•  
  •  
 

Abstract

Right now, school administrators and jurists across the nation are wondering how to address the legal implications of the transgender movement in public schools. In response, many public schools have adopted policies requiring teachers to identify transgender students by their preferred pronouns. These preferred-pronoun mandates have created face-offs between the personal preferences of transgender students and the religious tenets of teachers. As a result, school officials and courts around the United States find themselves wedged between this clash.

Unfortunately, the tension is often resolved at the teachers’ expense. But what are the consequences? Homogenization of thought and belief among public school educators will slowly spread, diverse perspectives will be stripped from our children, and qualified educators will be banished from the classroom.

Thus, the million-dollar question is whether public school teachers must comply with preferred-pronoun mandates when they violate teachers’ religious beliefs and practices. Thankfully, the Virginia legislature resolved this issue with the Virginia Religious Freedom Restoration Act (VRFRA). The VRFRA is a statute that codifies strict scrutiny analysis for state action that substantially burdens the free exercise of religion. The Virginia legislature enacted the VRFRA in the wake of Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith as a strong message that Virginia protects the religious beliefs and practices of its citizens.

This Note uses Vlaming v. West Point School Board as a launchpad for analyzing the VRFRA because Vlaming presents the typical scenario that many public school officials find themselves in. Without reaching the merits, the Supreme Court of Virginia held that the VRFRA challenge to the preferred-pronoun mandate in Vlaming was a legally cognizable claim. In other words, a VRFRA challenge to a preferred-pronoun mandate is legally legitimate enough for judicial consideration.

This Note picks up where the Supreme Court of Virginia left off by analyzing the merits of Mr. Vlaming’s VRFRA claim through Justice Antonin Scalia’s textualist perspective. As a result, this Note proves that the VRFRA prevents public schools from forcing preferred-pronoun mandates on public school teachers when they substantially burden the teachers’ freedom to exercise religion. We must not strike the very hands that educate our students.

Download

Included in

Law Commons

Share

COinS