When the Supreme Court handed down its opinion in Mahmoud v. Taylor this summer, liberal parents and advocates were understandably alarmed. The Court sided with the plaintiffs, parents from Montgomery County, Maryland, who wanted their young children excused from reading and discussing books on sexual orientation and gender identity. In so doing, it recognized a constitutional right to opt out of specific classroom content that conflicts with one’s religious beliefs and imposed an obligation on school districts to proactively notify parents when such a conflict might occur in classroom instruction.
This new right will be burdensome to administer and opens the door to bad-faith attempts to abuse accommodation requests. But it’s also an opportunity to recommit to public education’s mission of serving all young people, including those whose religious beliefs are out of step with local culture. If public schools are to remain shared civic institutions, liberals must absorb a lesson: Inclusion cannot mean coercion, and pluralism—when practiced seriously—is not a dodge but a democratic ethic.
The case began in 2022, when Montgomery County Public Schools introduced a set of storybooks in kindergarten through fifth grade to expand representation and prompt classroom conversations about gender identity and sexual orientation. At the time, MCPS granted a request from parents to be notified of the upcoming lessons and allowed to opt-out. But when more families than expected took advantage of the opt-out, MCPS in 2023 reversed course—removing the notification policy and eliminating the possibility of accommodation for the parents’ religious beliefs. Eliminating that accommodation was the wrong approach; it treated inclusion as something to be imposed rather than practiced through reciprocity.
Public schools have a special responsibility to serve all families. They must be places where LGBTQ students are affirmed and made to feel they belong, and places where families with deep religious convictions are made to feel they belong too. Both commitments are real, and navigating them requires care. Adding to curricula books that reflect LGBTQ identities is an important step toward inclusion, but pluralism requires more than prioritizing belonging for one group—it calls for the generosity to accommodate those with different beliefs. This fall, when MCPS kept the books in its curriculum and also offered opt-outs, only 43 families selected that option—in a district of more than 160,000 students. That’s hardly a collapse of inclusion; it is a model of the democratic spirit that allows people from all over the world and of many faiths to learn to live together.
LGBTQ advocates have plenty reason to make policies that promote sensitivity. LGBTQ students face real and painful risks; many experience exclusion, hostility, and emotional distress—both at school and elsewhere. A 2023 CDC survey found that only 46 percent of LGBTQ high schoolers felt connected at school. One in five had attempted suicide in the past year. These numbers convey an ongoing tragedy—and they underscore the urgency of making schools safer, more welcoming, and more inclusive for every child.
I began my own career fighting for this very goal. As a trial attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division in 2000, I persuaded the attorney general to intervene in a case in which a school had failed to protect a student who was harassed for being perceived as gay. My advocacy led the United States to argue—for the first time—that such harassment constitutes sex discrimination rooted in gender stereotypes, a reasoning that was ultimately adopted by the Supreme Court in Bostock v. Clayton County, making employment discrimination against gay and trans people illegal under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
All students should experience a feeling of belonging in school. That feeling is foundational to the promise of America, to democracy, and to equal opportunity, and expanding classroom materials to include LGBTQ characters and families is part of making schools truly inclusive. But an injustice one group faces does not legitimate compelling others to participate in a lesson that fundamentally conflicts with their religious faith. Pluralism requires a deeper kind of reciprocity—especially when an accommodation that families seek does not block others from making a different decision that’s right for them.
When MCPS rescinded the opt-out, more than 1,000 MCPS parents petitioned the board to reinstate it. They were met with scorn. When the families eventually sued, they didn’t ask for the books to be removed. They didn’t try to cancel the curriculum. They asked to be allowed to excuse their own children from classroom instruction that they viewed as incompatible with their religious beliefs. Instead of honoring that request, the district dug in, portraying the parents’ motives as intolerant—one board member went so far as to describe the opt-out as “just telling that kid there is another reason to hate another person.”
That accusation reveals a category error that some liberals make: treating pluralism as condoning prejudice. Allowing parents to opt their children out of a curriculum is not the same as endorsing the views that led them to that choice—it’s giving them freedom to have their own views, even when others disagree.
Some will see tension between Mahmoud v. Taylor and Obergefell v. Hodges, which guarantees marriage equality as a civil right. But these rulings fit together. Obergefell ensures that same-sex couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry because of others’ religious objections. Mahmoud ensures that the state cannot force families to participate in instruction that contradicts their religious convictions. Both affirm the same pluralist principle: People should be free to live according to their conscience without enlisting government to impose unanimity.
In light of the Court’s decision, schools will now find themselves in an even tougher position, needing to notify parents of potentially controversial content and provide them with accommodations. Overburdened and under-resourced school systems may decide simply to avoid these situations, by self-censoring and avoiding any topics that might draw an objection. That is a dramatic expansion of First Amendment doctrine that will inevitably embroil federal judges in decisions previously made by educators and schools boards.
For generations, religious-accommodation requests operated through democratic processes: state statute, local policy, case-by-case deliberation. Now districts may face what’s known as “strict scrutiny” from the courts. Strict scrutiny is the most demanding constitutional standard, requiring defendants to demonstrate a compelling government interest for their policy and that a less restrictive alternative does not exist. The ruling reshapes the legal landscape for anyone seeking a religious accommodation: More demands will come; more decisions will be litigated rather than deliberated. This outcome should concern everyone who values locally responsive leadership, teacher autonomy, and the stability of public education.
School leaders must now navigate new legal exposure while also facing rising political pressures and eroding public trust. And this is happening in a moment when public education is already under immense strain: declining enrollment, engagement, and achievement; teacher shortages and low morale; increased privatization. The Mahmoud decision hands a significant win to those who seek to dismantle public education altogether. Protecting public education will require vigilance against bad-faith attacks.
But it also requires something more: a renewed commitment to building schools that are transparent, responsive, and capacious enough to accommodate America’s multitudes. The path to defending public education does not lie in imposing ideological conformity but in cultivating public confidence through humility, openness, and pluralist accommodation.
One of the quiet powers of public education is that it brings together students from a huge variety of backgrounds and teaches them to live with difference—not by erasing it but by navigating it with empathy and openness. In a pluralistic nation, that work requires more than majority rule. It requires mutual accommodation, shared norms, and the humility to serve people who profoundly disagree.
The work of learning to live together is getting harder—not just in schools but also across society. Our political culture rewards outrage, mocks empathy, and treats compromise as weakness. In that climate, it’s easy to let hostility harden our heart, seeing accommodation as capitulation rather than principle. The instinct to close ranks is understandable. But if those committed to justice abandon pluralism, public education will become another casualty in the campaign to divide and diminish us. Pluralism isn’t a burden—it’s a civic responsibility.
School boards and superintendents should act now, before the next controversy erupts: Develop clear, consistent policies for religious-accommodation requests. Train teachers on how to handle opt-outs with dignity—both for students who leave and those who stay. Create advisory committees that include diverse religious voices, not after conflicts arise but as part of ongoing curriculum development. And when accommodation requests come—as they will—ask “How can we accommodate this family while serving all students?” rather than “How can we hold the line?” In that spirit, Montgomery County has now rolled out what it calls a “refrigerator curriculum”—a one-page summary to be displayed on a family’s fridge door, sent to parents every nine weeks, describing upcoming lessons and flagging sensitive material—an exemplary approach that advances transparency and parental engagement.
For those who care about LGBTQ inclusion, the path forward isn’t to abandon that work but to pursue it with resolve and also compassion for those who disagree. Support districts that model generous accommodation alongside robust inclusion. Advocate for teacher training that prepares educators to navigate these moments gracefully. And when religious families seek exemptions, see it as an opportunity to demonstrate the pluralistic values America needs.
