Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum v. Montgomery County Pub. Sch., No. 284980 (Md. Cir. Ct. Jan. 31, 2008)
A Maryland court has upheld the approval by the Maryland State Board of Education’s (MBOE) of Montgomery County Public Schools’ (MCPS) much-challenged sex education curriculum. After the MBOE rejected the challenge to the curriculum by Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum (CRC) and Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX), the two groups sought to overturn the decision in state court, arguing that MBOE improperly (1) determined that it is legal to present instruction including the term “anal intercourse” where instruction of “erotic techniques” is prohibited under Maryland law; and (2) determined that it is legal to present instruction that homosexuality is innate.
The court began by pointing out that Maryland law does not define “erotic techniques” and that MBOE determined it means “sexually arousing or suggestive symbolism, settings, allusions,” which is consistent with a dictionary definition. Noting that because it was acting in an appellate capacity in this case, the court indicated it was required to give heightened deference to MBOE’s interpretation of state law that falls within the board’s area of expertise. The court also agreed with the school district’s contention that MBOE had properly ruled that the definition of “erotic techniques” was subject to local community standards and “that it was within the local school board’s role to determine that the lessons did not contain erotic techniques.” The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ contention that lessons inaccurately instruct that condoms successfully protect during anal intercourse. The materials were prepared by a committee of medical professionals and reviewed by both the local and the state school boards, the court noted.
The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the curriculum was factually inaccurate, and therefore illegal, because (1) there is substantial medical evidence that homosexuality has not been established as a characteristic one has from birth; and (2) the Maryland Court of Appeals has declined to take judicial notice of whether homosexuality is innate. “[S]imply because the Court of Appeals failed to apply the stringent standard needed to take judicial notice of a fact does not mean that it is inappropriate to teach that fact in a school setting,” the court held. At any rate, MBOE “stated that the lessons regarding the origins of sexual orientation are not open to an evidentiary hearing and are within the legal purview of the school to include or not include in the lessons,” and the court concluded that there was nothing to demonstrate that MBOE’s opinion was arbitrary, unreasonable, or illegal.
Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum v. Montgomery County Pub. Sch., No. 284980 (Md. Cir. Ct. Jan. 31, 2008)
[Editor’s Note: John Garza, CRC’s president, told the Washington Post below that he was not sure whether to appeal further. For background, see the second link.]
Source: Washington Post, 2/2/08, By Daniel De Vise
NSBA School Law pages on MCPS sex ed controversy