Lebo pride — and prejudice
Thomas O’Boyle
When our family moved back to Pittsburgh from Germany 35 years ago this fall, we chose to settle in Mt. Lebanon. We chose Lebo for the same reason as many parents with young kids: the schools.
Our Foster elementary school epitomized safety and sensibility. It was like living in Mayberry. Kids walked to school (they still do) and came home for lunch.
While Foster School’s motto (“I will always be kind, courteous and respectful”) seems as distant as a galaxy far, far away, I still recall that galaxy fondly. The community support that Foster’s principal back then (“Saint Barbara” Float) marshaled was real and impressive. One project demonstrating that was when residents provided money and muscle to rebuild the school’s aging playground.
Sadly, consensus and cooperation are no longer valued in the society we inhabit. Such values have been replaced by today’s cultural landmines of division and grievance. Even in a place like Mt. Lebanon. Or perhaps I should say, especially now in a place like Lebo.
A parental right
Some would contend that the lawsuit filed in federal court against the school district two years ago is another signpost of division and grievance. Perhaps it is.
But shouldn’t parents have the legal right (and moral latitude) to object when their six- and sevenyear-old children are being taught about gender ideology? Especially when such instruction is not part of the district’s own published elementary curriculum?
The federal judge overseeing the case thinks so. Twice the district has sought to dismiss the complaint, along with all parental rights. And twice the judge has said, there is enough here for a jury to consider. The case is expected to go to trial this fall, unless the plaintiffs’ petition for summary judgment is granted before.
Many have portrayed the actions of the teacher who triggered the lawsuit as benign, but that is not the case. The court record tells a far different story.
Many Mt. Lebanon teachers and administrators have testified, under oath in depositions, on behalf of the plaintiffs — three Lebo moms who challenged what happened in the 2021-22 school year to their children. The moms have paid a steep price for their courage.
They’ve been called bigots and worse at school board meetings, while the teacher was celebrated as a champion against bigotry rather than being reprimanded.
Her instruction included telling students that “when children are born, parents make a guess whether they’re a boy or a girl.
Sometimes parents are wrong.” Parents were not informed of the instruction beforehand nor were they given any notice allowing them to opt out of it, both inconsistent with long-standing district practices and policies.
Selective opt-outs
According to the copious court record, the district permits parental opt outs for a wide variety of subjects. They include an assembly involving a therapy dog; dissection of animals in biology class; and even the Scripps Spelling Bee.
Yet parental notification is not practiced for gender instruction among first graders, even though it’s not part of the published elementary curriculum. It boggles the mind.
In other words, religious optout rights in the district are not accorded the same protection granted to those who object to their children participating in a spelling bee!
The Mt. Lebanon School board has chosen to support a radical position in defending the teacher. The lawsuit has established that the district permits out-opts for sex education among middle and high schoolers. In addition, 62% of elementary-school teachers don’t believe gender identity should be taught in school, according to a new Pew Research Center poll.
But common sense is uncommon among those leading the district. They have sided with activists who assert that permitting opt-outs on any grounds is equivalent to sanctioning a hate crime. The goal, as people have claimed in various ways, is to cultivate parents who are “less hateful.”
In terms of how this intersects with my own family, the district’s refusal to follow its policies is the main reason my seven-year-old grandson attends our church academy rather than Foster, where his parents reside. It’s a sad commentary on modern times that my daughter (and her husband, both registered Democrats) cannot in good conscience send their son to the same Foster School she attended three decades ago.
A bad idea
I know these situations are fraught with partisanship and conflict. Modern sensibilities have made it so. But is the world so confused that we cannot see the obvious: that sexualizing children at the mere age of six or seven is an indisputably bad idea? Especially when it’s being done against parents’ wishes?
The old Foster School motto applies. Let’s be kind, courteous and respectful toward everyone.