A classroom battle

Editor's note: The following text is a transcript of a podcast story. To listen to the story, click on the arrow beneath the headline above.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: It’s Tuesday, the 11th of November.

This is WORLD Radio and we’re glad you’ve joined us today! Good morning, I’m Mary Reichard

NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher.

Up first, legal disputes over religious liberty, parental rights, and gender identity.

Joining us now is Steve West, an attorney who writes about religious liberty issues for WORLD.

REICHARD: Steve, good morning.

STEVE WEST: Good morning, Mary.

REICHARD: Let’s begin in Chicago…where the Moody Bible Institute is suing the Chicago Board of Education because the school district won’t let Moody students participate in its student-teacher program. It’s a big deal because that program gives future teachers classroom experience and Illinois requires completion of the program to get certified to teach. What’s going on there?

WEST: The Board excluded Moody and its nearly 2300 students because the school follows Biblical beliefs on human sexuality and marriage. And that’s at odds with Chicago Public School policy prohibiting what they call “discrimination” based on gender identity or sexual orientation. Moody says hiring people aligned with its religious beliefs is essential to forming its faith community and to advance its ministerial mission–-in other words, to be able to live out the community’s Christian faith. And it points out that the school system already struggles to fill hundreds of teaching positions each year.

REICHARD: Hasn’t the Supreme Court already addressed this? I’m thinking cases like Trinity Lutheran, Espinoza, Carson, …decisions that said government cannot exclude faith-based organizations in things like tuition assistance and playground grants. Why isn’t this resolved by now?

WEST: It should be solved by now. But there are holdouts who can’t quite accommodate themselves to the fact that what they call nondiscrimination is really religious discrimination. The principle from those Supreme Court cases is common-sense and fair: If you are going to offer a governmental benefit, you can’t exclude some individuals or organizations simply because they have religious beliefs you don’t agree with. Because the Chicago public school system is one of the largest in the country, what happens here will impact smaller school districts around the country.

REICHARD: Moving now to California with another public school story…two Christian middle-school teachers sued over California’s secretive gender transition policies. It’s now a class action lawsuit. Remind us of the details?

WEST: It’s really about secrecy vs. transparency. And it’s not a new story but one that’s popped up all over the country. The lawsuit challenges a California school district policy that requires teachers to use new names or pronouns for students engaging in a "social transition." But teachers can’t tell parents about this transition unless the student permits it. Instead, they’re instructed to conceal the transition if parents ask, and to merely say that the “inquiry is outside of the scope of the intent of their interaction.” Who talks like that, anyway?

REICHARD: As I recall, the two teachers sought religious accommodation and the school did allow them to call students by name instead of chosen pronouns during the school day. But they still couldn’t tell parents the truth. So this is a fight over the authority of parents versus the autonomy of the school district. What’s next for this case?

WEST: There’s a hearing on the teachers’ motion for summary judgment on November 17. If the judge grants that motion—and there’s a good chance he will since he’s already ruled once in their favor—that could end the case. And that would impact over 5 million students and 300,000 California public school teachers. Nevertheless, it’s an issue that likely won’t go away until the Supreme Court takes a case involving the issue. In the last year it has twice declined to rule on cases that brought up the issue, with Justice Samuel Alito calling it an issue of “great and growing national importance.” But others are percolating.

REICHARD: One more story to touch on this morning…different from the other two. Jews and Christians in the San Diego area have sued an anti-Semitic group that’s disrupted worship services. Why has this story caught your attention?

WEST: One thing is the visceral reaction any of us would have to what occurred here. These weren’t just people protesting against the church and against the Jewish and Christian interfaith group filing the lawsuit. They entered worship services, shouted obscenities we can't repeat here, refused to leave, and blocked exits. One woman attempting to leave the scene in her car was accosted by a man who jumped on the hood of her car and beat on her windshield.

REICHARD: Sounds like a matter for the police.

WEST: It is. But what’s also interesting is that a claim is also brought under a federal law known as the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act—the FACE Act. As you might gather from the title, it’s historically been used to prosecute pro-life advocates accused of blocking abortion center entrances and intimidating women and employees who seek to enter. But it also bars the same kind of intimidation, harassment, or blocking of entrances at places of worship. I don’t think most people know that—in fact, before this case, I had not recalled that—so it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

REICHARD: To learn more about each of these stories or to subscribe to our free weekly newsletter Liberties, visit wng.org. Steve, always good to have you on. Thank you!

WEST: Thank you, Mary.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.