Montgomery County Councilmember Kristin Mink’s Inflammatory Remarks

[..people she disagreed with at the June 6 meeting [were regarded] as being “on the same side of [the] issue as white supremacists and outright bigots”]

At a June 6, 2023 meeting of the Montgomery County Board of Education (“Board”), several speakers expressed their opinion that (1) the religious liberty of Muslim families was being infringed by compelling students to be taught about LGBTQA+ topics, and (2) students and families should be allowed to opt-out from LGBTQA+ curriculum and materials on the grounds of religious liberty. After the public comment section of the meeting was finished, Montgomery County Councilmember Kristin Mink (D-District 5) addressed the Board, speaking in opposition to the speakers who asked the Board to allow an opt-out option.

            A video of the June 6, 2023, Board of Education meeting is (here). The public comments appear starting at approximately the 15-minute mark of the video. After the 18 speakers and 2 video appearances were completed, Board President Karla Silvestre announced the end of the public comments but then noted that a member of the Montgomery County Council wanted to address the Board. Councilmember Kristin Mink then addressed the Board. Her remarks start at approximately the 1 hour and 2-minute mark of the video. Although I summarize portions of the video for illustrative purposes, I strongly urge people to view the video for themselves.

            The Councilmember’s remarks to the Board (in opposition to the speakers who asked the Board to allow for an opt-out option) included the following points:

(a) She has had “a lot of very good conversations this morning with many of the people who testified here [before the Board],” but

(b) “This issue has unfortunately put — it does put — some, but not all, of course, Muslim families on the same side of an issue as white supremacists and outright bigots”;

(c) Although Muslin families do not want to harm the LGBTQA+ community, allowing Muslim families to opt out of curriculum and materials on LGBTQA+ topics would harm the LGBTQA+ community;

(d) The public schools have a responsibility to teach LGBTQA+ curriculum and materials that are “fact-based” and reflect that “the scientific and medical community has come to a clear consensus that LBGTQA+ people exist”;

(e) Families can teach their children “a counter-narrative” at home or at religious institutions if they want, “but we cannot modify our fact-based, science-based curriculum to reflect particular religious beliefs that are not aligned with the science-based curriculum;” and

(f) We need to have “nuance” in these conversations about the LBGTQA+ curriculum and materials.

            Councilmember Mink issued a press release dated June 11, 2023, apparently in response to negative reactions to her June 6 comments to the Board. A copy of the press release is available here. The complete text of the press release is as follows:

“On Tuesday, June 6, I spoke at a Montgomery County Board of Education meeting about inclusive education and whether families should be permitted to opt their children out of LGBTQIA-inclusive curriculum materials. I regret that although my remarks were focused on promoting inclusion, they created an opportunity for misunderstanding and mischaracterization. I apologize for the hurt that this caused in the Muslim community.

“Even when individuals disagree about difficult issues, I am committed to finding space to foster authentic dialogue and seeking points of understanding. I sat down to hear from Muslim community members before my remarks on Tuesday and with District 5 Muslim leaders on Thursday. I listened, and I understand their concerns.

“I look forward to continuing to work with members of our Muslim and LGBTQIA+ communities as we take on issues of importance for all residents.”

            Considering the Councilmember’s remarks at the June 6 Board of Education meeting, her press release is inflammatory for several reasons.

            First, the claim of promoting inclusion. How did Councilmember Mink promote inclusion by labeling people she disagreed with at the June 6 meeting as being “on the same side of [the] issue as white supremacists and outright bigots”? Given the civil and respectful demeanor and remarks of the various speakers at the June 6 meeting in support of allowing an opt-out option, Council member Mink’s disparaging characterization of the speakers’ support for allowing an opt-out option was harsh, dismissive, insulting, and antithetical to any meaningful effort at being inclusive. By saying that support of an opt-out option placed those supporters “on the same side” of white supremacists and outright bigots, Council member Mink dismissed any request for an opt-out option as unreasonable, unworthy of consideration, and unfit for a dialogue. How does such perfunctory condemnatory rhetoric toward those with whom she disagrees promote inclusion? Summarily labeling other people as holding views on an issue that are no different than the views of white supremacists and outright bigots is an act of harsh rejection and stern exclusion, not an act of inclusion.

            Second, the claim of misunderstanding and mischaracterization. Why does Councilmember Mink think her remarks at the June 6 meeting “created an opportunity for misunderstanding and mischaracterization”? Viewing the video, her comments at the June 6 meeting are relatively clear and not difficult to understand. Why does Council member Mink think disagreement with her remarks at the June 6 meeting can only be based on a misunderstanding or a mischaracterization? Does she think that disagreement with her position cannot be reasonable or worthy of consideration but can only result from misunderstanding or mischaracterization? She seems unwilling or unable to consider that her June 6 remarks were understood by the people she smeared with her dismissive rhetoric.

            Third, the claim of fostering dialogue. How does Council member Mink expect “to foster authentic dialogue and seeking points of understanding” if she (a) labels people she disagrees with as being on the same side of an issue as “white supremacists and outright bigots”; and (b) dismisses disagreements with her remarks as being either a “misunderstanding” or a “mischaracterization”?

            Authentic dialogue and mutual understanding require (a) mutual efforts at a civil and respectful consideration of other people’s opinions and views; (b) a commitment to expressing disagreements without insulting or derisive comments; (c) a willingness to consider the possibility that a fruitful dialogue may warrant clarifying, qualifying, or modifying one’s views in light of the discussion; and (d) the humility to accept that agreement or consensus may not be achieved because other people may hold different opinions for cogent and honorable reasons. Council member Mink’s comments at the June 6 meeting suggest she sees dialogue as a platform to condescendingly lecture people she perceives as opponents, demean and denigrate them, and make generalized claims of scientific and medical consensus to shutdown and foreclose any disagreement with her position. What hope would there be for a meaningful dialogue if members of the Muslim community in Montgomery County responded in kind and began any future discussion by labeling Councilmember Mink’s dismissal of Muslim religious objections to the LGBTQA+ curriculum and material as placing her on the same side as people bigoted towards Muslims? 

            Forth, working with members of the Muslim Community. How does Councilmember Mink expect members of the Muslim community to look forward to working with her on the controversy over LGBTQA+ curriculum and materials? Her remarks at the June 6 meeting show that she considers (a) the matter closed and not really open for debate based on her belief that there is a “settled consensus” in the scientific and medical communities” such that disagreement by other people is foreclosed by “the reality of the LGBT community.” The reality that a particular group of people exists does not foreclose the legitimacy of civil debate about the ethical, moral, political, or religious issues about how society responds to and treats that group of people. Furthermore, the council members remarks at the June 6 meeting suggest that she does not believe that different groups of people should be free to respect and tolerate others in a “live and let live” atmosphere that does not compel them to submit to government-dictated acceptance and obeisance to a philosophy or lifestyle that they do not believe in because of their ethical, moral, political, or religious beliefs.

            Considering Council member Mink’s comments during the June 6 meeting together with her comments in the June 11 press release, the Muslim community — indeed any religious community in Montgomery County — might reasonably question whether she is willing to have a meaningful dialogue. Such a meaningful dialogue should (a) not summarily dismiss and demean their desire to have their religious liberty respected; (b) demonstrate a reasonable and respectful consideration of their request for an opt-out option without ideological prejudgment; and (c) forego any effort to coerce them to sacrifice their religious beliefs to gain the conditional “inclusion” offered by Council member Mink.

            As a public official, Councilmember Mink’s oath of office includes a commitment to support and uphold the U.S. Constitution and the Maryland State Constitution. See U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 3 and Maryland State Constitution, Article I, Section 9. Council member Mink should take a careful look at the Maryland Declaration of Rights, Article 36 (religious liberty), and Supreme Court decisions on religious freedom under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution instead of cavalierly dismissing the claims of religious liberty raised by various speakers during the June 6 meeting and other people seeking an opt-out option for the LGBTQA+ curriculum and materials in Montgomery County Public Schools.