education

Senators Introduce ‘Stop the Sexualization of Children Act’

Congress is considering legislation to prohibit schools from using federal money for sexually explicit and transgender materials in classrooms.

Senators Jim Banks, James Lankford and Tommy Tuberville introduced the Stop the Sexualization of Children Act in the Senate. Representative Mary Miller sponsored the bill in the House, where it has already passed the Committee on Education and Workforce by a party-line vote of 18-13.

In a press release, Tuberville said of the proposed legislation, HR 7661:

Exposing children to sexually explicit material in classrooms is completely inappropriate and a gross abuse of taxpayer dollars. I will continue to work with my colleagues to remove this kind of content from our classrooms to protect the innocence of our young people.

Tuberville’s statement explained the need for the bill:

Research has shown that exposure to sexual content at a young age can increase the risk of early sexual activity, unsafe sexual practices, and other risky sexual behaviors. In recent years, concerns have grown among parents regarding sexually explicit materials, activities, and themes being introduced in schools.

HR 7661 is supported by Christian and conservative groups like Family Research Council, Family Policy Alliance, Moms for America and American Principles Project.

The American Library Association (ALA) opposed the legislation to protect children. President Sam Hemick issued a statement expressing disappointment the bill had passed the House committee, saying:

H.R. 7661 is a dangerous bill that steals the power to choose what kids read away from parents, local communities and well-trained educators and librarians, and gives it to politicians in Washington, D.C. Congress is not authorized to make decisions about what kids read in school, and it is not allowed to interfere with the rights of states and communities to control their own schools.

As previously reported by the Daily Citizen, the ALA believes it is “banning books” to keep graphic and disturbing content out of public schools. The organization’s “Library Bill of Rights” states that children should have access to whatever books they want and they deserve “privacy and confidentiality” – including from parents – in those decisions.

Stop Sexualization of Children amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to read:

No funds under this Act may be used to develop, implement, facilitate, host, or promote any program or activity for, or to provide or promote literature or other materials to, children under the age of 18 that includes sexually oriented material, including any program, activity, literature, or material that exposes such children to nude adults, individuals who are stripping, or lewd or lascivious dancing.

It labels “sexually oriented material” as material that:

(i) includes any depiction, description, or simulation of sexually explicit conduct (as defined in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 2256(2) of title 18, United States Code).
(ii) involves gender dysphoria or transgenderism.

The federal statute cited, 18 U.S. Code § 2256, defines “sexually explicit conduct” for child exploitation laws. Schools could no longer use federal funds to pay for materials that depict explicit sexual activity and lewd behaviors.

HR 7661 makes allowances for “classic works of art” in the classroom which may contain nudity, citing art listed in the Smarthistory’s guide to Advanced Placement Art History as acceptable.

The legislation makes clear that “classic works of literature,” which may contain mild sexual content, are not included in the restricted books but are available to older students. It lists works found in “Great Books of the Western World,” published by Encyclopaedia Britannica; “Classics Every Middle Schooler Should Read,” by Thomas Purifoy Jr.; and “Classics Every High Schooler Should Read,” by Mary Pierson Purifoy.

There are literally hundreds of good options for teachers; there is no need to expose minors to books that detail graphic sexual activity.

Banks said in a press release, “The American taxpayer should not be funding sexually explicit content for minors, it’s that simple.”

Miller expressed the need to protect children from false and confusing “transgender ideology, saying, “Our taxpayer-funded schools exist to educate children, not expose them to sexually explicit material or promote the false idea that a child can be born in the wrong body.”

Related articles and resources:

American Library Association Chooses Marxist Lesbian as President-Elect

‘Banned Books Week’ – What a Fraud

Equipping Parents for Back-to-School

National Education and Library Groups Co-Sponsor Transgender Reading Day for Elementary School Children

Plugged In Book Reviews

Resources When Your Child Encounters LGBT Ideology at School

Sexualizing Schoolchildren: Classroom and Library Books

Three Ways the Media Supports Sexually Explicit, Inappropriate Books for Children

What Gender-Confusing Books Did You Read in School Today, Johnny?

Photo from Getty Images.

Maryland Teacher to U.S. Supreme Court: Strike Down Policy ‘Requiring Educators Lie’ to Parents

Can the government require a public school teacher to say something she believes is false — or keep information from parents she believes they have a right to know?

Those are the questions at stake in a new case a Maryland substitute teacher is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear. 

Kimberly Polk says Montgomery County Public Schools forced her to choose between her Christian beliefs and her job. 

Now she is asking the Court to decide whether the First Amendment protects teachers from being compelled to speak — or remain silent — in ways that violate their religious convictions.

How the Case Began

Polk began working as a school district substitute teacher in 2021 and received positive evaluations. The following year, the district required employees to certify that they would follow its “gender identity” policy. The policy required teachers to address students by their preferred name and pronouns and, in many circumstances, prohibited staff from disclosing a student’s preferred “gender identity” to parents without their consent.

According to court filings, Polk believes that using pronouns inconsistent with a student’s biological sex would require her to say something she believes is untrue. She also believes parents have the primary responsibility for raising their children and that she could not ethically withhold information from them about their child’s sexual identity confusion at school.

Polk requested a religious accommodation that would have allowed her to continue teaching without violating her deeply held beliefs. The school district denied her request.

As a result, Polk did not continue working as a substitute teacher. Instead, she filed a lawsuit in federal court, arguing the district violated her constitutional rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion, as well as a federal employment law protecting religious accommodation. 

Her case was dismissed by a federal district court. Earlier this year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the lower court’s decision, concluding that the district could require teachers to follow the policy because it is part of their official job duties.

What is Polk Asking the Supreme Court to Decide?

Polk is now asking the Supreme Court to review the case and answer two questions:

First, can a public school require teachers to use words that conflict with their sincerely held religious beliefs as a condition of employment?

Second, can public schools require teachers to withhold certain information from parents if doing so conflicts with the teacher’s religious convictions?

Polk is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which argued that the First Amendment protects not only the freedom to speak but also the freedom not to be compelled by the government to speak messages a person does not believe. 

ADF also contends that government employers, including public schools, must respect an employee’s sincere religious beliefs unless there is a compelling reason not to do so. 

What Happens Next?

If at least four justices vote to hear the appeal, the case will be considered by the U.S. Supreme Court. If they decline to hear the case, the Fourth Circuit’s ruling will remain in effect.

This case is ripe for consideration, as Polk’s petition raises a broader question that extends to many school districts across the United States: Where does the Constitution draw the line between government authority and individual freedom of speech and religion?

If the school district name sounds familiar, it’s because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the same school district in a case they considered last year  — Mahmoud v. Taylor.

As reported by the Daily Citizen, in that case, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of parental rights and religious freedom over mandated “LGBT” curriculum in public school classrooms, affirming the rights of parents to opt their students out of LGBT material based on sincerely held religious beliefs. 

The case is Polk v. Montgomery County Public Schools.

The Daily Citizen will continue to follow this developing story.

YAF Sues University of Minnesota Over Forced ‘Transgender’ Speech Codes

Young America’s Foundation (YAF) filed a lawsuit against the University of Minnesota (UMN) over policies that keep students from questioning “transgender” ideology and force them to use transgender-identified individual’s “chosen pronouns” – rather than language that reflects biological reality.

YAF is the parent organization of Young Americans for Freedom, which has chapters on 213 college and university campuses, as well as 228 high school groups. The conservative non-profit has a mission to ensure “that increasing numbers of young Americans understand and are inspired by the ideas of individual freedom, a strong national defense, free enterprise, and traditional values.”

Traditional values include, the complaint states, truths like:

  • Men should not compete in women’s sports or use their bathrooms.
  • There are only two genders.
  • Sex is immutable.
  • Sex is immutable.
  • A man cannot get pregnant.
  • A man cannot become a woman, and a woman cannot become a man.

But UMN policies keep students afraid to discuss these issues and invite YAF speakers – like Ryan T. Anderson, Chloe Cole, Seth Dillon and Ben Shapiro – who oppose transgender dogma and indoctrination.

Southeastern Legal Foundation (SLF) filed the lawsuit June 19 on YAF’s behalf, explaining in a press release that policies which only allow students to agree with and express gender ideology violate students’ First Amendment rights.

The complaint points to UMN sexual harassment and discrimination policies that require agreement with transgender ideology and language. Anyone who feels “offended” by a YAF members’ speech can file a formal or anonymous complaint – which could lead to disciplinary action, including dismissal from the university.

In addition, the university policy “Equity and Access: Gender Identity, Gender Expression, Names and Pronouns,” states:

University members may, without being required to provide documentation: use a chosen name that differs from the name listed on their legal documents, use a gender identity that differs from their legal sex and/or sex assigned at birth, and/or specify the pronouns and other gendered personal references (e.g., Ms., Mx., Mr.) used to refer to them.

The rule goes on to state requirements for all students, staff, faculty, guests, contractors and volunteers:

University members and units are expected to use the names, gender identities, and pronouns specified to them by other University members, except as legally required. … University members and units are also expected to use other gendered personal references, if any, that are consistent with the gender identities and pronouns specified by University members.

The “Equity and Access” policy gives this definition of gender identity, which is a completely subjective societal and individual construct:

An individual’s own understanding of themselves in terms of gendered categories that may include female, male, transgender, genderqueer, genderfluid, gender nonconforming, Two Spirit, intersex, non-binary, agender, genderless, and many others. Gender identity cannot be reliably determined by looking at an individual. An individual’s gender identity may be consistent over their lifetime or may shift over time.

Evidently there’s equity or access for everyone at UMN – except for those who believe biblical and scientific truth about sex and sexual identity.

SLF President Kim Hermann said of the policies:

These students have to walk on eggshells while engaging with these topics, making sure to not voice opinions different from that of the school, or not use biologically correct pronouns of people, in fear of school disciplinary actions. It sounds to me like the school wants to be a safe place for some students but not all.

The nonprofit legal group, which works to protect constitutional rights, stated:

While the University attempts to justify the policies by saying that speech expressing traditional views based in biology on gender identity offends its hearers, the First Amendment does not allow universities, of all places, to restrict student speech just because someone may not agree or like it.

SLF and YAF argue that these policies are pure viewpoint discrimination, where students are afraid to speak about their views publicly, in fear that they will face severe discipline from the school.

YAF President Governor Scott Walker commented on the lawsuit, saying:

The fact that there are any universities in the US attempting to suppress certain views that they deem wrong is a complete outrage. While students at the University of Minnesota should just have to worry about their classwork, they now also have to worry about violating these policies that are infringing on their rights to speak freely. Not only is this unfair to students, and particularly conservative students, but it’s completely unconstitutional.

The Daily Citizen hopes Young America’s Foundation is successful with returning free speech and academic debate to the University of Minnesota.

Related articles and resources:

Chloe Cole: Transgender Surgery Regret

God’s Amazing Grace in a Transgendered Person’s Life

The Journey Back to My True Identity

Oregon School District Pays $650,000 for Firing Teachers Opposed to ‘Trans’ Policy

Teacher Wins $650,000 After Being Fired for Refusing to Use ‘Trans’ Pronouns

Teacher Wrongly Fired for Refusing to Use ‘Preferred Pronouns’ Wins $575,000

Transgender Resources

Free Speech Victory for Virginia Teacher Fired Over ‘Transgender’ Pronoun Policy

California, America Grapple with ‘Epidemic of Sexual Abuse’ in Schools

A California school district failed to properly investigate more than 100 allegations of sexual misconduct perpetrated against students by school employees over nearly a decade, investigators determined last month.

The disturbing findings are the latest development in what lawyer John Manly, who represents victims of sex abuse and assault, calls “an epidemic of sexual abuse in California by teachers, coaches and other school employees.”

California’s attorney general’s office began investigating El Monte Union High School District in late 2023 after Business Insider published “The Predators’ Playground,” a harrowing article documenting decades of educator sexual abuse at El Monte’s Rosemead High School.

The subsequent 18-month investigation, which concluded in March, determined El Monte “failed to conduct legally compliant investigations” into more than 100 cases of sexual misconduct allegations dating back to 2018.

The state also discovered at least five cases in which a staff member continued to abuse and harass students after another staffer failed to report either the perpetrator’s misconduct or allegations against the perpetrator.

School employees in California must legally report allegations, suspicions or accounts of child sexual abuse to law enforcement within 36 hours. Failure to do so can result in up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine.

Yet, according to Manly, El Monte employees aren’t the only ones violating California’s mandatory reporting laws.

“In the vast majority of cases, the mandatory reporting statute is ignored and schools investigate [sexual misconduct allegations] themselves,” the attorney told investigative journalist Catherine Herridge in February.

“The problem when institutions or people investigate themselves, in my experience, is they rarely find themselves guilty.”

At a press conference on the El Monte investigation’s conclusion, California Attorney General Rob Bonta admitted he expects to confront similar cases in the future.

“I don’t think this will be the last case of this type, unfortunately,” he told reporters.

California school districts have lost more than $3 billion in sexual abuse cases since 2020, when the state extended its statute of limitations on crimes of child sexual abuse.

But Bonta also believes his office’s reforms can rehabilitate districts like El Monte.

“We think we’ve arrived at a model that can help districts that have failed systemically, transform,” he said.

El Monte will undergo a lengthy period of state supervision following the investigation, including:

  • State oversight of the district’s handling of sexual misconduct allegations.
  • Creating a list of all substitute teachers “found to have violated employee policy on appropriate boundaries with students.”
  • Training parents and students to better recognize signs of grooming and abuse.

The reforms compliment a new California law, which Governor Gavin Newsom signed in October 2025, creating a non-public database of school staff accused of misconduct.

While these provisions might well reduce educator sexual abuse in El Monte, they won’t “transform” it, or any other compromised districts, because they don’t address the legislative, cultural and institutional problems which perpetuate child predation in schools.

Most glaringly, Bonta’s model doesn’t address the reality that it is often faster and cheaper for schools to “pass the trash,” or shuffle school employees accused of sexual misconduct to other schools or districts, than it is to fire them.

“In public education in most states, it’s next to impossible to fire a bad teacher.” Manly tells Herridge. “They actually pay them to go away, even if they’ve sexually abused children.”

These predators get passed along to an average of three schools, often ending up in a low-income areas with a disproportionate number of vulnerable students and fewer parents with means to protect their children.

Bonta’s plan, which addresses district-by-district wrongdoing, cannot fix the fact that California law does not require schools notify parents if their child says a school employee sexually assaulted them or if another student makes an allegation of sexual misconduct against their child’s teacher.

California parents must also file a public records request to obtain any data about reported allegations of or disciplinary actions for sexual misconduct.

Manly puts it in perspective:

No one knows how many teachers have abused. Nobody knows how many teachers have been credibly accused. Nobody knows how many teachers in the state have been suspended or have had their licenses suspended. It’s completely opaque, and it shouldn’t be.

Bonta’s plan certainly doesn’t address the role teachers’ unions play in negotiating confidentiality clauses and non-disclosure agreements preventing schools from alerting future employers about sexual misconduct allegations against a former employee.

These structural problems allow educator sexual abuse to continue unchecked. Legislators and school officials must tackle them for district-by-district reforms like Bonta’s to be most effective.

Unfortunately, the epidemic of sexual abuse by school employees is not just in California. It’s a national issue — and has been for decades.

Charol Shakeshaft, a professor at Virginia Commonwealth University and the foremost authority on educator sexual abuse, estimates nearly 1 in 5 children (17%) in America experience sexual misconduct by a school employee.

The same obstacles that afflict California — passing the trash, failure to enforce mandatory reporting laws, lack of transparency and consistent reporting and predators using teachers’ unions as shields — plague every other state in the nation, too, to varying degrees.

The question isn’t whether there are victims; it’s whether schools will document victims’ claims and, subsequently, whether victims can take their cases to court.

Educator sexual abuse is prevalent and frightening. The Daily Citizen is buckling down to get you the information you need to protect your children. Stay tuned.

Additional Articles and Resources

Counseling Services

Abusive Relationships

Passing the Trash: Here’s What Parents Need to Know About Educator Sexual Misconduct

Moody Bible Institute Wins Religious Freedom Case for Student Teachers

The Chicago Board of Education settled a lawsuit with the Moody Bible Institute of Chicago that allows student teachers from Moody to train in the city’s public schools.

Chicago Public Schools (CPS) had excluded Moody’s elementary education students from its student teaching program unless the college agreed to hire employees who disagreed with the school’s biblical views on sex, sexuality and marriage.

The school district asked Moody to sign a “Vendor Agreement” and a “Student Teaching Internship Agreement” saying the college would not discriminate in hiring on the basis of “gender identity/expression (or) sexual orientation.”

This would have violated the college’s religious beliefs, which include that God made humans in His image male and female, marriage is between a husband and wife, and sexual activity outside of marriage is prohibited.

Attorneys for Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), who had filed the lawsuit on Moody’s behalf in November 2025, announced the settlement in a press statement, with ADF Senior Counsel Jeremiah Galus explaining the importance of the victory:

Chicago desperately needs more teachers to fill hundreds of vacancies, but public school administrators are putting personal agendas ahead of the needs of families.
Moody holds its faculty and students to high standards of excellence and is more than qualified to participate in Chicago’s student-teaching program. By excluding Moody for its religious beliefs, Chicago Public Schools is illegally injecting itself into a religious non-profit’s hiring practices, which the Constitution and state laws expressly forbid. 

The lawsuit explained that the Christian college hires people who agree with and live by its religious beliefs. It stated that the Illinois State Board of Education had approved the school’s teacher preparation program in January 2024, so graduates could sit for the state’s teaching licensure exam.

It’s not like CPS can afford to turn away good teachers.

The Illinois Policy Institute reported at the start of the 2025-2026 school year that Chicago’s schools are failing to educate students:

The most recent test scores for Chicago Public Schools show fewer than 1-in-3 students could read at grade level. Fewer than 1-in-5 could do math at grade level.
Each year the district gets more money to educate fewer [students], and proficiency is still far behind where it should be compared to spending.

Moody tried to work with the Chicago Board of Education, asking it to accommodate the school’s religious beliefs, since “the United States Constitution and federal, state, and local laws all permit and protect Moody’s employment practices.”

The suit also pointed out that the district seemed to single out Moody and did not enforce its policies evenhandedly:

Chicago Public Schools has allowed other universities and colleges to participate in the Pre-Service Teaching Program even though they have similar hiring practices to Moody.

ADF attorneys argued that such favoritism toward other religious schools violated the First Amendment’s establishment clause.

Public government programs cannot discriminate against participants because of their religion, the suit explained, pointing to the 2022 U.S. Supreme court decision Carson v. Makin, a case from Maine where the state created a tuition assistance program for families to send their children to private schools, prohibiting the money from being used at religious schools.

The court ruled that this violated the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.

Similarly, CPS cannot exclude Christian students from participating in the teaching program because of their or their college’s religion.

As a result of the settlement, ADF said that the school district “modified its Student Teacher Internship Agreement” and “has now listed Moody as an approved university partner on its website.” The Board also agreed to pay $100,00 in attorney’s fees.

Moody Provost Dr. Tim Sisk applauded the agreement, saying:

We are deeply grateful that a resolution has been reached affirming our constitutional right to hire individuals who are aligned with our core mission and biblical values.

The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago was founded in 1886 by evangelist Dwight L. Moody as a training center “where men and women could be transformed by the clear, practical teaching of God’s Word.”

In addition to its Chicago undergraduate campus, the college started a seminary in Chicago with a satellite campus in Plymouth, Michigan, and it operates Moody Aviation, in Spokane, Washington.

The Daily Citizen is grateful for this important victory.

Related articles and resources:

Arizona Christian University Settles with School District That Rejected Student Teachers – Because of Their Commitment to Christ

Christian University Sues School District for Rejecting Student Teachers – Because of Their Commitment to Christ and Beliefs About Marriage

Coach Joe Kennedy Finally Rehired After Religious Liberty Win at Supreme Court

Federal Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Attacking Faith-based Schools

Religious Liberty Commission Launches, Aims to Root Out Anti-Christian Bias

State Can’t Discriminate Against Religion in Tuition Assistance Program, Supreme Court Rules

Trump Admin Issues New Guidance to Protect Workplace Religious Expression