Loudoun (VA) School Board approves LGBTQ proclamation despite opposition

Texas A&M President resigns over controversy in LGBTQ teachings

States must ax transgender references from sex ed or risk losing funds, Trump admin says

Virginia school board votes to refuse to follow administration’s anti-trans order

NC Dems’ defection fuels the passage of several harmful Republican bills

A school district just banned rainbow flags. It may soon remove protections for LGBTQ+ students too.

GOP official just banned “Everyone is Welcome Here” signs in schools because they’re too Democratic

SCOTUS rules parents have a right to prevent their kids from reading books with LGBTQ+ characters

*This is reported by LGBTQ Nation.

The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in Mahmoud v. Taylor, the case brought by parents who said that their First Amendment rights were violated when schools used books that included LGBTQ+ characters.

The decision was 6-3 along ideological lines, with the Republican-appointed justices siding with the religious parents who wanted to opt their children out of reading books like Prince & Knight and Uncle Bobby’s Wedding in the Montgomery County, Maryland, school system.

“The Court does not accept the Board’s characterizations of the LGBTQ+-inclusive instruction as mere ‘exposure to objectionable ideas’ or as lessons in ‘mutual respect,’” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority. “The storybooks unmistakably convey a particular viewpoint about same-sex marriage and gender.”

“Regardless, the question in cases of this kind is whether the educational requirement or curriculum at issue would ‘substantially interfere with the religious development’ of the child or pose ‘a very real threat of undermining’ the religious beliefs and practices the parent wishes to instill in the child.”

“Casting aside longstanding precedent, the Court invents a constitutional right to avoid exposure to ‘subtle’ themes ‘contrary to the religious principles’ that parents wish to instill in their children,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissenting opinion. “Exposing students to the ‘message’ that LGBTQ people exist, and that their loved ones may celebrate their marriages and life events, the majority says, is enough to trigger the most demanding form of judicial scrutiny.”

The case involved several sets of Christian and Muslim parents who objected to their kids reading books that mentioned LGBTQ+ people. The district had an opt-out policy that they later rescinded because, the district claimed, the opt-outs were becoming “unworkable.”

Some parents in the district protested to get the opt-out policy reinstated, while others protested in favor of learning about LGBTQ+ people.

“The books geared to younger kids are just showing a diverse range of families,” said Christina Celenza, a mother of a student in the district, during one of the 2023 protests. “We have a two-mom household, so my wife and I are really proud and out, and, of course, my kid in kindergarten or pre-K is going to probably talk about his family and his two moms.”

The district didn’t budge, so several parents sued. Two lower courts denied them a preliminary injunction, but the Supreme Court just granted them one.

The parents want the courts to ultimately order teachers to notify them of every possible discussion where LGBTQ+ people may come up so that they could opt their children out, lest their kids learn that LGBTQ+ people exist. They claimed that knowing that LGBTQ+ people exist is contrary to their religious beliefs and violates their right to direct their children’s religious upbringing.

Public education advocates warn that the ruling could lead to even more requests for opt-outs of public education on wide-ranging topics including Earth Day, critical thinking, and anti-drug programs.

Free speech and LGBTQ+ advocates denounced the ruling.

“This ruling is a deeply disappointing blow to the right to read under the First Amendment,” said U.S. Free Expression Programs staff attorney for PEN America Elly Brinkley in a statement. “It is a fundamental betrayal of public schools’ duty to prepare students to live in a diverse and pluralistic society. By allowing parents to pull their children out of classrooms when they object to particular content, the justices are laying the foundation for a new frontier in the assault on books of all kinds in schools.”

“While religious liberty is fundamentally important, it should not force public schools to exempt students from lessons that don’t align with their families’ personal religious or cultural beliefs,” said Equality California Executive Director Tony Hoang in a statement. “LGBTQ+ themed books are already among the most banned and challenged in school districts and libraries across the country. Today’s decision will make it even harder for these books to find their way into the hands of students who simply want to read — and who may find validation and acceptance in the process.”

“Today’s ruling does not change schools’ obligation to prepare students to interact with and thrive in a diverse and ever-changing world,” said GLAD Law’s Mary L. Bonauto. “LGBTQ+ people and families exist, students in our public schools have LGBTQ+ parents, and books that include LGBTQ+ people should not be treated differently than those without LGBTQ+ people.”

“The Court’s decision does not require our schools to abandon these efforts. Parents, students, educators, and neighbors can encourage opportunities for learning about diverse people and families by staying involved with school districts, school boards, and in our local communities.”

June 28, 2025 0

Amid Trump’s funding threats, a rural Colorado school district looks to remove LGBTQ policy protections

*This is reported by Chalkbeat.

Citing President Trump’s threat to cut off federal education funding for school districts that provide protections for LGBTQ people, school board members in the Montezuma-Cortez district in southwestern Colorado are poised to remove sexual orientation and gender identity from the district’s nondiscrimination policy.

“Our district uses federal grant monies and Trump has indicated those grants are at risk if any district continues to support certain previously protected classes like sexual orientation, gender expression, or gender identity,” Mike Lynch, a school board member and the policy committee chair, said at a board meeting late last month.

The proposed policy changes in Montezuma-Cortez represent just one example of how some Colorado school districts are rushing to comply — or over-comply — with federal ultimatums based on questionable legal foundations. Many legal experts say the Trump administration cannot, on its own, exclude transgender people from federal anti-discrimination law and that Colorado law, which includes protections for LGBTQ people, supersedes school district policy anyway.

But efforts to remove protections at the local level send harmful messages about who is valued and who isn’t, they say.

“I think it does damage to queer students because it signals that this school district … doesn’t believe that these students are worthy of protection,” Scott Skinner-Thompson, associate professor of law at the University of Colorado Boulder.

Montezuma-Cortez, a conservative-leaning district with about 2,400 students, has taken other steps to curtail LGBTQ symbols and school activities in recent years. The school board is scheduled to take a final vote on the proposed nondiscrimination policy on June 24.

MB McAfee, a retired social worker and district resident, said she doesn’t know of any case where federal funds were withheld by the Trump administration, but worries about that possibility, particularly when it comes to money for students with disabilities.

But she’s also angry about the proposed policy changes, calling them “another step toward exclusion.”

“If we do that,” she asked, “then what’s going to be next?”

School districts react to funding threats

Trump has targeted transgender rights since his first day in office. In January and February, he issued several executive orders on the topic, including one that describes sex as determined at conception and unchangeable and another that threatens to withhold federal funds from schools that allow transgender girls to play girls sports.

The Trump administration has moved to strip federal funding from Maine because that state allows transgender girls to compete on girls’ teams. A judge blocked the federal government from withholding school lunch money while the case continues.

So far, no school district has lost money because of policies protecting transgender students. But Lynch emphasized that risk when he explained the proposed policy revision to the school board in May.

Asked by Chalkbeat what executive order or federal guidance required the removal of “sexual orientation” from the policy, Lynch later said by email that he’d mistakenly cited the term when he spoke to the board about federal dollars being in jeopardy.

For now though, “sexual orientation” isn’t being restored to the policy, he said.

Montezuma-Cortez isn’t alone in making changes spurred by the Trump administration. Officials from several Colorado districts, including Woodland Park and District 49 near Colorado Springs, have cited Trump’s executive orders in pushing policy changes or other efforts aimed at revoking protections for transgender students.

In May, District 49 sued the state and the Colorado High School Activities Association arguing that Colorado law and the association’s policy violate students’ constitutional rights by allowing transgender youth to play on school sports teams that match their gender identity.

Montezuma-Cortez school board members had little to say about the implications of the proposed nondiscrimination policy changes.

Asked about the legal or practical implications, Lynch said he’s not an attorney and doesn’t know. School board President Sheri Noyes did not respond to Chalkbeat’s request for comment. Vice President Ed Rice declined to respond to specific questions from Chalkbeat, saying by email that the policy’s opening sentence “answers everything.”

As proposed, that sentence says, “The Board is committed to providing a learning and work environment where all members of the school community are treated with dignity and respect.” The current version of the policy says “safe learning and work environment” but the revision takes out the word “safe.”

June 10, 2025 0

Democrats lash out as Texas Legislature bans school clubs that support gay teens

*This is reported by the Texas Tribune

Democrats took to the floor of the Texas House on Saturday to label a ban on clubs that support gay teens the work of “monsters” and to say the ban endangers children and strips them of their dignity.

The Democratic representatives grew emotional in opposition to a bill that would ban K-12 student clubs focused on sexuality and gender identity.

Senate Bill 12, authored by Sen. Brandon Creighton, won final legislative passage Saturday after lawmakers in both chambers adopted the conference committee reports that specifically clarified that schools will be banned from authorizing or sponsoring student clubs based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Backers proclaimed that the bill enshrines a parent’s rights and puts the parent not just at the table, but at the head of the table where the child’s best interests are decided. They also targeted diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies, claiming that they project ideologies on students and put too much focus on race, sexuality and gender identity instead of the quality of education.

Rep. Gene Wu, D-Houston, emphasized that these clubs exist because of a long history of oppression against the LGBTQ+ community. He warned against demonizing students and teachers for discussing gender and sexuality.

“The real monsters are not kids trying to figure out who they are,” Wu said during the House discussion. “The monsters are not the teachers who love them and encourage them and support them. They are not the books that provide them with some amount of comfort and information. The real monsters are here.”

Lawmakers shared personal stories about LGBTQ+ youth. Rep. Rafael Anchía said his daughter was a vice president of a pride club at her school. He stressed that these clubs “are no more about sex than 4-H or ROTC or the basketball team.”

“It wasn’t a sex club,” Anchía said. “They’d get together and they’d watch movies. They’d color. They’d go to musicals. It was about a kid who felt weird who found her people and everything about it was good. I don’t know why grown-ups in this body are so triggered with my daughter getting together with her classmates in a school-sponsored activity.”

Anchía also told the Texas Tribune he “didn’t sign up for five anti-LGBT bills this session.”

Rep. Jolanda Jones, D-Houston, shared her experience as a Black woman and a lesbian, saying she didn’t come out until the age of 50 because she knew “the world wasn’t safe.” She warned that banning LGBTQ+ clubs could worsen bullying.

“And we have the nerve to say that we care about mental health,” Jones said. “We’ve passed bill after bill about access to care, about youth suicide, about prevention and treatment. But this bill makes kids sicker, sadder, more alone. This bill doesn’t protect children. It endangers them. It doesn’t give parents more rights. It strips children of their dignity.”

SB 12 is often referred to as the “Parental Bill of Rights” because it claims to give parents more control over their children’s schools. But Rep. Erin Zwiener, D-Driftwood, addressed those who are “afraid that your kids or your grandkids might grow up queer,” warning that the bill could harm family relationships.

“Getting silence in schools from the LGBTQ community, which is what this bill is designed to do, will not stop your kids from being gay,” Zwiener said. “It will just make them afraid to come out. It will make them afraid to live their lives as their full selves. It will make them afraid to tell you when they figure out that they’re LGBTQ and it might damage your relationship with them forever.”

Rep. Nicole Collier, D-Fort Worth, argued that allowing religious organizations in schools but banning “clubs that allow students to be who they are, is a double standard that flies in the face of the principles you say you support.”

“An LGBTQ person can’t change who they are any more than the fact that I can’t change that I’m Black,” Collier said. “What you’re saying to students today is that you will be accepted as long as you are who we say you should be.”

If signed by the governor, the bill will become law on Sept. 1.

May 31, 2025 0