Download PDF

Statement from AMEEN on Michigan House Bill 6068

As a Muslim organization dedicated to promoting civic engagement and community values,
AMEEN takes a firm stance against Michigan House Bill 6068. While we recognize the
importance of comprehensive education, this legislation introduces broad changes to the state’s
sexual education curriculum that conflict with the religious and moral beliefs of many families in
the Muslim community and beyond.
House Bill 6068 removes key elements of the current guidelines, such as the emphasis on
abstinence as a positive lifestyle choice and the prohibition of distributing contraceptives on
school property. These changes undermine the rights of parents to ensure their children’s
education aligns with their cultural and religious values. Additionally, the bill promotes teachings
on topics such as gender identity, sexual orientation, and abortion without providing adequate
opt-out protections or transparency for parents.

Key Concerns for the Muslim Community

1. Parental Rights: The bill diminishes parental control over sensitive topics and fails to
respect the diverse cultural and religious values of Michigan families. Parents must
retain the ability to make informed decisions about what their children are exposed to in
public schools.
2. Moral and Religious Beliefs: Many of the proposed changes conflict with Islamic
teachings, which emphasize modesty, family planning within marriage, and abstinence
as a moral and practical approach to sexual health.
3. Broad and Ambiguous Language: The legislation’s sweeping language lacks clarity,
leaving room for interpretations that could marginalize families with religious convictions.

While we value medically accurate and age-appropriate education, this bill risks alienating
families who rely on schools to provide instruction that complements—not contradicts—their
faith and values. We believe that sexual education can and should be inclusive and
evidence-based without disregarding the rights and beliefs of parents and communities.

Call to Action
We urge the Muslim community and our allies to take immediate action:
1. Contact Your Representatives: Express your opposition to HB 6068. Politely but firmly
let them know how this bill impacts your family and community.
2. Engage with School Boards: Attend meetings to advocate for maintaining an approach
to sexual education that respects parental input and cultural diversity.
3. Spread the Word: Share this statement within your masajid, community centers, and
social networks to mobilize collective action.
4. Stay Informed and Vote: Legislative decisions like this highlight the importance of
electing representatives who share our values.

Sexual education should empower students with knowledge while respecting the diversity of
Michigan’s communities. Together, we can push for legislation that strikes a balance between
medically accurate information and the protection of religious and cultural values.
In solidarity,

AMEEN Board and Leadership
Empowering Muslim Political Engagement
[ameenusa.org

Download PDF

Policy Paper: Advocating for Parental Rights in the Michigan Education System

Introduction

Parental rights in education have become a critical and contentious issue in recent years,
particularly in the context of public schooling. As parents strive to ensure that their children
receive a quality education that aligns with their values, concerns have arisen over the
imposition of certain social agendas in school curricula that are perceived as non-educational
and ideologically driven. In Michigan, this debate has intensified, especially around topics such
as LGBT issues and sex education. This policy paper advocates for the protection and
reinforcement of parental rights in the Michigan education system, emphasizing the need for
transparency, parental consent, and respect for diverse family values.

I. The Role of Parents in Education
Parents are the primary educators and caretakers of their children, and they play a vital role in
shaping their children’s moral, social, and educational development. The U.S. Supreme Court
has long recognized the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of
their children. Notably:
● Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925): The Supreme Court affirmed that the state cannot
compel children to attend public schools to the exclusion of private or religious
education, recognizing the rights of parents to direct their children’s education .
● Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972): The Court held that parents have the right to withdraw their
children from public education for religious reasons, further solidifying the principle that
parental rights in education are constitutionally protected .

These precedents establish that parents have a paramount role in deciding what is best for their
children’s education, including the content and nature of that education. However, recent trends
in public education, including in Michigan, have raised concerns about the erosion of these
rights, particularly regarding the inclusion of content that some parents find objectionable or
inappropriate for their children.

II. The Issue of Non-Educational Social Agendas in Schools

One of the most significant concerns among parents in Michigan is the perceived imposition of
social agendas, particularly those related to LGBT issues, in public school curricula. Many
parents argue that topics such as gender identity, sexual orientation, and related social issues
should be addressed within the family rather than mandated by the school system. Specific
concerns include:
1. Curriculum Content: In some Michigan school districts, parents have reported that
LGBT-related content has been integrated into various subjects, including health
education, literature, and even history, without adequate notice or consent from parents .
2. Sex Education: Michigan law requires that parents be informed about sex education
curricula and provides them the right to opt their children out. However, parents argue
that this law is insufficiently enforced, and the scope of what is considered “sex
education” has expanded to include topics beyond traditional biological education .
3. Classroom Environment: Beyond the formal curriculum, parents are concerned about
the broader classroom environment, where discussions and activities related to gender
identity and sexual orientation are being introduced at younger ages, often without
parental knowledge or consent .

These concerns are not limited to any one community but reflect a broader apprehension
among parents who believe that the education system is overstepping its bounds by promoting
particular social and political viewpoints, rather than focusing on academic excellence.

II. The Issue of Non-Educational Social Agendas in Schools
One of the most significant concerns among parents in Michigan is the perceived imposition of
social agendas, particularly those related to LGBT issues, in public school curricula. Many
parents argue that topics such as gender identity, sexual orientation, and related social issues
should be addressed within the family rather than mandated by the school system. Specific
concerns include:
1. Curriculum Content: In some Michigan school districts, parents have reported that
LGBT-related content has been integrated into various subjects, including health
education, literature, and even history, without adequate notice or consent from parents .
2. Sex Education: Michigan law requires that parents be informed about sex education
curricula and provides them the right to opt their children out. However, parents argue
that this law is insufficiently enforced, and the scope of what is considered “sex
education” has expanded to include topics beyond traditional biological education .
3. Classroom Environment: Beyond the formal curriculum, parents are concerned about
the broader classroom environment, where discussions and activities related to gender
identity and sexual orientation are being introduced at younger ages, often without
parental knowledge or consent .

These concerns are not limited to any one community but reflect a broader apprehension
among parents who believe that the education system is overstepping its bounds by promoting
particular social and political viewpoints, rather than focusing on academic excellence.

III. The Legal Landscape in Michigan
Michigan law recognizes certain parental rights in education, but these protections are often
limited and inconsistently applied. Key legal provisions include:
1. Michigan Revised School Code (MCL 380.10): This law affirms that “it is the natural,
fundamental right of parents and legal guardians to determine and direct the care,
teaching, and education of their children.” However, the implementation of this right is
often left to the discretion of individual school districts, leading to inconsistent practices .
2. Michigan’s Sex Education Laws (MCL 380.1507 and 380.1507b): These laws require
that parents be notified about sex education content and provide an opt-out mechanism.
However, many parents feel that the notification process is inadequate and that their
rights are not fully respected, particularly when topics are introduced under the guise of
other educational content .
3. Parental Rights Restoration Act: While this act reinforces the rights of parents to be
involved in their children’s education, its application is often reactive rather than
proactive, meaning that parents must challenge school practices after the fact, rather
than being empowered to prevent objectionable content from being introduced in the first
place .

These legal frameworks provide a foundation for parental rights in Michigan, but they are often
insufficient to protect parents from what they perceive as the imposition of non-educational
social agendas in schools.

IV. Implications of Imposing Non-Educational Social Agendas
The inclusion of non-educational social agendas, such as LGBT issues, in the school curriculum
has several significant implications:
1. Erosion of Parental Rights: When schools introduce social or political content without
adequate parental notice or consent, they undermine the fundamental rights of parents
to direct their children’s education. This not only violates parental rights but also erodes
trust between families and the educational system .
2. Cultural and Religious Tensions: Michigan is a diverse state, home to families with a
wide range of cultural, religious, and moral beliefs. Imposing a one-size-fits-all approach
to social issues in education can lead to cultural and religious tensions, as families feel
that their values are being marginalized or disrespected .
3. Focus on Academic Excellence: The primary mission of public education should be to
provide students with the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in life. When
schools prioritize social agendas over academic content, they risk diverting attention and
resources away from essential subjects like math, science, and literacy, potentially
compromising educational outcomes .
4. Polarization and Division: The introduction of controversial social issues into the
classroom can contribute to polarization and division within communities. Rather than
uniting students around shared educational goals, it can create an environment of
conflict and exclusion .

V. Policy Recommendations
To protect parental rights and ensure that Michigan’s education system remains focused on its
core mission, the following policy recommendations are proposed:
1. Strengthen Parental Consent Requirements: Michigan should strengthen laws
requiring parental consent for the introduction of any content related to social, political,
or sexual topics in the classroom. This should include clear and timely notification to
parents and the opportunity to opt their children out without penalty .
2. Increase Transparency in Curriculum Development: School districts should be
required to involve parents more directly in the development and review of curricula,
particularly when it comes to sensitive topics. This could be achieved through regular
public forums, curriculum review committees, and open access to instructional materials
.
3. Focus on Core Academic Subjects: Michigan’s public schools should prioritize core
academic subjects that are essential for student success, such as math, science, and
literacy. Social and political issues should be addressed in ways that are age-appropriate
and respect the diversity of family values .
4. Promote Alternative Education Options: To empower parents, Michigan should
support the expansion of alternative education options, including charter schools, private
schools, and homeschooling. This would provide parents with more choices to ensure
that their children receive an education that aligns with their values and beliefs .
5. Enforce Existing Parental Rights Laws: Michigan should ensure that existing parental
rights laws are fully enforced and that parents have the resources and support they need
to exercise their rights. This could include creating a state-level ombudsman to address
parental concerns and ensure compliance with the law .

Conclusion
Parental rights in education are a fundamental aspect of a free and democratic society. In
Michigan, these rights are being challenged by the introduction of non-educational social
agendas into the school curriculum, particularly around issues of gender identity and sexual
orientation. Protecting parental rights requires a renewed commitment to transparency, consent,
and respect for the diverse values of Michigan families.
Michigan must strengthen its laws to ensure that parents have the final say in their children’s
education, particularly when it comes to sensitive social issues. By focusing on academic
excellence and respecting the rights of parents, Michigan can create an education system that
serves all students and families, regardless of their cultural, religious, or moral beliefs.
This policy paper highlights the need to protect parental rights in the face of growing concerns
about the imposition of non-educational social agendas in Michigan’s public schools. It
advocates for policies that prioritize transparency, consent, and academic excellence while
respecting the diverse values of Michigan families.
References
1. Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925).
2. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).
3. Michigan Revised School Code, MCL 380.10.
4. Michigan Legislature. (2016). “House Bill 5821.” Legislature.mi.gov
5. Michigan Department of Education. (n.d.). “Parental Rights in Education.” Michigan.gov
6. ACLU Michigan. (2020). “Parents, Schools, and the Law: A Guide to Protecting Parental
Rights in Michigan.” ACLUMich.org
7. Family Policy Alliance. (2022). “Parental Rights in Education: Understanding Your Rights
in Michigan.” FamilyPolicyAlliance.com

Download PDF

Policy Paper: Defending the Right to Free Speech and the Legitimacy of Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) in Michigan

Introduction

The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement has emerged as a significant form of protest against Israel’s policies towards Palestinians, invoking both national and international discourse on human rights, state policy, and economic activism. At its core, the BDS movement
seeks to apply economic and political pressure on Israel to comply with international law, particularly concerning the rights of Palestinians. However, in the United States, including Michigan, legislative efforts have sought to limit or even criminalize participation in the BDS movement, raising significant concerns about the infringement of free speech rights.

This policy paper argues in favor of the BDS movement as a legitimate form of protest and economic activism. It examines Michigan’s laws that restrict BDS activities, analyzes the
implications for free speech, and advocates for the protection of First Amendment rights against any legislation that seeks to limit the ability to engage in boycotts as a form of political
expression.

I. The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) Movement: A Brief Overview

The BDS movement was initiated in 2005 by Palestinian civil society groups as a non-violent means to pressure Israel to end its occupation of Palestinian territories, recognize the rights of Palestinian citizens, and uphold the right of return for Palestinian refugees . The movement calls for:
1. Boycotts of Israeli goods, academic institutions, and cultural exchanges.
2. Divestment from companies that are complicit in the violation of Palestinian rights.
3. Sanctions against Israel by governments until it complies with international law.

BDS is modeled after the global anti-apartheid movement that successfully applied pressure on South Africa to end its system of racial segregation and discrimination . Proponents of BDS
argue that it is a peaceful and moral strategy aimed at achieving justice and human rights for Palestinians.

II. The Legal Landscape in Michigan
Michigan, like several other U.S. states, has enacted legislation aimed at countering the BDS movement. These laws generally prohibit state agencies from contracting with or investing in
entities that boycott Israel. The key pieces of legislation include:
1. Michigan House Bill 5821 (2016): This bill prohibits the state from entering into
contracts with companies that participate in boycotts of Israel. It requires any company seeking a state contract to certify that it is not engaged in a boycott of Israel .
2. Michigan House Bill 5822 (2016): This bill mandates the creation of a blacklist of companies that boycott Israel and prohibits the state from investing in such companies .

These laws were passed under the guise of protecting economic interests and opposing discrimination. However, they have been criticized for infringing upon the First Amendment rights of individuals and entities that choose to engage in boycotts as a form of political
expression .

III. The Right to Boycott: A Constitutional Analysis
The right to boycott is firmly rooted in the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of
speech, assembly, and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. The U.S.
Supreme Court has long recognized that boycotts are a form of protected speech. Notably:
● NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (1982): The Supreme Court held that a boycott aimed at achieving political, social, and economic change through nonviolent means was protected by the First Amendment. The Court recognized that such boycotts are a form
of political expression .
● Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010): While addressing a different context, thiscase reaffirmed the principle that political expression, even when controversial, is
entitled to a high level of protection under the First Amendment .

Michigan’s anti-BDS laws conflict with these constitutional protections. By requiring companies to certify that they are not participating in boycotts, these laws compel speech and violate the right of individuals and businesses to engage in political protest. Furthermore, the creation of blacklists of companies that boycott Israel is a form of government retaliation against protected political expression, which is also unconstitutional .

IV. Implications of Anti-BDS Legislation
Anti-BDS legislation has far-reaching implications for civil liberties, particularly the rights to free speech and political protest. The following concerns highlight the dangers of such legislation:
1. Chilling Effect on Free Speech: These laws create a chilling effect on free speech by discouraging individuals and entities from engaging in or supporting boycotts. Fear of
being blacklisted or losing state contracts can silence dissenting voices and suppress legitimate political discourse .
2. Erosion of Democratic Principles: In a democracy, the ability to engage in peaceful protest and to express opposition to government policies or actions is fundamental. Anti-BDS laws erode these principles by penalizing those who choose to exercise their right to protest through economic means .
3. Selective Protection of Rights: By targeting only boycotts of Israel, these laws selectively protect free speech, favoring certain viewpoints while suppressing others.
This undermines the principle of viewpoint neutrality, a cornerstone of First Amendment jurisprudence .
4. International Implications: These laws may also have international implications by aligning U.S. policy with one side of a complex geopolitical issue, potentially undermining
the country’s credibility as a neutral mediator in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict .

V. Policy Recommendations
To uphold the constitutional rights of Michiganders and to maintain the integrity of democratic principles, the following policy recommendations are proposed:
1. Repeal Anti-BDS Legislation: Michigan should repeal its anti-BDS laws to ensure that individuals and businesses are free to engage in political boycotts without fear of state
retaliation. Repealing these laws would restore the state’s commitment to protecting free speech and political expression.
2. Affirm First Amendment Protections: Michigan should adopt legislation that explicitly affirms the right to engage in boycotts as a form of protected speech. This would provide clarity and protection for those who choose to engage in economic activism as a means of political protest .
3. Promote Dialogue and Education: Instead of penalizing political expression, Michigan should promote dialogue and education about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This approach would foster understanding and encourage peaceful resolution of conflicts through open debate rather than suppression of dissenting views .
4. Support Broader Human Rights Efforts: Michigan should ensure that its policies and investments are consistent with broader human rights principles, supporting initiatives
that promote peace, justice, and equality for all peoples, including Palestinians and Israelis .

Conclusion
The BDS movement represents a legitimate and constitutionally protected form of political protest. Michigan’s anti-BDS laws, by restricting the right to boycott, undermine fundamental democratic principles and infringe upon First Amendment rights. Protecting the right to engage in boycotts is essential to maintaining a vibrant and open democracy where individuals are free to express their views and advocate for justice through peaceful means.
Michigan must repeal its anti-BDS legislation, affirm the right to boycott as a protected form of speech, and promote policies that align with the state’s commitment to human rights and
democratic values. In doing so, Michigan can ensure that it remains a place where freedom of speech is respected and where the principles of justice and equality are upheld for all.

 

This policy paper highlights the legal and constitutional issues surrounding Michigan’s anti-BDS laws and makes the case for upholding the right to free speech and political protest in the
context of the BDS movement. It is crucial that any policy affecting these rights be thoroughly examined to ensure that they do not infringe upon the foundational liberties that are central to a democratic society.

 

References
1. BDS Movement. (n.d.). “What is BDS?” BDSmovement.net
2. Bueckert, M. (2020). “What is BDS? The Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions Movement
Explained.” Al Jazeera
3. Michigan Legislature. (2016). “House Bill 5821.” Legislature.mi.gov
4. Michigan Legislature. (2016). “House Bill 5822.” Legislature.mi.gov
5. ACLU Michigan. (2016). “ACLU Opposes Michigan Bills Targeting Boycotts of Israel.” ACLUMich.org
6. NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982).
7. Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010).

Download PDF

Statement from AMEEN on Michigan House Bill 6068

As a Muslim organization dedicated to promoting civic engagement and community values, AMEEN takes a firm stance against Michigan House Bill 6068. While we recognize the importance of comprehensive education, this legislation introduces broad changes to the state’s sexual education curriculum that conflict with the religious and moral beliefs of many families in the Muslim community and beyond.

House Bill 6068 removes key elements of the current guidelines, such as the emphasis on abstinence as a positive lifestyle choice and the prohibition of distributing contraceptives on school property. These changes undermine the rights of parents to ensure their children’s education aligns with their cultural and religious values. Additionally, the bill promotes teachings on topics such as gender identity, sexual orientation, and abortion without providing adequate
opt-out protections or transparency for parents.

Key Concerns for the Muslim Community

1. Parental Rights: The bill diminishes parental control over sensitive topics and fails to respect the diverse cultural and religious values of Michigan families. Parents must retain the ability to make informed decisions about what their children are exposed to in public schools.
2. Moral and Religious Beliefs: Many of the proposed changes conflict with Islamic teachings, which emphasize modesty, family planning within marriage, and abstinence as a moral and practical approach to sexual health.
3. Broad and Ambiguous Language: The legislation’s sweeping language lacks clarity, leaving room for interpretations that could marginalize families with religious convictions.

While we value medically accurate and age-appropriate education, this bill risks alienating families who rely on schools to provide instruction that complements—not contradicts—their faith and values. We believe that sexual education can and should be inclusive and evidence-based without disregarding the rights and beliefs of parents and communities.

Call to Action
We urge the Muslim community and our allies to take immediate action:

1. Contact Your Representatives: Express your opposition to HB 6068. Politely but firmly let them know how this bill impacts your family and community.
2. Engage with School Boards: Attend meetings to advocate for maintaining an approach to sexual education that respects parental input and cultural diversity.
3. Spread the Word: Share this statement within your masajid, community centers, and social networks to mobilize collective action.
4. Stay Informed and Vote: Legislative decisions like this highlight the importance of electing representatives who share our values. Sexual education should empower students with knowledge while respecting the diversity of
Michigan’s communities. Together, we can push for legislation that strikes a balance between medically accurate information and the protection of religious and cultural values.

In solidarity,

AMEEN Board and Leadership
Empowering Muslim Political Engagement
[ameenusa.org]