Wicomico County BOE Violates 1st & 14th Amendment Constitutional Rights Through Forced Assimilation
Updated: 6 days ago
On April 13, 2021, a letter containing closing remarks were sent to the Maryland State Board of Education (MSBOE) in regards to an appeal that exposed the systematic political indoctrination by the Wicomico County Board of Education and its use of a subversive curriculum. The letter below encompasses the issues and how the rights of every student and parent are violated under the U.S. Constitution. Regardless of a local county board's policies or state law, no matter Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, or any of the other 47 states, the rock-solid foundational argument contained within applies to all people in all school systems.
April 13, 2021
DELIVERY RECEIPT, CONFIRMATION CERTIFIED MAIL.
Maryland State Board of Education
200 West Baltimore Street
Baltimore, MD 21201-2595
Re: Indoctrination - Wicomico County Board of Education
In response to the Wicomico County Board of Education (WCBOE) and its Memorandum Motion for Summary Decision before the Maryland State Board of Education (MSBOE), I have provided a preponderance of evidence for the record that my son’s Civil Rights have been violated. Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, the Constitution prevents the government from making laws which regulate an establishment of religion, life, liberty or privilege that would prohibit or interfere with free exercise of religion or abridge a Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Assembly, and the right to petition government to redress grievances.
Religious liberty, also known as freedom of religion, is "the right of all persons to believe, speak, and act – individually and in community with others, in private and in public – in accord with their understanding of ultimate truth."  The acknowledgement of religious freedom as the first right protected in the Bill of Rights points toward the American founders' understanding of the importance of religion to human, social, and political flourishing.  Freedom of Religion  is protected by the First Amendment through its Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause, which together form the religious liberty clauses of the First Amendment.  The first clause prohibits any governmental "establishment of religion" and the second prohibits any governmental interference with "the free exercise thereof."  These clauses of the First Amendment encompass "the two big arenas of religion in constitutional law. Establishment cases deal with the Constitution’s ban on Congress endorsing, promoting or becoming too involved with religion. Free exercise cases deal with Americans’ rights to practice their faith."  Both clauses sometimes compete with each other. The Supreme Court in McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union (2005) clarified this by the following example: When the government spends money on the clergy, then it looks like establishing religion, but if the government cannot pay for military chaplains, then many soldiers and sailors would be kept from the opportunity to exercise their chosen religions.  In his dissenting opinion in McGowan v. Maryland (1961), Justice William O. Douglas illustrated the broad protections offered by the First Amendment's religious liberty clauses:
The First Amendment commands government to have no interest in theology or ritual; it admonishes government to be interested in allowing religious freedom to flourish—whether the result is to produce Catholics, Jews, or Protestants, or to turn the people toward the path of Buddha, or to end in a predominantly Muslim nation, or to produce in the long run atheists or agnostics.
First and foremost, the WCBOE, MSDE, and the State of Maryland is violating the Freedom of Religion clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. This is being done through “Forced Assimilation,” which includes political and economic philosophies in the areas of political indoctrination, social indoctrination, identity indoctrination, gender indoctrination, and anti-racism indoctrination, in which my son’s family and religious views and his right to petition against this act of indoctrination is the basis for my appeal. The State of Maryland and its Counties do not have power over the Constitution of the United States through its approved State college bound Common Core standards AKA “Maryland College Ready Standards” to incorporate into curriculum and impose the indoctrination groups as mentioned above, into a Socialist program in which is designed to undermine and interfere with family and religious values and develop students into left-wing, Socialist-activists. The failed Common Core Standards, now disguised as “Maryland College Ready Standards,” is the State’s attempt to indoctrinate its public school students using left-leaning political views. This is in violation of both the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits State and local county governments from depriving individuals of life, liberty, or property without fair procedure. This clause establishes the Bill of Rights as equally applicable to the States as it is to the Federal government. The Supreme Court has upheld many precedents to the effect.
In addition to the Constitutional violations mentioned above, in which my son has been deprived of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, his parents have had their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights violated by these establishments, particularly the WCBOE, MSDE, and the State of Maryland. These establishments do not have the right to indoctrinate my son in contradiction of his personal religious views, beliefs, opinions, thoughts, or ideas. I expect the above-mentioned indoctrination subjects to be removed from the curriculum immediately. My son is being penalized and discriminated against for his religious views, beliefs, opinions, thoughts, and ideas. In fact, he is being silenced by his teachers in discussions, and he is punished by his teachers by unfair grading practices for sharing his views that may conflict with the indoctrinating class agenda. A common response from teachers during class participation when my son questions or provides an alternate view in his English and History classes has been commonly responded to as: “We are not going to talk about that now” or “There are other views on this, moving on.” Other times, they avoid calling on him when his hand is raised when discussing a controversial topic in the class, while consistently facilitating and calling on those students who respond in alignment with the agenda.
Another example is the presentation of my son’s class project in English, where he had to pick a song where people are mentioned as oppressed and analyze it. Since my son chose Pink Floyd’s “Another Brick in the Wall,” his project selection went against the agenda, even though it was an example of societal oppression. The teacher prevented and delayed his presentation for several weeks after it was due to avoid its presentation before the class, long after other students had presented their project. After repeatedly questioning the teacher about his presentation, my son finally presented and received a grade below the effort of the project. Retaliation is obvious based on the subject matter. As established by the school, my son is required to affirm a one-sided set of beliefs and views as absolute through the indoctrination methods of the school. Reception of these values are measured and reflected as a grade, and a “good grade” is fully dependent upon alignment with such views. Those who don’t align to the answer favoring the directed agenda will result in a negative grade. Not only is my son being punished, his family is being punished through retribution and retaliation, which amounts to harassment and unequal treatment under the law.
Good teaching is the solution to indoctrination. Good teachers, parents, mentors, and other knowledgeable adults train students in methods of thought, while supplying the essence of though by training students how to think in which they develop concepts and ideas. They must teach a person to evaluate an argument through compare and contrast, find an actual solution, and determine what is true and what is false. Political opinions not based on fact or reason should be immediately removed from the public school curriculum, framework, units, and seeds. 
In Dr. Hanlin’s letter from October 15, 2020 the Superintendent of Wicomico County Public Schools stated the following:
1. Page 1, 1st paragraph: “Please address any further communications on this issue to me and not our teachers.” She requested that I have no communication with my child’s instructors about any concerns that I had regarding curriculum, content, or their teachings.
2. Page 2, 2nd paragraph: “The courts have also supported the view that public schools have a role as an assimilative force.” This is misleading and untrue as the courts have not ruled this. Superintendent Hanlin plagiarized and presented this idea as a matter of fact, which was taken from the theological philosophy of John Dewey - Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. In addition, the word "Force" is not a good choice of words when it disrespectfully and abusively goes against one’s will or right to exist. The Merriam Webster’s dictionary defines Force as: "Violence, compulsion, or constraint exerted upon or against a person or thing.”
3. “There is no requirement here that your son affirm or deny any beliefs or engage or refrain from engaging in any specific activities.” Superintendent Hanlin then contradicts this statement in the last paragraph on page 2: “Your son will not be excused from participating in and receiving instruction about the matters to which you object, so long as he is a student in Wicomico County Public Schools.”
Assimilation is the cognitive process of making new information fit in with your existing understanding of the world. Essentially, when you encounter something new, you process and make sense of it by relating it to things that you already know.  Assimilation refers to a part of the adaptation process initially proposed by Jean Piaget.  Through assimilation, we take in new information or experiences and incorporate them into our existing ideas. The process is somewhat subjective, because we tend to modify experience or information to fit in with our pre-existing beliefs. Forced Assimilation is indoctrination to manipulate this adaptive process, and is what many identify as what is going on in the public education environment.
Dr. Hanlin’s statements are admissions of illegal actions and in violation of the Constitution of the United States, which the WCBOE has upheld and tolerated. Dr. Hanlin’s program of “Forced Assimilation” is an involuntary process of student assimilation, which students are forced to adopt language, identity, norms, morals, traditions, customs, values, mentality, perception, and way of life. This form of indoctrination is the process of inculcating a person with ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies, and methodologies. This Forced Assimilation by the WCBOE violates and interferes with the parent-child relationship and family unit. Dr. Hanlin and the WCBOE admits to Forced Assimilation (indoctrination) via the Maryland College Ready Standards, for which it has adopted from the State to be used in its curriculum. Indoctrination is not education.
Dr. Hanlin, the WCBOE, and the MSDE are all culpable. I seek that the MSDE be sanctioned for its framework, units, seeds, and curriculum, for it has laid the foundation for this to occur. The denial or approval of the Memorandum Motion for Summary Decision without considering these factual actions will certainly result in further action to address this issue. My examples of submitted evidence was sufficient and relevant, which only scratches the surface. I have collected and can produce a nearly infinite amount of evidence as necessary, between my son and other parents, which can be submitted in litigation if this is not resolved. We are soliciting a class of parents and teachers whose children have been exposed to forced assimilation and indoctrination who also demand this to stop.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. I look forward to your immediate end to these unconstitutional educational policies and practices in Wicomico County and throughout the State of Maryland.
If you identify with this article and experience indoctrination in your child's school, we are soliciting parents to take class-action against the State of Maryland and its Counties. If you would like to join our class, please email firstname.lastname@example.org with "Class Action" in the subject line and a brief description of your experience and intention to join the fight against political indoctrination in the schools.
Fellows & Editors
April 26, 2021 Copyright DelmarvaPTC.org
1. Director Religious Freedom Education Project Charles C. Haynes (December 26, 2002). "History of Religious Liberty in America. Written for Civitas: A Framework for Civic Education (1991) by the Council for the Advancement of Citizenship and the Center for Civic Education". Archived from the original on May 25, 2020. Retrieved May 25, 2020.
2. "McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 545 U.S. 844 (2005), at Part IV". Justia US Supreme Court Center. June 27, 2005. Retrieved November 8, 2020.
3. Michelle Boorstein (November 3, 2020). "Religion: Religious conservatives hopeful new Supreme Court majority will redefine religious liberty precedents". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on November 4, 2020. Retrieved November 10, 2020.
4. "McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 545 U.S. 844 (2005), at Part IV". Justia US Supreme Court Center. June 27, 2005. Retrieved November 8, 2020.
5. "McGowan v. Maryland: 366 U.S. 420 (1961)". Justia US Supreme Court Center. Retrieved May 25, 2020.