The Daily - A New Podcast From The Times: First Person

Episode Date: June 18, 2022

First Person is the newest show from New York Times Opinion. Each week, host Lulu Garcia-Navarro shares the stories of people living through the headlines. In this episode, Lulu asks: Are parents’ rights truly rights for all parents, no matter their politics?Parental rights. It’s a term that burst into the public consciousness in recent years. This year alone, 82 bills have been introduced in 26 states under the banner of parental rights. On issues such as masking, vaccine mandates, critical race theory and book bans, parents are showing up at school board meetings to demand a greater say in their children’s education and lives. And it has coalesced into a powerful political force on the right.Want more from The Daily? For one big idea on the news each week from our team, subscribe to our newsletter.For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday.

Hey, it's Michael. Today, we're going to do something a little different. I want to tell you about a new podcast from the Opinion Desk of The Times called First Person. Every week, host Lulu Garcia Navarro talks to people whose lives intersect with the news and brings us the personal stories behind their beliefs. It feels like a way that people don't always hear from each other these days, especially people they might disagree with. In the latest episode, Lulu looks at the origins of one of the country's most powerful movements, parental rights.

Think parents up in arms at school board meetings, mad about books in the school library or what their kids are being taught. Lulu speaks with one of the movement's key leaders about why its appeal and influence have never been greater. It's exactly the kind of conversation that Lulu has on First Person every week. So we're going to turn our show over to them. Here it is. Over to them. Here it is. Florida, Utah, Indiana, Missouri. This year alone, 82 bills in 26 states have been introduced under the banner of parents' rights. By now, most people are familiar with this version of the story.

Angry parents descending on school board meetings in places like Loudoun County, Virginia, the election of that state's Republican governor, Glenn Youngkin, who capitalized on the political momentum and the growing recognition by conservative groups that parental rights could be a powerful rallying cry. And that was especially true for Will Estrada. He's the newly appointed head of parentalrights.org. That's a group that has spearheaded many of the bills now being passed around conservative state houses, which often focus on what and how children learn in schools. But the more I learned about Will, the more I realized that the story of his life is a story about where parental rights really comes from, far away from the

public school system. I'm Lulu Garcia Navarro, and this is First Person from New York Times Opinion. Today, Will Estrada and the long routes of parental rights. Will, to start, I want to understand what your own educational background was growing up. Can you tell me about your family, the house you grew up in? What did your parents do? Sure. So my dad is Puerto Rican and grew up in the Bronx. My mom is the granddaughter of Italian immigrants. We lived in rural northern Pennsylvania, Bradford County. Sometimes we would have snowstorms come through and you wouldn't see a plow for three or four days. Dad would just kind of cross over the New York border. He would work as a public school teacher for the state of New York. And mom stayed home. She gave up a career in IBM. She was actually working on some of the

precursors of today's internet at the time. And she stayed home. She raised the eight of us kids. I'm the oldest of eight. There were five boys, three girls in my family. And she did the bulk of the homeschooling. Then dad would get home from work and he would help out with it as well. So we were homeschooled K through 12, all of us. I remember the grandparents were not huge fans of it at the time, but the interesting thing was, what was their, let me just stay with that for a second. Why were they hostile to it? What were their concerns back then? I think they felt that we would not get a good education. The view of homeschooling at the time was you're not going to be prepared for the jobs of tomorrow.

And I think the thought was you'll come up blinking in the sunlight out of the basement in the slime, and it's a subpar education. I am really interested in the fact that your father was a public school teacher. As someone who chose a career in the public school system, what's your understanding of why he wanted his own children to be homeschooled? So, kind of have to back up. We grew up in a Christian household, and dad was passionate and is passionate about public education, but he was even more so passionate about his faith. And one of the things that was very important to my parents was living out their faith as well. And so homeschooling was kind of just becoming more common at the time,

the late 80s, early 1980s. It was still illegal in some portions of the country, but my parents said, this is a way that we can really teach our children a holistic worldview, you know, studying math, studying science, studying history, but also at the same time studying the Bible and studying scriptures. And so they started off homeschooling. There were definitely tensions. I remember sometimes where my dad would come home and say, yeah, my coworkers are mad at me that we're homeschooling. And they think, what kind of public school teacher are you? So especially in the early years of homeschooling, there was still a lot of fear. About what? I think about the legal status. About, you know,

could a government official come in and say, no, you can't homeschool. This is not best interest of the child or this is not a legal right. You've got to enroll your children in public school. And I remember my parents saying things such as, you know, if ever a social worker comes to the door or a truant officer comes to the door, just say, I have Fourth Amendment rights and Mike Farris is my lawyer. Oh. Mike Farris is an influential conservative lawyer and the founder of the Homeschool Legal Defense Association. And for families like Will's, he was kind of a legend.

Because this group he'd created, it was built on the idea that not only was homeschooling a legal right, it was a constitutionally protected one. And the HSLDA was there to defend that. HSLDA is the only legal advocate for homeschooling with an office in Washington, D.C. From there, they actively monitor each piece of legislation pertaining to your rights to homeschool at both the federal and the state level.

They then decide whether to support or oppose the legislation. Now, if you're currently homeschooling, you're relying on one or both pillars that make homeschooling legal. Either your right to choose what's best for your child, or your right to religious freedom. But if either of these rights is compromised, homeschooling falls. With the help of its members, HSLDA fights hard for your right to homeschool.

Join HSLDA to protect your freedom, your family, and your future. for the early generation of homeschoolers, almost this larger-than-life, sort of like the ACLU is when it comes to civil liberties or free speech of homeschool legal defenses there. They will take a case to the Supreme Court if they need to. They are our lawyers. And I remember a few times my mom would call them just to ask basic questions. And she'd be like, I talked to one of the lawyers at homeschool legal defense. And so kind of growing up, it was this, almost this mythos of the Olympus that was there for the homeschool community,

for parents, for families. Will remembers that his family had the HSLDA's phone number pinned to their fridge growing up. And it was partly because of this reverence for the group that Will says he knew from a very young age that he wanted to be a lawyer. He remembers listening to Supreme Court confirmation hearings with his dad growing up. And when it came time to go to college, Will won scholarships and got into an Ivy League school. But he decided instead to go to Oak Brook College of Law, a school that describes itself as

providing, quote, a legal education from a biblical and historical perspective. It was a Christian law school. Students can do an online course. Back then we had the tape, you know, the cassette tapes, and I would have my Walkman and be taking care of our sheep, still living at home actually at the time, and listening to my audio lectures. And I would mail in my assignments. We'd have video lectures. So just to be clear, Oak Brook was an entirely online education back in the early 2000s. You did all of this from your parents' home? Mostly. So we'd do a week every year on campus. We'd fly out. We'd meet the professors. But then after that one week, it was all entirely online.

So yeah, for the first two years, I was still living at home. So is it correct to say you've been in approximately about two weeks of in-person school in your life? You know, that's accurate. When you put it that way, yes, that is true. When you look at the trajectory of Will's life, it continues along this pretty straight line. While he's still at Oak Brook, he applies for a job as a paralegal at the HSLDA. He spends a few years doing that with a bunch of like-minded young people. He actually meets his wife there.

Then a big job opens up to be the HSLDA's top lobbyist on Capitol Hill, trying to block any kind of oversight of homeschooling from being passed. And the group decides to take a chance on Will. They said this could be really unique in, for the first time ever, us having a homeschool graduate represent homeschoolers on Capitol Hill.

You were really young then, right? You were like in your mid-20s? I was 23 at the time. Because it also sounds like it would have been a tough job back then in general because homeschooling wasn't central to the Republican Party at that point, was it? It wasn't. And it was really interesting because I came in in the summer of 2006. And then remember kind of the politics at that moment. The war in Iraq was not going well. And George W. Bush was incredibly unpopular. And so in November of 2006, the Democrats swept Congress. And so all of a sudden, we went from,

yeah, just make sure that things are going well on Capitol Hill and there's no restrictions on homeschoolers, to people who the feeling was at the time were not friendly to homeschooling were now in leadership. And I'll never forget, right after the election, leadership of HSLDA brought me in and they said, well, you've been in this position for a few months. This is now the moment. And maybe it was youth and inexperience. I'm just like, yeah, challenge accepted. We're going to do this. I'm going to assemble the team. So I started reading books. I started looking at documents. And I said, one of the things we need to do is bring back what we call the Congressional Action Program. And this was local homeschoolers that we would train. They would then bring their kids to Capitol

Hill. They'd have a lobby day and they'd meet with elected officials because lawmakers love kids. You can say no to a lobbyist. It's much harder to say no to a mom or a dad and a couple kids who say, we want to just meet with you about what homeschooling means to us. You know, the funny thing was we would vet them. And my staff and I, we'd cast a wide net. We'd have these families come in. But then we'd sit down afterwards, and we'd say, do we think this individual family would go line by line? We'd say, do we think they would be a good example on Capitol Hill? So, you know, we... What are you vetting them for? What are you

looking for them precisely to say? We were wanting people who wouldn't let maybe their passion become, you know, like a firebrand, where it might be too much, where it could be a bad example of homeschoolers. And a lot of the fear at the time went back into the early 90s. So in, I think it was 94, there was a bill that was introduced called HR 6. It would have required every teacher to be certified in the subject areas that they teach. And it was kind of the bat signal for homeschoolers, if you will, at the time, because the concern was, what if this applies to homeschoolers? And I remember the faxes going out and my parents calling Capitol Hill and just the angst that they had. And there was great rejoicing in the homeschool community

when H.R. 6 went down to defeat, I think, a congressman from California named George Miller, was the only member of Congress who actually voted for the amendment. But then fast forward to 2006, I'm the director of federal relations at HSLDA, and George Miller is now, with the Democrats taking control of Congress, he's now the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee. And so a lot of the angst was, oh, no, this is George Miller from the HR six days. He's going to have it out for the homeschool community. And I can't take the credit for this, Lulu, but one of the families that we had in our congressional action Program, they built such a relationship with George Miller's senior staff. They would bring cookies in.

George Miller actually became a friend of homeschooling. There was a scholarship program that he worked with other members of Congress to make sure homeschoolers were eligible for it. And so it was exciting to be a part of that. eligible for it. And so it was exciting to be a part of that. Well, explain that sort of cookies and child-oriented approach you're describing in contrast to this. Because by 2015, a staffer for a Michigan legislator who was trying to pass some oversight of homeschooling in her state was quoted as saying about your group, I've never seen a lobby more powerful and scary. I mean, that sounds like a group who is starting to demonstrate some real influence in the political sphere, but also using tactics that maybe go

beyond cookies and parents. You know, I remember that quote, and I think it's because of the passion that's involved. You have moms and dads who say, we believe this is best for our children. And then you have other moms and dads who say, we believe this is best for our children. And then you have other moms and dads who say, we believe God has called us to homeschool. And so we would send out an action email saying, call your legislator, tell them, here's a suggested message. Please don't do this. Homeschooling works for us.

But you'd have parents who were very fired up, and maybe they would get a little bit more carried away on the phone or in an email. Hopefully not. Hopefully they would be winsome. You know, I've always, I've long felt you can draw more flies with honey than you can with vinegar. I mean, you know, the Jewish and Christian scriptures talk about a soft answer turning away wrath. And I would always try and remember that when I was on Capitol Hill, when I was meeting with legislators. You know, I think it paid off with George Miller. So opponents say powerful and scary. You say passionate. But too much passion, you understood, could be a turnoff. And perhaps it sounds like you're saying present these parents as sort of overly zealous in a way that might reflect poorly on homeschooling.

Correct. So you may think, like my grandparents did, that homeschooling is keeping your kids locked up in the basement and teaching them just how to read the Bible, but there's so much more to that. And that when you show them the examples of homeschooling success, when you show them what's really going on, who can disagree with it? Plenty of people disagree with the HSLDA. The state legislators who were proposing regulation for one, they were often reacting to high profile cases of abuse and neglect of kids who were not in school. Their argument was that government oversight was vital, not only to make sure that kids who are homeschooled were learning, but also to make sure that kids didn't fall through the cracks.

And it might be hard to understand what's objectionable about that, adding protections for vulnerable kids. But Will says it all comes back to this idea that the Constitution protects a parent's rights, and he was taught that conservative legal interpretation at Oakbrook. Well, you approach it first from the framework that the best protector for a child is the child's parents. But then how do you address that tiny minority, but that minority that's there, of people who are bad? And then so therefore, why not have multiple protections in place?

I mean, I'm trying to understand the harm of oversight. So look at it under the First Amendment, for example. We recognize the incredible power of either the written word or the spoken word or the broadcast word, but our country doesn't put prior restraint on the exercise of the First Amendment. We've realized that it is so important to protect that free speech that we're willing to punish bad actors after the fact. And, you know, First Amendment terms, you don't have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater. In the same way, our country's legal system says we will come down on you on a ton of bricks if you abuse, if you neglect a child, but we're not going to punish 100% of parents because of what 0.01 or 1% of evildoers might do. And it's hard sometimes, but I think in general, it's a freedom issue. Parents have the fundamental right to direct the

education, upbringing, care of their children. But again, it's not an absolute right. You don't have the right to abuse your children, to neglect your children. That is the proper role of the government. So parents have the right, but if they violate it egregiously and demonstrably after the fact, the government can override that right. Exactly. That's where the government does have that compelling state interest to come in to protect the children. Will, when was the first time that you heard the phrase parental rights? Because we've been talking a lot about your work in the homeschooling movement, but ultimately that starts to evolve into where we are today,

when the term parental rights has become front and center in our culture. And for a lot of people, I think that term felt like it kind of came out of nowhere, but I suspect it was different for you. So when did that phrase first show up for you? It wasn't until law school, it wasn't until 2001 with starting to read court cases, you know, Meyer versus Nebraska and other famous Supreme Court cases dealing with parental rights as a fundamental right that I really understood it. So I think you're absolutely right. Parental rights is almost a legal term that most ordinary people didn't deal with until very recently. So for me, it wasn't until law school. And what does that phrase mean to you? It really means much more than homeschooling. It means much more than education. It means the right I have in the United States to raise my children as I see fit. And that's going to look very differently for almost everyone. In a country as big and diverse as ours, it means so much to so many people, but it really comes down to, I get to have the freedom to love my child,

to raise my child, to protect my child, to care for my child until that time when my child is an adult and goes on and makes his or her own decisions. After the break, what happens when COVID hits and a movement that for decades has been defined by parents who want to keep their children out of the system is transformed into a battle over what their children out of the system is transformed into a battle over what happens to children within the system. First, end mask mandates in the schools and return parents' choice. Establish a criterion for books being admitted to our school library. You are nothing but indoctrination. Yes, laugh. You laughed at that when you were young.

Okay, let's turn to the pandemic. Oh, yes. Because it does change things for everybody. And in an especially big way for you, this feels like an absolutely key moment in this story. Suddenly starting in March 2020, pretty much every child in America is being schooled from home. pretty much every child in America is being schooled from home. And all of a sudden, millions of American families are suddenly having to handle their children's educations. They're getting this window into how their children are being educated. And a lot of parents didn't like what they were finding out. When did you realize this might have some political juice, that this thing that I devoted my career to, parental rights, is this thing that a lot more people

are starting to care about? So Lulu, it was a little slow for me. So in March of 2018, I left homeschool legal defense. You know, this was the place I'd always dreamed of working. I loved my years there. But I had applied for, kind of on a whim, a career federal position in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in the Office for Civil Rights. And I had been accepted in Virginia, where we live. We live in Loudoun County, which has really good school systems, although lately it's become known for contentious school board meetings. And because we were homeschooling, we were kind of outside of this. And so it started to kind of trickle through as I'm scrolling through Twitter and as I'm seeing things on Facebook. I'm struggling with re-enrolling my kids in Loudoun County Public School.

People who I had known, who I thought were the most laid back, non-political people ever, all of a sudden they're talking about school board issues and sharing videos of school boards. Once again, the school board has proven itself to be an abject failure. And I'm just seeing so many of our friends sharing Facebook posts and really getting upset. I'm done being frustrated, shocked, disrespected, and unheard. And they're coming and speaking at school board meetings and they're passing recall petitions for school board members.

I am here to tell you that there is a movement of parents who will never be stopped, never be silenced. So I'm like, I guess there's something that's happening here. And it was, I think, eye-opening in a way that I don't think we would have seen otherwise if it had not been for the pandemic and for the virtual schooling that the public schools switched to. We would not have seen it become so nationwide and parents so fired up about what's going on

with their school. Parents, would you really want father government to have the last say about what happens in schools? Would you be fine with your child leaving a social-emotional learning lesson about whiteism? There should be no sexually explicit material available in school libraries. I'm totally opposed to the vaccine mandate for athletes and students. It's a violation of medical privacy. The board will now take a five-minute recess. Thank you. Did we hurt your feelings?

So maybe you're a little slow to see this. But once you do, does that feel like a clear opportunity to you to suddenly see, as you say, so many non-political people being activated around parenting. Obviously, your history is one of recognizing the political power of parents and children in fighting these fights. You know, I would like to say that, yes, I realized it. But really, I can't say that. It wasn't really until the Glenn Youngkin- Terry McAuliffe race here in Virginia. That was the governor's race here in 2021. The race, a dead heat between Republican Glenn Youngkin and Democrat Terry McAuliffe. And education is at the top of voters' minds.

Parents should have a say in what is taught in schools. I don't think parents should be telling schools what they should teach. I'm not going to let parents come into schools and actually take books out and make their own decision. I'd been involved in politics here in Virginia when I was at homeschool little defense, and I thought, you know, Virginia's a blue state. It's gone the way of Colorado. It's gone the way of California. Gone the way of New York. It's never going to change. It is difficult in a state where a close election will be determined in the fast-growing Northern Virginia suburbs, where you

have a lot of parents and a lot of debate about critical race theory, about what's being taught in schools, to have a candidate for governor say, I don't want to listen to parents. Then the election hits, and I was floored, Lulu. I said, you know, people who voted for Joe Biden, less than 365 days later, turned around and voted for Glenn Youngkin. Why did you vote for Youngkin? One of the big things, obviously, recently, is just education. I've got a daughter in the 10th grade here

in the public school system, so it was a big, big deal for me. That was very important. ABC News projecting Republican Glenn Youngkin, who made education a central issue, has won. To parents, I say we respect you and we will empower you in the education of your children. And then right after that, the chairman of the board of parentalrights.org called me and he said, Will, I know you're enjoying being in the federal government, but I think Glenn Youngkin's race, this is a watershed moment when it comes to parental rights, when it comes to the issues

you used to work on at Homeschool Legal Defense for so long. Would you leave the federal government and come on and become the president of parentalrights.org. Parentalrights.org was also started by Michael Farris. Remember Will's childhood inspiration and the founder of the HSLDA. In the intervening years, Farris had become an architect of the right's push against big signature issues like gay marriage and abortion, mounting legal battles designed to end up at the Supreme Court. Now suddenly, parents' rights was exploding as a cause. So the bat signal goes out again, you're being called back. It kind of all clicked at that moment when the chairman of the board called me,

and it was like the bat signal. It was like, you know what? I loved my time working in HSLDA for homeschool freedom, but I'm ready to make that jump to kind of the bigger issue. And so it was an easy decision for me. I want to talk to you about this evolution because in this role, you're suddenly dealing with this ever-widening interpretation of parental rights. It started, as you say, with parents' frustrations around remote schooling, but it quickly grew to include masks in schools, CRT, questions over curriculum, what students are learning, book bans, a big group that may have very little in common. And it's all under this banner of parental rights. I'm wondering, has this all been

recognizable to you as parental rights? You know, it has. And part of the reason why I was willing to leave, you know, the federal government, retirement benefits and all that, but part of the reason was when I started looking at it, when I saw the Youngkin win here in Virginia, the Republican win, I really realized this is a moment that I don't think we've seen in a very long time. Now, it's hard to tell will it last. You never know when you're in a historical moment until years have gone by. But it really seems like it's different than we've seen in prior movements that have come and gone. I've been amazed Lulu that Terry McAuliffe could have

absolutely said in that debate with Glenn Youngkin, I absolutely agree with you, Glenn, parental rights are important. Every teacher will tell you they want the parents to be engaged, but we have to be careful that parents don't make the wild West in public schools. And when we look at what's happening with parental rights, it's flooring me. I'm just, my mind is blown that you just don't have politicians from both sides saying we're going to respect this and then maybe nuance it in different ways instead of doubling down on this insane concept that parents shouldn't be involved in the education of their children. This would be so easy.

I mean, this was free political advice I'm giving. This would be so easy for people to just do the Bill Clinton, I feel your pain, I understand it, I'm engaged in my children's education, and then kind of, you know, nuance different things. But instead, we're seeing the opposite. And I, it boggles my mind. It's political malpractice. I think what I hear you saying is that you think Democrats are missing the opportunity to also embrace the parents' rights movement, which you think is available to anyone. Exactly. You look at some of the surveys and Americans, even those who identify as liberal-leaning and identify as Democrat and certainly moderates and completely

certainly Republicans, they view this as one party supports parental rights, the Republican Party, and one party opposes parental rights, the Democrat Party. And that shouldn't be the case. Parental rights are a bipartisan issue. And so I feel like the Democrat Party is missing a moment and it's going to hurt them. I don't disagree with you, but I want to dig in on this idea that parental rights are available to anyone and that there's any kind of unified version of what parents' rights means at this point. And I want to do that by looking at some of what's happening at the state level in the name of parental rights. There's the Florida Parental Rights and Education Bill, which is being called the Don't Say Gay Bill by its opponents. That forbids any mention of

sexual orientation or gender identity in K-3 classes and in other grades in a, quote, manner that is not age appropriate. And sort of regardless of how a person feels about initiatives like these, one thing I've really been wrestling to understand is how this fits into your definition of parental rights. Because earlier you said you approach this work from the perspective that the parent is the best protector of the child. For you, this is rooted in a parent's individual legal rights to make decisions on behalf of their children. But that's not what we're talking about here, is it? This is about some kind of larger community understanding about what is in the best interests of parents and children.

You know, that's a great question. And let's talk about the Florida bill. That's HB 1557, the Parents' Rights in Education bill, I still struggle to see what the opposition is to it. So I think you accurately conveyed that it does limit some of the sexual orientation, gender identity discussion in public school classrooms in K-3. How much should public school teachers be talking to kindergarten through third grade students about sexual orientation and gender identity? It's a legitimate question. I mean, it is a legitimate question considering the fact that there are gay families, that

transgender people do exist in the world, and that is simply, one could say, acknowledging reality. I also want to say that also with the Florida bill, I mean, the enforcement component is important because it opens the door to parents being able to sue school districts that they perceive to have violated this ban. And so it's not just that we should all think about when children get exposed to certain things, but that parents individually can take it upon themselves to decide what everyone else should learn. Who gets to decide whose parents' rights are respected? And so when it comes to the public school, it's got to be the community. But which part of the community, Will?

Well, and that's what makes the school board races so important because there's two competing interests here. Our public schools are going to generally reflect the community values. So a public school in San Francisco is going to look very different and it's going to teach its public school library. Its curriculum is going to look very different than a public school in, let's say, Waco, Texas, because it's going to reflect those community values. And I think you raised a very good point of, you know, what about LGBT families? A teacher, we give teachers great authority when we send our kids to school. And so, you know, little Johnny in first grade raises

his hand and he's like, well, what about those people? This is a great opportunity for the teacher to say, Johnny, there are many different families. They look differently. You know, we love all of these families. This is a great thing to talk about later. Talk to your parents about this. Now let's get back to A, B, and C. But what if little Johnny has two gay parents? I mean, what if little Johnny wants to be recognized as having his experience of the world

valued within the classroom? I still don't see how HB 1557 would leave that out. And one thing that I think we need to make sure that we recognize is this is why parental involvement in the schools is so important. So let's say little Johnny has two mommies or little Johnny has two daddies. The parents need to be involved. They need to be in there meeting the teachers, saying, you know, I want to make sure that this classroom is a safe space for little Johnny,

and we do a disservice to every parent, whether they're gay, straight, heterosexual, whatever, if we're saying we don't want you to come in and we leave it up to the teachers to have these really important and personal discussions where one size is not going to fit all. But in Waco, Texas, if the culture of the community is overwhelmingly anti-gay, let's say, are you saying that culture needs to win out? And then do parents who don't fit in to that culture need to either fight a losing battle or choose to take their child out of a system that

doesn't work for their individual child? Oh, absolutely. Yeah, absolutely not. And that's why earlier I said there's two competing interests. There is the schools are going to have to look like their community, but you also have to make sure this goes to that point. But I think it also goes to, you know, what if there's a Republican family in San Francisco or, you know, a devout Orthodox Jewish family in deep New York City, where we also have to make sure that the schools stay out of some of these hot-button issues because there has to be an understanding, yes, community values, but also that the role of the public school being funded by the taxpayers is to provide an education,

not to provide an indoctrination. And this cuts both ways, not, you know, reading the Bible sort of thing or reading the Quran or, you know, saying one family is valued above another. But I think we've forgotten that schools should be focusing on the basics. The school should not replace the family. They should not replace the family's community, whether it's a house of worship or whether it's atheist or whether it's supporting LGBT pride, for example. The school should not be getting into these culture wars. As we start to wrap up, Will, I want to talk about one of the other hot button issues in the country right now. Governor Greg Abbott of Texas's recent mandate that the state investigate parents who seek

gender-affirming care for their children as possible child abuse. Wouldn't your definition of parents' rights say that the parent of a trans child should be able to choose for themselves what they consider to be the best course of action on behalf of their child? Lulu, I was in a meeting recently with a bunch of organizations, and there was a representative from the Texas Attorney General in that meeting. And I spoke up loudly and I said, you don't go after parents. And I think what Texas is responding to in a flawed way is a serious issue. And New York Times has done some good writing about this. And the issue is, how do you respond to children who are transgender? And so I think that was the issue that Governor Abbott was responding to.

But at the end of the day, you don't go after parents. You have to respect parents. If there's a legitimate issue that authorities are feeling that some of the care that transgender children are receiving is flawed, then you work with doctors, then you work with the system. But you're absolutely right, because parental rights are bigger than, you know, Greg Abbott, are bigger than the state of Texas. They are for all parents. And at the end of the day, you can't go after parents like that. So you think that that mandate is at odds with parental rights, as you understand it? I think it's at odds with our country's history of parental rights as a fundamental right. And I think that's why Texas has had a series of losses

in the courts. You know, Texas courts are fairly conservative. I mean, just look at what's going on with some of the abortion issues in Texas. And these same courts are striking down this order because it's well recognized. We've talked about the line of Supreme Court cases that parental rights are fundamental unless government has a compelling state interest accomplished in the least restrictive means. And so if, for example, you're Texas and you think there's issues with the care that transgender children are receiving, you don't conduct a child abuse investigation where parents could lose custody of their children. There are lesser restrictive means if Texas feels that this is a compelling state interest

and that they can prove it. Will, do you expect to see your group coming to the defense of parents of trans children in Texas? You know, I think the ACLU has done an excellent job in their briefs. I've read some of them. This is an issue that we're aware of. We're looking at it. I will also say, though, I mean, this is an issue that is a very partisan issue right now, the issue of dealing with transgender minors. Our organization has tried to kind of avoid the far margins on both right and left. We have not gotten involved in bans on critical race theory,

for example. We've had a lot of organizations request us. What we have focused on, however, are curriculum disclosure bills, where bills are passed at the state level saying that parents have the right to know what their children are being taught. They have the right to opt their children out of certain classes. So that's one example on the right. You know, not yet getting involved legally in the Texas issue is one on the left. Right now, we're focused on more of the bipartisan issues that kind of avoid some of the third rails of the culture wars. Will, I want to thank you very much. I appreciate you having this conversation with me.

Lulu, thank you. This has been a lot of fun. new episode. Today's episode was produced by Olivia Nat, Crystal Duhaime, and Derek Arthur. It was edited by Lisa Tobin and Kari Pitkin, with help from Stephanie Joyce. Engineering by Isaac Jones. Original music by Isaac Jones and Carol Sabarad. Fact-checking by Mary Marge Locker. The rest of the First Person team includes Courtney Stein, Christina Josa, and Jason Pagano. Thank you. Kingsbury.