Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum v. Montgomery County Public Schools, No. 05-1194 (D.Md. May 5, 2005)
A Maryland federal district court issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) barring Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) from implementing its pilot sex education program that addresses the issue of "sexual variation." Specifically, the curriculum, which plaintiffs characterize as "endorsing a homosexual lifestyle," describes a number of terms related to sexual orientation and contains myths and facts about sexual orientation. The court concluded that the potential harm to the plaintiffs' free speech and establish clause rights outweigh any potential harm to MCPS if implementation of the program is temporarily delayed. The dispute began when MCPS announced that it was planning to introduce a pilot sex education program in 10% of the district's schools. Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum (CRC) and Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX) filed suit against MCPS, seeking to prevent the district from implementing the pilot program. In their motion for a TRO, plaintiffs claimed that their free speech and establishment clause rights have been violated. According to the court, to obtain a TRO the plaintiffs must satisfy a four factored balancing test: (1) the likelihood of irreparable harm to the plaintiff if the preliminary injunction is denied; (2) the likelihood of harm to the defendant if the requested relief is granted; (3) the likelihood that the plaintiff will succeed on the merits; and, (4) the public interest. It noted that the first two factors of the test are the most important. Addressing the irreparable harm to the plaintiff factor, the district court found that the free speech and establishment clause allegations were sufficient to pose an "imminent threat" to the plaintiffs' First Amendment liberties. However, the court rejected the plaintiffs' claim that the program increases the health risk to students because the "pro-gay" message encourages students to engage in unsafe sexual behavior. It concluded that this claim was "highly speculative and attenuated" requiring "more than a few logical leaps" for the court to find that a message encouraging tolerance of homosexuality would somehow encourage students to engage in "promiscuous, unprotected, homosexual acts." Regarding the harm to MCPS, the court found no evidence that a temporary delay in implementing the program would be anything more than an inconvenience. Turning to likelihood of success on the merits factor, the district court analyzed each First Amendment claim separately. It agreed with the plaintiffs that the pilot program appears to discriminate between religious sects, favoring sects that condone the homosexuality. It found that the program singled out certain Christian sects, in particular Baptists, who oppose homosexuality as "unenlightened and Biblically misguided." As a result, the court concluded that plaintiffs' establishment clause claim warranted further judicial examination. It also found that the plaintiffs' free speech claim warranted further investigation because the manner in which the program presents homosexuality appears to constitute viewpoint discrimination. Specifically, the court found that the program opens up the classroom to the subject of the moral rightness of the homosexual lifestyle and then only presents the view that homosexuality is natural and a morally correct lifestyle. Lastly, the district court concluded that the public interest was best served by protecting the plaintiffs' First Amendment rights. In addition, it found that the public interest was served by preventing "[MCPS] from promoting particular religious beliefs in the public schools and preventing [MCPS] from disseminating one-sided information on a controversial topic."
Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum v. Montgomery County Public Schools, No. 05-1194 (D.Md. May 5, 2005)
[Link to full opinion][
Editor's Note: Following the district court's granting of the TRO, MCPS Superintendent Jerry Weast announced he was suspending plans to implement the pilot sex education program. Both CRC and PFOX applauded the superintendent's decision and vowed to work with MCPS to develop a new sex education curriculum. However, some members of the community fear that Superintendent Weast's decision signals a retreat from the school systems efforts to educate students about unprotected sex and encourage tolerance for students of any sexual orientation. The Liberty Counsel represents CRC and PFOX. Liberty Counsel bills itself as "a nonprofit litigation, education and policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of human life and the traditional family." Erik Stanley, Liberty Counsel's chief counsel, indicated that the organization plans to proceed with the suit because it is concerned that if the suit is dropped the TRO will expire and MCPS could then implement the program. "We're not backing away from this. We're amenable to resolving this with the school district, but we're going to push forward on this issue," said Mr. Stanley. CRC spokesman Steve Fisher said, "Our position all along has been to scrap the whole thing and start over from scratch." COSA member Judith Bressler, who is representing MCPS, said she has not yet decided on a course of action. In another twist to the story, some members of the PTA have raised questions about whether the school board's plan to meet with Superintendent Weast in closed session to discuss his decision violates Maryland's open meetings law. In response to a request from MCPS's PTA, state assistant attorney general William R. Varga spoke with George Margolies, the board's staff director. Mr. Margolies informed Mr. Varga that the board would limit its discussion with Mr. Weast to "the status of the litigation" and "the impact of the superintendent's decision in connection with the litigation." Mr. Varga said, "The board is aware that policy decisions in connection with the curriculum must be handled in an open session."]
Washington PostBy Lori Aratani and Daniel de Vise
[Link to full story]Washington TimesBy Jon Ward
[Link to full story][Liberty Counsel news release on MCPS lawsuit]