Activism

OPINION: Supreme Court Case Highlights Clash Between Parental Rights and Progressive Indoctrination

At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes — often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity.

Published

12 months ago

May 19, 2025

Oakland Post

Craig J. DeLuz. Courtesy of Craig J. DeLuz.

By Craig J. DeLuz, Special to California Black Media Partners

In America’s schools, the tension between parental rights and learning curricula has created a contentious battlefield.

In this debate, it is essential to recognize that parents are, first and foremost, their children’s primary educators. When they send their children to school — public or private — they do not surrender their rights or responsibilities. Yet, the education establishment has been increasingly encroaching on this vital paradigm.

A case recently argued before the Supreme Court regarding Maryland parents’ rights to opt out of lessons that infringe upon their religious beliefs epitomizes this growing conflict. This case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, is not simply about retreating from progressive educational mandates. It is fundamentally a defense of First Amendment rights, a defense of parents’ rights to be parents.

At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes, often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity. The parents argue that the subject matter is age-inappropriate, and the school board does not give parents the option to withdraw their children when those lessons are taught.

This case raises profound questions about the role of public education in a democratic society. In their fervent quest for inclusivity, some educators seem to have overlooked an essential truth: that the promotion of inclusivity should never infringe upon parental rights and the deeply held convictions that guide families of different faith backgrounds.

This matter goes well beyond mere exposure. It veers into indoctrination when children are repeatedly confronted with concepts that clash with their family values.

“I don’t think anybody can read that and say: well, this is just telling children that there are occasions when men marry other men,” noted Justice Samuel Alito. “It has a clear moral message, and it may be a good message. It’s just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised a crucial point, noting that it is one thing to merely expose students to diverse ideas; it is quite another to present certain viewpoints as indisputable truths. By framing an ideology with the certainty of “this is the right view of the world,” educators risk indoctrination rather than enlightenment. This distinction is not merely academic; it speaks to the very essence of cultivating a truly informed citizenry.

Even Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern regarding the exposure of young children to certain materials in Montgomery County.

“I, too, was struck by these young kids’ picture books and, on matters concerning sexuality, I suspect there are a lot of non-religious parents who weren’t all that thrilled about this,” she said.

Justice John Roberts aptly questioned the practicality of expecting young children to compartmentalize their beliefs in the classroom.

“It is unreasonable to expect five-year-olds, still forming their worldviews, to reconcile lessons that conflict fundamentally with the teachings they receive at home,” he said.

As was noted in my previous commentary, “The Hidden Truth In The Battle Over Books In American Schools”, what lies at the heart of these debates is a moral disconnect between the values held by the majority of Americans and those promoted by the educational establishment. While the majority rightly argue that material containing controversial content of a sexual nature should have no place in our children’s classrooms, the education establishment continues to tout the necessity of exposing children to such content under the guise of inclusivity. This disregards the legitimate values held by the wider community.

Highlighted in this case that is before the Supreme Court is a crucial truth: parents must resolutely maintain their right to direct their children’s education, according to their values. This struggle is not simply a skirmish; it reflects a broader movement aimed at reshaping education by privileging a state-sanctioned narrative while marginalizing dissenting voices.

It is imperative that we assert, without hesitation, that parents are — and must remain — the primary educators of their children.

When parents enroll a child in a school, it should in no way be interpreted as a relinquishment of parental authority or the moral guidance essential to their upbringing. We must stand firm in defending parental rights against the encroaching ideologies of the education establishment.

About the Author

Craig J. DeLuz has almost 30 years of experience in public policy and advocacy. He has served as a member of The Robla School District Board of Trustees for over 20 years. He also currently hosts a daily news and commentary show called “The RUNDOWN.” You can follow him on X at @CraigDeLuz.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

OP-ED – Record Viewership, Record Racism: The WNBA can’t have it both ways. Black players deserve better.

Don't Miss

Newsom, Pelosi Welcome Election of First American Pope; Call for Unity and Compassion

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

Marin City Public Housing Residents Demand a Voice in County’s Renovation Plans

Representation has been a continuous struggle for the Residents Council, she said in an interview with the Post News Group. In 2014, the tenants took the county to federal court over this issue, and prevailed, resulting in an MOU that was in effect from 2014 to 2024, said McLemore. “Now, they are not responding to our rightful requests to participate. They are not giving us a legal justification for their position.”

Published

4 hours ago

May 10, 2026

Oakland Post

The largest housing complex in Marin County, Golden Gate Village residents are for predominantly Black and low-income. Courtesy image.

Tenants say the County of Marin is ignoring federal law requiring resident council participation

By Ken Epstein

Marin City public housing residents say the County is illegally depriving them of their rights to participate in renovation decisions that affect the future of their housing, raising deep concerns over whether the county ultimately will find a way to displace them.

According to regulations established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Marin City public housing residents have the right to organize, elect resident councils, and hold public housing agencies accountable for involving them in management decisions.

Without resident participation, the Board of Housing Commissioners, made up of the five Marin County Board of Supervisors and two resident comissioners, has approved a $226 million project. The plan calls for renovation of the 296 units in Golden Gate Village (GGV) and focuses on interior improvements. The project is scheduled to start in July.

Residents’ concerns have a long history, said Royce McLemore, president of the Golden Gate Village Residents Council and a 50-year resident of Marin City,

With no current MOU mandating training and participation of residents, the legal basis for all the redevelopment decisions made by the county since 2024 is questionable, said Terrie Green, executive director of Marin City Climate Resilience. “We are experiencing voicelessness. If residents had a voice, we wouldn’t be where we are today,” she said.

County decisions include a plan, in line with federal regulations, to convert GGV from public housing to a public-private enterprise that allows for private investment. The Marin Housing Authority has created a limited partnership that includes Burbank Housing – which will renovate the units and manage the property – and Wells Fargo Bank, the investor.

This change in federal policy regarding public housing, which includes a shift to a Section-8 voucher system, has resulted in gentrification across the country, particularly affecting African Americans in cities such as San Francisco.

Shifts in criteria of what is considered affordable could also end up pricing residents out of their living units. At present, low income in Marin County is officially considered $156,000. But the median household income in Marin City is significantly lower at $68,846.

Damian Morgan, a community advocate with Marin City Climate Resilience, questioned why the county is renovating apartments without fixing toxic infrastructure that is impacting the lives of people in GGV.

Morgan said tenants have filed a class action lawsuit because of unsafe conditions at Golden Gate Village.

Residents are also concerned that the County still does not have an adequate family plan for temporary displacement while their apartments are being renovated. Although the County has suggested other community apartments as alternatives, nothing concrete has developed except vacant public housing units that have the same toxic conditions, such as mold and mildew.

Green said it doesn’t make sense. “…Why are we moving people around into temporary housing that’s uninhabitable, when you should be dealing first with the infrastructure, the foundational work, replacing old and rusted water pipes and new sewers.”

Morgan questions the County’s motivation for neglecting infrastructure repairs. “They’re remodeling the units but leaving the decayed infrastructure in place. I feel like they’re just setting this up for it to fail.”

“What slowed it down a little is that GGV is a historic preservation district, but I think what they’re striving for is demolition by neglect,” he said. “The neglect has always been on their part.”

Architect Ora Hatheway said her concern is about cutting corners. “You have to deal with the land issues. You have to deal with grading and drainage, and that’s being brushed under the rug.”

In an interview with KGO TV, Marin County Supervisor Stephanie Moulton-Peters responded to some of these concerns. She said residents are guaranteed the right to return to their homes.

“This is a concern that we take seriously,” she said. “Every resident will move back into their own unit, and we’ve given this to them in writing. Before they leave their unit, we will sign a document together that guarantees their right to return.”

In response to residents who feel left out of the planning process, she said community input has focused on those affected by the first phase of the project. “So other residents may not have heard quite as much or felt like they had as much contact. But if there are residents who have concerns, we’re happy to hear from them. You can contact my office or the housing authority directly,” she said.

While County leaders may be giving some updates to some tenants, they are not sitting at the table with the Residents Council nor giving residents a voice in decision-making, said McLemore.

Without a voice in decisions, tenants are worried that Black people may be forced out of public housing, resulting in gentrification, she said in an interview with ABC 7. It’s still paternalistic, she said. “It’s still that ‘We know what’s best for you.’’’

Several years ago, the Residents Council proposed a land trust plan that would give tenants homeownership rights. Though the plan had broad support throughout the county, it was rejected by the Board of Supervisors

In the final analysis, Green said, for Marin City tenants the fight is not just for decent housing but to maintain their community with dignity under conditions of mutual respect.

“We’re talking about people who came here to work in the shipyards during World War II to bring about peace and safety to this country,” she said. “Look at the discrimination we’ve faced down through the years. Look at the life-span issue of Marin City folks – almost 20 years less than the rest of the County.”

“We want educational equity so our children will have decent schools. We need a land trust, property ownership, so we can have wealth creation. Marin City needs the same quality of life as other communities in Marin County.”

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of May 6 – 12, 2026

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of may 6 – 12, 2026

Published

4 hours ago

May 10, 2026

Oakland Post

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

On the Frontlines of Hate: NAACP Links Victims to Critical Support

The NAACP CA/HI has a long and well-established record of supporting victims of discrimination and hate crimes — providing critical referrals and, when necessary, direct assistance through legal advocacy and other forms of support. Beyond responding to incidents, the organization continues to advocate on broader civil rights issues, including voting rights and legal protections. It has also worked to counter efforts at the state and federal levels that could weaken the voting power of communities of color.

Published

1 week ago

May 1, 2026

Oakland Post

NAACP members at a recent advocacy day in Sacramento urging lawmakers to protect voting rights. Photo courtesy of California Black Media.

By Joe Kocurek
California Black Media

The California/Hawaii State Conference of the NAACP (CA/HI NAACP) has expanded its efforts to respond to rising hate incidents and civil rights complaints across California, supported in part by funding from California’s Stop the Hate Program

Through that grant, NAACP CA/HI has strengthened its ability to connect individuals experiencing hate or discrimination with critical resources. This includes referring those who file complaints to the CA vs Hate hotline, a statewide, non-emergency hate crime and incident reporting hotline and online portal created to help counter a more than 50% increase in reported hate crimes in California between 2020 and 2024. The system helps ensure incidents are documented, and victims are guided toward appropriate support.

LaJuana Bivens says the work of NAACP is as urgent as ever. Photo by Regina Wilson, California Black Media.

LaJuana Bivens, who has served in a number of roles within the NAACP, said California has seen an increase in civil rights violations and hate-related incidents.

“We have 52 branches, and they are constantly receiving complaints,” she said. “So, without the Stop the Hate, we would not be able to refer those cases up to attorneys at the state level. A lot of the people would not have had an opportunity to be heard.”

Carmen-Nicole Cox helps survivors of hate with their legal options. Photo courtesy of Carmen-Nicole Cox.

Carmen-Nicole Cox, an attorney who works with NAACP CA/HI – as a part of California’s Stop the Hate Program – provides legal consultation to victims of hate incidents and discrimination through her legal practice, the Cox Firm for Law and Policy.

She said the complaints she receives span a wide range of issues.

“People are having home builders and landlords refusing to provide repairs, a student was denied promotion in an academic program, and targeted scrutiny at work,” she said. “It’s typically employment; it’s housing; it’s education.

“We’ll meet and they’ll share their experiences,” she said. “And then I make assessments about possible legal claims.”

According to the California Civil Rights Department (CRD), nearly 1,200 reports of hate against minority groups were submitted in 2024 through the CA vs Hate hotline and online portal for non-emergency incidents.

While the California/Hawaii State Conference of the NAACP, which has tens of thousands of members, does not directly investigate hate incidents or crimes, it plays a key role in connecting victims to the state’s reporting systems and support services.

Beyond responding to incidents, the organization continues to advocate on broader civil rights issues, including voting rights and legal protections. It has also worked to counter efforts at the state and federal levels that could weaken the voting power of communities of color.

Bivens recently traveled to Sacramento to speak with state lawmakers about voting rights during an advocacy day event hosted by the organization.

“It’s just so hard for communities of color to be up to date because of all of the confusing information coming from the federal level,” she said. “I love our great state of California because here it is possible to vote by mail and to vote early.

“And I’m seeing that trying to be eroded. So, I’m here to urge continued support for vote by mail and early voting.”

When Texas moved to redraw congressional districts in ways critics said would dilute minority voting strength, NAACP CA/HI supported the passage of Proposition 50 in California. The organization also intervened in United States v. Shirley Weber, where federal officials sought access to unredacted California voter records, including Social Security numbers, raising concerns about misuse and voter intimidation.

Cultivating the advocacy and leaderships of young people is central to NAACP’s mission to fight racism and dismantle inequality. Photo courtesy of California Black Media.

A federal district court dismissed that case in January 2026.

The organization’s current work builds on a long history of civil rights advocacy. Today, Bivens says, the organization’s mission remains as urgent as ever.

“We are the oldest, boldest, most feared Civil Rights organization,” Bivens said. “What we do every day is fight for better housing, education, economic development and political inclusion. We take it on because there are just so many people who need that support.

“You would be amazed that our phones ring every single day.”

Get Support After Hate:

California vs Hate is a non-emergency, multilingual hotline and online portal offering confidential support for hate crimes and incidents. Victims and witnesses can get help anonymously by calling 833-8-NO-HATE (833-866-4283), Monday to Friday, 9 a.m.–6 p.m. PT, or online at any time. Anonymous. Confidential. No Police. No ICE.

This story was produced in partnership with CA vs Hate. Join them for the first-ever CA Civil Rights Summit on May 11. More information at www.cavshate.org/summit.

https://youtu.be/_k7UVhI-sN8