In schools today, especially in Ethnic Studies, students are often taught “what to think” instead of “how to think.” Must students regurgitate teachers’ opinions? What if they are taught that Israel is an apartheid, genocidal, oppressor, colonial state? Where is the line between teaching and indoctrination?
Mastering the Curriculum Is Not the Same as Adopting the Teacher’s Opinion
Schools have a legitimate interest in teaching students to understand different perspectives. A teacher can present the argument that some scholars describe Israel as a settler-colonial state, explain its origins in postcolonial theory, and ask students to analyze the argument’s strengths and weaknesses. A student can be asked to demonstrate that they understand what a political argument means, how it is structured, and what evidence its proponents cite. That is mastering the curriculum. A student who demonstrates mastery while retaining their opinion might write: “The class teaches that Israel is a colonial state that engages in settler colonialism, but I think these terms are being arbitrarily applied, and the evidence is much stronger that the accusation is only made by antizionists who seek Israel's destruction on other grounds.” That answer proves the student understands the material. It also proves the student has thought critically about it — which is supposed to be the point of education. A student who writes this has mastered the curriculum. If the teacher gives that student a lower grade than a student who simply affirms the teacher's position, the teacher is not grading mastery. The teacher is grading obedience. What a school cannot do is require a student to personally agree with the argument — to write as though the argument is true, to affirm it as their own position, or to be graded down for disagreeing with it. If a teacher assigns an essay asking “Why is Israel an apartheid state?” the question presupposes the answer and compels the student to adopt the teacher’s political conclusion as their own. If a teacher gives a lower grade to a student who writes “I disagree that Israel is a colonial state, and here is why” than to a student who affirms the teacher’s position, that is not academic rigor — it is compelled speech.
The distinction matters because schools will defend themselves by claiming they are “just teaching the curriculum.” But there is a difference between a test question that asks “Describe the arguments made by critics of Zionism” and one that asks “Explain why Zionism is a form of colonialism.” The first requires understanding. The second requires agreement. A student who can accurately describe a position they disagree with has mastered the curriculum. A student who is forced to write as though they agree with a position in order to get a good grade has been compelled to speak. Parents should look for these warning signs: essay prompts that presuppose a political conclusion (“Why is Israel an apartheid state?” rather than “Evaluate the arguments for and against the characterization of Israel as an apartheid state”); grading rubrics that reward “critical consciousness” or “social justice alignment” rather than analytical quality; class discussions where only one conclusion is treated as acceptable; and assignments that require students to write personal “action plans” or “commitments” to advance a political cause. If the student is penalized for expressing disagreement with the premise of the question, or for choosing the “wrong” cause to support, that crosses the line from education into compelled political affirmation. Compelled political affirmation is not limited to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Jewish families also face compelled speech in the context of gender identity instruction. Many interpretations of Judaism hold that God created human beings as male and female — that the binary nature of sex is a matter of religious conviction rooted in the Torah. A school that requires students to affirm that there are more than two genders, or to use language that presupposes a view of gender identity that conflicts with their religious beliefs, is compelling speech in precisely the same way as a school that requires students to affirm that Israel is a colonial state. In both cases, the student is being told that their sincerely held belief is wrong, and that they must publicly adopt the school's position in order to participate fully in school life. The most common form of this compelled speech is mandatory use of preferred pronouns. When a school requires a student to refer to another student using pronouns that do not correspond to that student's biological sex — and disciplines or penalizes the student for refusing — it is compelling the student to affirm a belief about gender identity that the student does not hold. For a Jewish student whose religious convictions include the belief that God created human beings as male and female, this is not a matter of courtesy or politeness. It is a demand that the student verbally deny a tenet of their faith every time they speak. A school that would never require a Muslim student to eat pork or a Jehovah's Witness to salute the flag is requiring a Jewish student to speak words that contradict their understanding of creation. The compulsion is the same — only the belief being overridden is different. The following case shows how one federal court responded when a school compelled students to participate in activities affirming gender identity messages contrary to their religious beliefs.
Case Study: S.E. v. Grey , 782 F. Supp. 3d 939 (S.D. Cal. 2025)
At La Costa Heights Elementary School in the Encinitas Union School District, fifth-graders participated in a mandatory “buddy program” in which they were paired with kindergarteners and served as mentors. The program had previously involved art and garden projects. But without notice to parents, teachers selected a book called My Shadow Is Pink — which the author described as a book about gender identity — and read it to the fifth-grade class. The fifth-graders then sat next to their kindergarten buddies while a read-along video of the book was played, and were instructed to trace their buddy’s shadow on the ground in the buddy’s chosen color. Two families had religious objections to gender identity ideology. Critically, the school had previously given these families notice and an opt-out when gender identity was covered in health instruction — the parents had exercised that opt- out. But the school refused to provide the same notice or opt-out for the buddy class, arguing that it was not “health instruction.” The book was not listed in the weekly newsletter the school sent to parents, and the teachers indicated that similar activities would occur in the future without notice or opt-out. The families sued under the First Amendment. Judge Lorenz of the Southern District of California granted a preliminary injunction. The court found that because the buddy program was mandatory and the fifth-graders served as mentors, the student’s presence next to his buddy during the read-along and his tracing of the buddy’s shadow in the buddy’s chosen color implicitly conveyed his endorsement of the book’s message — a message contrary to his own beliefs. The court applied strict scrutiny and found that while the school’s anti-discrimination purposes were “admirable,” they did not meet the narrow tailoring required to justify compelled speech. The court ordered that buddy program activities covering gender identity topics must be preceded by advance notice and an opportunity for parents to opt out. What families should take from this case: This case establishes that a school cannot use a mandatory program to compel students to participate in activities that implicitly endorse messages contrary to their beliefs, especially when the school already provides opt-outs for the same content in other settings. The court emphasized that even when anti-discrimination goals are legitimate, they “can sweep too broadly when deployed to compel speech.” If your child is being required to participate in activities that affirm messages about identity, gender, race, or other topics contrary to your family’s beliefs — particularly if the school provides opt-outs for the same content in health instruction but refuses to do so in other classes — document the activity, request the materials, and consult an attorney. A federal court has held that parents are entitled to notice and an opportunity to opt out.
Why This Violates the Law
The First Amendment prohibits the government from compelling individuals to affirm messages they disagree with. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) established that public schools cannot force students to profess beliefs through compelled participation in activities. In S.E. v. Grey , 782 F. Supp. 3d 939 (S.D. Cal. 2025), the court applied strict scrutiny to a school’s mandatory program that compelled students to participate in activities affirming gender identity messages, and found the school’s anti-discrimination justifications insufficient. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor , 606 U.S. 522 (2025) further supports parents’ right to religious opt-outs from curriculum that conflicts with their beliefs.