suing the school districts. Uh, can you explain why the democratic process here is the wrong remedy? parents did engage in the
democratic process and were called bigots, um, racists and xenophobes. And this was a very diverse group of Americans of all religious and political stripes who just simply wanted to protect their children's uh, education. And that's really what the first amendment for is to make sure that religious liberty of individual families
is protected. >> Uh, my advice uh, for these folks who think this way, keep it up. You're going to find yourself out of a business, out of a job because we're opting out of this mess for sure. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. And I have your back. Representative Adams of North Carolina is recognized. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
to our witnesses for being here. Uh, the Supreme Court's decision in Mahmud v. Taylor was narrow, but the conversation surrounding it has not been. There's a real risk that this ruling is used to blur a long-standing constitutional line
between protecting families from compelled belief and and undermining the basic function of of public education. Public schools do not exist to affirm any one world view. They exist to prepare students to live in a diverse
pluralistic society. That necessarily includes exposure to ideas that students and families may not agree with. So my questions today are about limits, about guardrails, and about making sure that we do not turn a narrow ruling into a
board mandate that destabilizes classrooms across the country. So let me turn to our witnesses, Mr. Rothschild. Uh the Supreme Court has consistently distinguished between compelled speech or forced affirmation of belief on on
the one hand and the ordinary work of public education including civics's education that exposes students to deferring ideas differing ideas excuse me over time in Mahmood. Uh did the court meaningfully engage with that
distinction? And going forward, how should courts understand the difference between unconstitutional coercion and the slow non-coercive process of educating students in a democratic society? That last line of yours, I believe, is
from Barnett, um, cited in 1943 by Justice Jackson, um, which was considered the, um, quintessential statement on this very distinction that you're raising between your right to
send your children to private school and uh, that if your child is to attend a public school that within public schools there are some limits. So to go back to a question that Mr. Uh uh Kylie was asking me before. I think there are limits and Barnett for example represents some of them. Um and lower
courts since 1943 uh unanimously um held to that distinction as well. Mahmood disrupts it. >> Okay. So do you see a risk that Mahmood could be misinterpreted to to treat mere exposure to ideas as constitutionally
sus suspect even when no student is required to affirm or adopt those ideas? I think it definitely will be interpreted that way. Yes. >> While while um Mahmud was framed as a narrow ruling, it raises broader questions about who gets to decide what
is fundamentally necessary to teach children. So, what concerns uh you about courts or Congress stepping too far into curriculum decisions traditionally made by educators and local communities? And would a federal opt out law risk
replacing professional education, educational judgment with litigationdriven oversight? >> Um, much better than I can ever uh articulate this. Let me just quote to you Justice Jackson, the author of Barnett uh in his concurrence in
McCullum in 1948, he said, "If we are to eliminate everything that is objectionable to any of these waring sexs or inconsistent with any of their doctrines, we will leave public education in shreds. nothing but educational confusion and a discrediting of the public school system
can result from subjecting it to constant lawsuits. Now, maybe that's the point. >> Yeah, maybe. So, so in your view, uh which institutions are best suited to set these boundaries in a way that protects religious liberty without
eroding the mission of public education, local school boards, educators, states or or federal lawmakers? Which which one of those? I mean, it has long been recognized that uh if there's any area where democracy is terrain, it's with respect to local government and there's
nothing perhaps more local than boards of education in educational districts. Again, to quote from Brown Board of Education, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. >> Thank you, sir. I agree, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Pursuant to the previous order, the chair declares the committee in recess subject to the call of the chair. Will plan to reconvene promptly in five minutes. Thank you. The committee now stands in recess. >> Five minute break. >> Take a break. Five minute break. That's what I'm saying.
Committee is back in order. Uh, Representative Miller of Illinois is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Parents have the God-given right to raise their children, especially when it comes to educating them in accordance
with their faith. This fundamental freedom includes the right to know what their children are being taught in school. These foundational rights are reinforced by federal legislation through the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, Furpa, and the
Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment, PPP. The bottom line, parental consent is integral to our educational framework. Schools cannot conceal student information from a parent. Schools must
recognize this reality. But it comes as no surprise that Democrats want to take away parental rights and education. When parents voiced concerns about what their children were being taught during the pandemic, Joe Biden's Department of
Justice labeled them as domestic terrorists. Last year, parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, scored a monumental victory when the Supreme Court reaffirmed what we already knew to be true. Parents control their children's education.
However, many school districts continue to circumvent the Supreme Court's ruling, including my home state of Illinois. For example, Chicago public schools featured sex education curriculum beginning in kindergarten.
In the first grade, there were lessons on how to define gender identity. In second grade, students were taught the concept of gender stereotypes and how to advocate for change. In fourth grade, the curric district curriculum utilized
a gender snowperson to help students explore the concepts of gender identity, sexual orientation, sex assigned at birth, and gender expression. By fifth grade, there was an introduction to puberty blockers, and students were
forced to read gender unicorn, learning about sexual orientation, and other concepts like gender role stereotypes and gender expression. Students were even expected to define terms like cisgender, non-binary, and transgender.
Last year's victory and the Mammud case means it's time for these schools to fall in line. My first question is to Mr. Baxter. In your written testimony, you mentioned the role of Congress in protecting parental rights in education,
particularly through Furpa and PP. Do these laws as written sufficiently protect parental rights or are further protections needed? >> They are often ignored by many school districts and even the Supreme Court's ruling is being ignored by many school
districts. So, I think Congress's attention to this issue and using its funding mechanisms can be an effective way to protect the rights of parents. >> Thank you. What about when schools manipulate FURPA and call it educational outreach when they send student data to
left-wing voter registration organizations? >> It's a little bit out of my expertise. I'm here to testify on the religious liberty aspects, but hopefully under all of these laws, schools and um will will ensure that all students are treated equally regardless of their religion or
irreligion. All students deserve an equal opportunity to be educated. >> Yes. and to have their privacy respected. And we are on that. My next question is to Mrs. Parshel Perry. In your written testimony, you mentioned Justice Kennedy's attempt to assuage
concerns of religious freedom violations in light of the Supreme Court's Oberfell ruling. Could you please explain how this ruling was an affront to religious freedom and has set off a domino effect of violations including the Mahmood
case? Yes. In fact, uh, Justice Alo himself in his excoriating descent to the Oberfell decision in 2015 actually responded to Justice Kennedy's majority opinion and said, "This is going to be utilized to stamp out every vestage of religious disscent." And in fact, his
words proved to be true. In fact, the Mimu decision was made necessary because of individual decisions like the Oberfell decision. Now, we can talk about whether or not it is bad jurist prudence, which I think it is. that divined a constitutional right to same-sex marriage from the same shadowy
ether of the 14th amendment that the court did in Row versus Wade and that has been subsequently overturned and that we can talk about it as a policy prescriptive matter but I think the fallout is something we cannot ignore and in fact as we've seen sort of cultural institutions be overtaken by
progressive orthodoxy we find parents good noble honest parents who simply want their children educated in the crosshairs of a culture war they did not start >> and that's what we want too. Thank you and I yield back. >> Representative Lee of Pennsylvania's.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. It would seem that the issue isn't that parents have a right to raise their children. I think the issue is that a certain parent doesn't have a right to raise somebody else's child. You don't get to determine for other children what religious beliefs they get to uh be exposed to in
their schools. And it just feels to me that Republicans and conservatives are always feigning outrage about the wrong things. For instance, uh right now as we are attempting to make it harder for children to receive a a holistic education, American children are falling behind uh by every metric on the global
scale. While kids are behind in reading, conservatives are busy trying to make sure that they can't read a story about a little girl who adors her uncle who's getting married. That is the most recent outrage. Reading is a crucial part of
how children learn about themselves and how much they have in common with others. It's how they learn about the world. Not only do kids deserve to see themselves reflected in books and the curriculum. They perform better when they do. The reality is is that this is
just another right-wing attempt couched in parents' rights to shield children from getting a real education. Everything this administration and the right-wing movement does is a blatant attempt to make us less educated, more narrow-minded, and easier to control.
This has a massive impact on our ability to function as a society, let alone to compete internationally. Right now, we are not a country that people are taking seriously today. It's about exploiting religious exemptions to shield children from the reality of queer people existing. But other times it's been
trying to shield uh children from the reality of black history lessons and how black history is American history or indigenous studies or various languages as we've seen through the outrage of Bat Bunny performing at the Olympics. It's always centered in bigotry and his xenophobia. It is suffocating our
country. Mr. Rothschild, First Amendment doctrine has shifted dramatically in the last few years due to President Trump's appointments to the Supreme Court. Do you expect we will continue seeing religious freedom weaponized to justify censorship in schools and how do you believe this will impact education uh
excuse me public education in our country? >> Thank you uh for the question. Religious liberty um uh jurisputants has expanded drastically um under Trump under under Trump's administration um and his appointments
to the Supreme Court. Um so for example during the pandemic the Supreme Court um interpreted the meaning of religious discrimination under the free exercise clause in uh exceptionally expansive ways such that basically any law that doesn't provide an exemption for
religion is discrimination against religion. Most recently, it's Muhammad where the focus is not on religious discrimination, although there's vestages of that in Justice Alto's opinion too where he frames the lack of optouts and the teaching uh or the
reading rather of these picture books as hostility as explicit hostility towards religion. So essentially anything can be framed as discrimination against religion but technically speaking Mahmud is a religious liberty case not a not a religious discrimination case. So, conservatives are also hoping that cases
like Mahmood uh vers Taylor will cause already underresourced public schools to preemptively censor curriculums to avoid costly lawsuits uh from a vocal minority. We're already seeing this happen, right? A rand study found that teachers are preemptively whitewashing
curricula uh following the manufactured moral panic against critical race theory. In Justice Alo's ruling in Mahmood vers Taylor, he said not allowing parents to opt out imposes a hostile environment as you you you mentioned. Do you believe that this ruling could also create a hostile
environment for LGBTQ plus children or other marginalized children in the same vein? >> Yeah, I mean I could I just imagine and and and and this was argued in Mahmood that if you allow for optouts, it's not only about the admin administrs and one of the one of the concerns that
the that the board had in Mahmud was the influx of requests for optouts once these children books were introduced into the curriculum. Um, it's not just administr, it's also the messaging that is sent when children are allowed to walk out of the classroom as soon as
teachings about inclusivity of other children is is is is um implemented. >> Thank you. Um, conservatives are exploiting religious freedom to suppress other constitutional rights like the separation of church and state uh or equal protection. Our duty to religious freedom does not absolve us as a duty to
protect marginalized groups from environments that condemn our existence. I want to end with the important point that despite this administration's best efforts, inclusive educational materials are still legal in this country. I welcome a hearing about the decision in American Federation of Teachers at all verse US Department of Education at all
that struck down the department's guidance against diversity, equity, inclusion, uh, and accessibility. And I stand with all the educators, students, and families navigating the bigotry and the xenophobia of this administration. We are working to ensure that children feel included and accepted and safe and have the opportunity to become educated
global citizens. I yield back. >> Representative Harris of North Carolina is recognized. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and uh thank you to all of you that are serving on this panel today and uh for your testimonies. I I found myself uh just overwhelmed at times in reading the
testimonies and uh to see how all of this played out there in Montgomery County. And um I want to just talk for a moment that one of the things that overwhelmed me was just kind of the attack or the villainization of parents that seemed to be uh working uh from the
board's perspective. And Mr. Dy, your testimony mentioned um that MCPS was incredibly hostile to parents who had legitimate religious concerns about the curriculum. In fact, you quoted one board member who suggested that if the parents were right, the board would have
to quote send out notices so white supremacists could opt out of civil rights contents end quote. I find that absurd and the board should be ashamed of themselves of comparing Muslims and Christians to white supremacist. And so,
Mr. Doy, I just want to ask you to if you could take a moment just to give us your perspective about that comparison. Yeah, I mean again as I as I said earlier, I think one of the things about Moved Revealed is how disconnected public schools are from the students and
the families that they serve. The notion that um that that Jewish families, Muslim families, um Christian families, Ethiopian Orthodox are white supremacists or can even even be equated to white supremacist, >> right?
>> That's insulting as as anything. I mean that making that kind of extreme analysis or analogy just shows how how out of touch they were. Um and uh you know again I think this is a problem uh in Montgomery County. Hopefully it's been resolved after they lost uh this
lawsuit. But um you know the notion that this story book series was necessary to I think they said disrupt heteronormative um thinking and uh which which you know it seems to be something that I don't know why kindergart kindergarters need
to be able to have that sort of thinking disrupted in order to learn to read and write and do ma mathematics. So, um, yeah, it really was kind of, uh, scary how the, uh, school board chose this is the hill they were going to die on. Luckily, they lost, but, uh, it revealed
a lot, uh, about what their what their priorities are, and it's certainly not serving the families that are in their, uh, county. >> Thank you, sir. Miss Marshall Perry, um there's been a lot of conversation today about inappropriate content in this hearing, but I think many people really
don't realize how deeply inappropriate it was. In fact, some of the left have characterized these teachings too often as lessons in mere tolerance or lessons in just mere understanding. And I think that is horrifically misleading. Um
would you take a moment just to share how inappropriate was this content? >> This centered on five LGBTQ themed story books for children as young as three and up. So again we need to view this from the perspective of the diminished capacity of minors. This was very
distinctly designed to change perspectives. And in the colloqui with Alan Shonfeld who is the attorney for MCPS and Justice Alo he said why don't you just come out and say exactly what you want to say. You're trying to change minds. You have a distinct perspective on these things you were trying to
institute in minors minds. Two of the story books, not only Uncle Bobby's Wedding, but Pride Puppy, addressed non-binary individuals, drag queens, and pride parades. These are individuals who don't have a concept of their own identity as it relates to whether or not they want to be a fireperson or a fairy
when they grow up. What we're dealing with is a designed attempt to change minds on perspectives. And I would hearken back to what Congresswoman Lee said earlier, which is there are a number of very primary considerations in American education. Our biggest threat
is the fact our children cannot read or do arithmetic. And there is a reason Harvard now offers a remedial math class. If we devest this kind of curriculum from public education, our children will succeed. >> Thank you, ma'am. And uh real quickly in
the last 40 seconds, Mr. Dy, you mentioned it uh in your written testimony about parents asking for opt outs and that was mention brought up earlier. Um and it's fairly common across the country for schools to allow parents to opt out. So the Maryland
parents really weren't asking for a radical new policy, but can you talk from the last 20 seconds about the kinds of teachings parents can often opt out from both at MCPS and in general? uh 47 of 50 states allow parents by statutory
right to opt out of classes on human sexuality, family life, including Maryland. Now, in Maryland, just showing you frankly the disingenuous of the board here. They didn't classify this storybook series as human sexuality because that would have meant this the
parents had the statutory right to opt out. Instead, they said it was part of English and language arts, which to me seemed silly. I mean again I think most of the people in this room were able to learn to read and write and do math without learn having their um
heteronormative uh normative uh things disrupted. So um I think it was slippery evasive and dising disingenuous not to say this is a human sexuality part of the curriculum in which case there would statutory right under Maryland law and
most other states for the parents to opt out. >> Thank you sir. Um Mr. Chairman, I yield back. >> Representative Hayes of Connecticut is recognized. >> Thank you, and thank you to our witnesses for being here, but I'm having a really hard time following along with
this hearing because terms like school board and district are being used in the abstract. Where I'm from, the school board is composed of local members of the community who are elected to serve on these boards. And in the state of
Connecticut, we have our curriculum framework comes from the state which says these are the the topics that have to be taught. And then at the local level, curriculum committees, local curriculum committees decide how will we teach those. In my district, a local
curriculum committee, I should probably add that I'm not talking about this in a hypothetical way. I taught in my school district, was the head of many uh curriculum committees, was the Connecticut teacher of the year, was the national teacher of the year. I looked back at my notes to see how the last
eight curriculum committees I served on were composed and they were subject matter teachers, technology coordinators, special education um teachers, administrators, parent representatives always on these curriculum committees, students and
community members who decided not only uh what the curriculum would entail but how it would be taught. one step further as a teacher. Every week I had to turn in my actual lesson plans of what I was going to do Monday through Friday in my class. Those lesson
plans were posted on Parent Square. Parents had the ability to view them. And we always always always had an opt out policy. I actually believe that parents should have the ability to opt their children out of a lesson that they
feel is offensive or I'm sorry I don't not offensive but goes against their religious beliefs. I also however am a mother who had all of my children formerly and currently went through a
public school system. I think that I am a good, noble, honest parent and I want my children to learn lessons about kindness and inclusivity and do not object to queer subject matter. So I
think that the rights of those parents, parents like me should also be respected to have their children learn about their neighbors and people in their community. And while I agree that math and reading are very important, I also and and let me just say this. I want my children not
only to learn about those things, but then come home and us have conversations about what this looks like in our community because they will be living alongside people who they may not agree with, who have different lifestyles, who make different choices than them. And I am as equally concerned about them
learning reading and algebra as I am about producing conscientious good adults who are not racist or xenophobic or homophobic or bullies in their community. So as a parent, I want my child exposed to all of the information
so that they can make the most informed decision. So I guess my question is um Mr. Rothcha, I'm going to come to you. Um, is Congress the body that is best suited to make these curriculum decisions? Because every committee, every hearing,
every conversation, every quote, every statement that comes out of the other side is about these things should be made locally. And now we're here today saying that a local board of education made up of local representatives um local curriculum that chooses their
curriculum materials that people can challenge if they don't like the the decisions that come out of this board. They can elect new people to the board and change it. And now we're saying that those people still shouldn't be able to make decisions on behalf of the children in their community. Mr. Roshchild,
should that be something that Congress does? Again, um I think the Supreme Court worded it a lot better than I could ever word it. And so in Milikin v. Bradley, this is what the Supreme Court had to say. No single tradition in public education is more deeply rooted than local control over the operation of
schools. Local control over the educational process affords citizens an opportunity to participate in decision-m permits the structuring of school programs to fit local needs and encourages quote experimentation, innovation, and a healthy competition for educational excellence. That's a
quote from a previous Supreme Court decision. Within the Supreme Court decision, >> I just want to say, I mean, I have members of my own family who identify as gay. I have people in the community who I look up to who identify as gay. And I want my children to know that those individuals are not an abomination.
Those individuals are not um indoctrination to care about people being able to live their life in the way that that they choose. And again, the fact that this committee is doing this, you know, I'm a teacher. I also
represent uh New Town Sandy Hook. We have yet to have one hearing on school shootings. So, if you want to protect children from the things um that help them thrive in school, I would suggest that we start with that. I yield back. >> Representative Mesmer of Indiana is recognized.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses for joining us here today. Uh Mr. Baxter. Uh, you mentioned in your testimony the congressional amicus brief that was submitted to the Supreme Court in the Mumad versus Taylor. I joined my colleagues in both colleagues in both chambers in signing
under this brief which challenge policies that compel students to participate in instruction that may conflict with their religious values and infringe on their first amendment amendment protections. Can you explain how this brief impacted the final decision made by the court? >> Thank you, Mr. Mmer and all who joined
the brief. It was a critical brief cited by the court. um showing that there are in the public schools today there are children being opted in and out of the classroom all the time for learning English as a second language for um individualized education plans and it's
no additional burden to respect the few parents who have religious objections that want to opt their children out of of one hour of curriculum. >> Thank you. Uh thank you. And I was pleased that the Supreme Court decided to let parents make important decisions about where what their children are exposed to in public public schools,
especially when it involves ideology that violates their family's religious beliefs. Uh Mr. Doerty, uh for any school district watching this hearing, what advice would you give them on how to protect parental rights and religious liberty in the wake of Mumad? Well,
certainly again, uh, uh, already Montgomery County has figured out how to deal with it with the refrigerator magnets that they get every semester telling telling, uh, uh, parents what's going to be taught in the following semester. I think um, transparency in curriculum is going to be key going
forward. The ability to opt your children out of certain lesson plans that you object to or that uh, conflict with your religious uh, beliefs, that means nothing unless you know when that's going to be coming. You know, you have noticed. So, I think through use of
web-based um tools and uh and even refrigerator man magnets, I think that schools uh can and will uh and must be more vigilant about letting parents know exactly what their kids are going to be taught so that they can then exercise their opt out right. And obviously,
Montgomery County having lost this lawsuit, I think that shows an incentive that you don't want to be on the wrong side of that decision going forward. >> Thank you. Uh, Miss Partial Perry, uh, many people think that children are merely creatures of the state. Uh, many
commentators are outraged by the MUMA decision and argued that school boards should have absolute control over what what their children learn. Can you explain why that world worldview is so dangerous? >> It's not only dangerous, it's judicially inaccurate. In fact, the Supreme Court held precisely the opposite in in Pierce
versus Society of Sisters in 1925. We have year after year of Supreme Court juristp prudence reinforcing underlining the importance and the fundamental nature of the parental right. What we've seen over and over again in school districts across the country is a sort
of misapprehension a miscomprehension of the fact that these children are in very temporary roles underneath the school leadership. The school operates in a tutillary custodial pass capacity for a very brief period of a few hours per day only to instruct not to indoctrinate and
then those children go back home where they are under the care and primary authority of their parents. In fact, as recently as 2012, the Supreme Court has written about the diminished capacity of minors, indicating precisely that parents act in the best interest of their children because minors lack the
appropriate intelligence, emotional maturity or understanding of the world around them to be able to make some of these important decisions. That is why the Mimmude decision was necessary in the first place because many of these children, three, four, five, were too young to know what the concepts were
that they were actually being taught. >> Thank you. And Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time. >> Representative Manion of New York is recognized. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Today, we're not only discussing a flawed Supreme Court decision, but also a much larger agenda. My colleagues on the other side continue
to mischaracterize what's happening in our classrooms. And I believe it's a major disservice to our students and teachers to put them at the center of these cruel uh culture wars. The statements made by my Republican colleagues in this committee make it clear that they view Mahammud case as
just the beginning opening the door for more sweeping opouts from school curricula. As a former teacher, I can tell you where I stand and what I've always fought for. Like my colleagues, I believe it's critical for parents to be
involved in their children's education. And they are. Parents have more access to teachers, school boards, administrators than ever before with online curricula, emails, uh live stream school board
meetings and beyond. Uh that was my experience and parents should be involved and what how public education has improved is to make sure that that access continues to increase and I believe that it will. I've made that
case before in this committee including to Secretary McMahon uh that parents have more access and more visibility in their students education than in the past and that's a good thing. But I don't believe we should go down the slippery slope of having parents opt
their kids out of any topic they don't dis they don't agree with or object to. Our public schools reflect our communities and the diversity of people and ideas within them. All curricula should be age appropriate and parents
have access to administrators and teachers. Whenever I in the 30 years in my classroom saw other teachers that may have put things into the lessons that were not appropriate, that was addressed immediately and often preemptively as
teachers, as my colleague, Representative Hayes said, have to hand in their lesson plans and uh syllabi ahead of time. So, we can't hide our kids from the world around them or prevent them
from engaging with different ideas or different people. I also believe that our teachers and schools administrators know their students well and should be trusted and should continue to be accessible, that they do have our
students best interests at heart. Despite claiming to talk about local control and education and caring about that, this administration has made multiple attempts to target specific content and place new politically motivated demands on our schools.
They've also weaponized funding, which is hurting all students. Just because a state may be represented by a Democrat or a Republican doesn't mean that all of those students or parents or teachers are Democrats or Republicans.
So unfortunately, weaponizing and cancelling grants is hurting our students, hurting our schools, increasing class sizes, and disrupting budgets. Our schools should always be inclusive places and religious beliefs
should always be respected. But I worry about the political and legal attempts to broaden the scope of the Mammud ruling and the implications of far-reaching optout policies. Mr. Rochild, my question is for you. Is mere exposure to educational content
that parents might find religion religiously objectionable enough to trigger an opt out under Mahmood? >> Possibly. Yes. >> A follow-up question. From the ruling of Mammud, do you believe that parents have the ability to
opt out of a high school unit on evolution? >> Possibly. Yes. As well. >> And do you agree that a parent should be able to opt their child out of evolution as a unit? >> Not as a constitutional right. No.
Miss Partial Perry, do you believe that parents have should be able to opt out of a unit on evolution? >> The Supreme Court's already addressed the issue and actually said there is no opt- out right for particular scientific perspectives. And in fact, in the wake of the Civil Rights Act enactment and desegregation efforts, both of those
periods of time in American history, the Supreme Court routinely struck down so-called religious objections to, for example, desegregation laws. They know when they can smell a rat. They've done so for many, many years, and they will continue to do so. Now, these were very honest religious objections to inappropriate material. The court will
continue to apply that interpretation going forward. >> Understood. So, it sounds as though your answer is that evolution would not be able to be opt outed of because it is accepted science and therefore a
religious objection towards it would not be permissible. >> It is a scientific perspective. Absolutely. It is generally included in scientific classes for which there is no constitutional or statutory opt- out right. There may be religious objections. Those can be raised individually, but the Supreme Court has already addressed the question of
evolution in public education. >> Thank you. I yield back. Representative Ruie of Ohio is recognized. >> Well, thank you, Chairman. Nobody knows their child better than a parent. Not a teacher. It's the parent. Parents have a god-given right to know what their
children are being taught in schools. In Ohio, we protect that right. Parents can review any material that includes in specifically sexual content and excuse that child in Ohio from that being taught. Being a school board member for
many years, when I heard about the violation of parents rights in Maryland and that being stripped away by the parent, it just totally made me sick. These schools force children to view, and here's the key words here. Here's the sweet spot. Sexually explicit
material of children under the age of 18 and threaten them with legal action against a parent who would fight back, who would even question it. In this in this particular subject, we have Muslims America, Christian and Jewish America
uniting for transparency in our school districts. None of us want sexual content for minors being taught in the school. That is unacceptable. So the question would roll out to Mr. Dockery. You said there were 47 states. Can you
elaborate on the three states that chose to take away the opt out option for the parents? Some of these school districts have been threatening, and here's another key word for you, truency against the child and the parent for opting out on their kids being taught sexual content for being under the age
of 18. I don't know what kind of upside down world we're living in where it's okay to teach sexual or orientated material to kids under 18. So, Mr. Dockerty, two-part question. The first one going to those three states and then another one for all of us on the board, including my honorable friends on the
other side of the aisle. Is there some guard rails that Congress could actually do to make a better system so we could teach all material, but not material that's illegal for minors? >> Sure. Um, unfortunately, I haven't. I I I did my research uh many months ago, so
I can't recall the four or the three states that don't. Um and I think but even those states, I think informally it's recognized that if you really want to your children not to participate in certain things that are um highly controversial, offend your religious beliefs. Um I think that's uh that
that's commonly recognized. And again, it was recognized in Maryland, but they said, "Well, this isn't about human sexuality. It's about learning to read. So you have to read pride puppy in order to read which seems to be a bit of a stretch here. Um so with regard to what
Congress can do um I mean Congress there's obviously discussion right now about the department of education. What's going to be happening with regard to that department of creation is a creature is a creature of Congress. Congress created back in 1979. Um and what will happen with it going forward
remains to be seen. Uh specific guard rails. Uh I think you know again I think the United States Constitution the Bill of Rights here is a tremendous guard rail uh and and you know doesn't waver and I think it was one that the parents
um were able to uh to take advantage of. Um uh I would say also too that parents and voters do need to be careful about who's on their school board sometimes. It's my understanding Mr. Baxter may know better, but some of the board members um who stood up for this this
principle back uh when the case was started are no longer on the school board. But um you know I haven't really given any thought specifically to what the federal government can do about this. >> Does anyone else have a comment on that? >> I can weigh in. Um we heard earlier
about whether or not the office of civil rights was the appropriate venue to be able to actually bring these challenges to. It is not. Having served as senior counsel in the US Department of Education in the office for civil rights, I can say specifically they enforce and apply civil rights law, not constitutional law. These parents
exhausted every administrative level of opportunity closest to where these actual decisions were being made. They were routinely struck down. The Montgomery County public school system stonewalled them at every attempt. The federal courts were their final recourse. The Department of Education does not have any any authority whatsoever when it comes to the First
Amendment. Any suggestions to Congress? >> We have current existing spending clause laws uh like the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that might provide a vehicle to be able to um legislate in such a way that decisions like this don't come up again through
the federal court system. Obviously the constitution conceives of specific enumerated rights for this chamber and one of those is spending clause legislation and there is quite a number of it that has actually been passed through these chambers that might provide an opportunity to say we are
going to enforce the parental right as we've done with furpa as we've done with PP those are suitable mechanisms I think going forward >> well thank you all for your time and with that I yield my time back to the chair >> representative Grahalva of Arizona is recognized >> thank you Mr. Chairman, before coming to
Congress, I served 20 years on a school governing board in southern Arizona, one of the largest, most diverse districts in the state. I worked directly with parents, teachers, and students every single day. I know firsthand how critical parent engagement is to student
success. But I also learned something else just as important. Public schools exist to serve all students. They are not vehicles for political agendas, nor are they space spaces where perspectives can be erased simply because they make some uncomfortable. The Supreme Court's
decision Mahoud v. Taylor was narrow. It does not give politicians permission to micromanage classrooms, override professional educators, or turn public schools into the latest front in a culture war. Framing this federal overreach as consistent with returning
education to the states is plainly contradictory to the majority's own stated agenda. Federal government overreach is the opposite of local control. At the same time, we cannot ignore the broader context. Instead of investing in students and strengthening public education, some are pushing to
dismantle the Department of Education and privatize our own public school system. These efforts can not do not empower families. They exacerbate existing inequalities, weaken accountability, and put our most vulnerable students in greater risk of
being left behind. Our responsibility is clear. We must ensure students learn in a safe, welcoming, well-funded schools where curiosity is encouraged, facts are taught honestly, educators are respected, and every child has a real
opportunity to succeed. This um my question will be to Mr. Rothschild. Um is there a limiting principle in Mahoud? Um are we on a slippery slope where schools will find themselves overwhelmed with optouts that that the curriculum will be erased to the lowest common
denominator as to what is taught. I think that that concern that you have voiced is a legitimate one. Um and is one that was articulated by none other than Justice Alo in 20121
um where in a concurrence in uh Mahanoi which involves social media and free speech for for children for students. Um uh he said the following. He said parents are not required to enroll their children in a public school. They can select a private school and they may
also be able to educate their children at home by enrolling a child in a public school. He went on to say the parents have impliedly consented to delegating some of their parental authority to the public school. >> Thank you. What are the failures of the
Mimmude decision in your opinion? What did the majority opinion get wrong? Well, the majority opinion essentially rewrote previous presidents claiming that it was just applying them. Uh it restructured the way religious liberty
works uh even in prior eras which the Supreme Court has claimed it's simply resurrecting. Um, religious liberty has classically meant that if an individual has an opposition to doing or not doing something that is required of them by
the government, they can invoke the free exercise clause. Um, but here the right as it is framed by Justice Alto and Mahmood is a right to unfettered control over the moral shaping of your
child even when you have opted to send your child to a public school. Um, what I think is really interesting is that every school district has their own governing board that is duly elected. Those decisions should be made by those that are elected from that
community. My concern and and one that I've, you know, pondered quite a few times while I've been in this room is that the Republican party, from what I understand, is the party that wants things to go back to the local level. But then when it's something that's an
inconvenient truth, we tend to stick our nose in and try to rewrite federal. Um, I want to continue to support our duly locally elected school districts to make decisions about school curriculum. Every single curriculum that is taught in our public schools is open in Arizona to
anyone who wants to and they have the option to opt out and we should continue to p push those kind of initiatives. Thank you and I yield back. >> Thank you very much. And I'll now recognize uh the ranking member for a closing statement. >> Uh thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and and thank you to the witnesses uh
for the testimony today. You know, this subcommittee is responsible for and should be comprehensively addressing the real issues affecting K12 schools and protecting our children's future. But instead of addressing the actual dangers to students, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have chosen to turn
classrooms into the epicenter of a culture war. I I noted uh uh Mr. Dockerty just said that it's his understanding that the Maryland Montgomery County Maryland school board members aren't there anymore. Well, you know what happened yesterday in in Montgomery County? A 16-year-old student
was shot in his school. You can't solve that with a refrigerator magnet. >> The Supreme Court The Supreme Court decision in Mahmud versus Taylor has opened yet another avenue for Republicans to attack public public education to the detriment of students and families. No one is arguing that
parents should not be involved in their children's education. On the contrary, we recognize that family involvement is critical to a child's development and educational success. But by turning what is taught in the classroom into a political issue and improperly a federal
issue, Republicans are using our children's future as a weapon to deepen partisan divides and threaten the foundations of our public education system. My Democratic colleagues and I will not support politicizing education. We will continue to work with students, with parents, with educators, and with
communities until every student receives an accurate, highquality, age appropriate education in a safe, well-funded environment without fear of gun violence or masked federal agents breaking down the classrooms. Education that engages them and inspires them and
leads them to be creative, tolerant, critical thinkers uh who are compassionate members of their community and our country. And I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you very much. Thank you to all of our witnesses. I think a major takeaway for me from this hearing is that the position of the opposition here is that
there is no recourse for parents. That's an exact quote from their chosen uh witness. Uh which I find to be very troubling. Uh this idea that, you know, kids as young as kindergarten could be exposed to the most graphic content and the parents have no recourse. They're
not allowed to pull their child out even for a day. uh that a school could uh inculcate uh values that are wholly incompatible with the religious upbringing that the parent has chosen for the child and there is no recourse. They can't let them sit out even a day
of class. So I think that the uh opinion of the Supreme Court and Mahmood uh simply affirm common sense foundational principles in this country and this isn't about controlling curriculum at the federal level. When a parent opts out, the curriculum stays the same. The other students who choose to
participate, their families can be exposed to whatever curriculum is chosen at the local level. It certainly isn't about undermining local control either. I believe very strongly in local control when it comes to education. Uh but at the same time, there are basic constitutional rules of the road that
all institutions uh must abide by. And what the Supreme Court has recognized is that religious liberty is one of them. and the right of parents to direct their upbringing of children is intricately bound up in that. Uh so I think this is a very important decision uh and uh this committee will be assuring that it is
honored uh and respect so that the rights of parents are respected throughout the country. Without objection, there being no further business, the committee stands adjourned.