Olaf Growald
Attorney Warren Norred (back, left) with FWISD parents (left to right) Hollie L. Plemens, Kerri Rehmeyer, and Todd Daniel
The debate over whether the Fort Worth Independent School District (FWISD) would require face coverings came down to the wire the week Fort Worth Magazine went to press with its October issue — a situation perhaps best illustrated by the events that transpired on Sept. 13, when FWISD’s mask mandate came and went within, literally, a matter of hours.
After weeks of back-and-forth exchanges among anti-mask parents, pro-mask parents, and the pro-mask ISD over whether the district can enforce face coverings — despite Gov. Greg Abbott’s executive order not to — FWISD had planned to go back to school that Monday with a mandate in place as it awaited a decision from the Second Court of Appeals in Fort Worth.
That same day, the appellate court granted a temporary injunction preventing the mandate, at least until the case goes to trial on Jan. 17, 2022.
So, as of press time, the scales of justice appear to be tipping in favor of parents against masks, with the ISD issuing the following statement: “The District and the Board stand firm in strongly encouraging all students and employees to wear a mask while inside any Fort Worth ISD school or facility.” No representatives from FWISD could be reached for further comment.
Still, the court’s decision hasn’t stopped passionate parents from voicing their stance on the matter.
The parent more or less leading the lawsuit against the district is Jennifer Treger, who has three children at FWISD. Her fight actually dates back to January, when she attempted to file for a religious exemption so her kids didn’t have to wear masks at school. “Our strongly held belief is that God gave us immune systems and our bodies can fight [diseases] and requiring masks is a form of tyranny,” she says.
Her request was denied, so she filed for a medical exemption, saying one of her children has had a history of respiratory issues. She got denied again.
“That’s when I looked at my husband and said, ‘When do parents get to have control back over their children and prevent them from becoming government property?’” Treger says.
On Aug. 10, less than a week before the first day of school, Treger received an email from the district stating that all students and staff will be required to wear masks inside FWISD facilities. So Treger called Arlington-based attorney Warren Norred and — together with fellow parents Todd Daniel, Kerri Rehmeyer, and Hollie L. Plemens, listed as Jane Doe in the original petition — filed a lawsuit against the district and superintendent Kent Scribner asserting that the defendants acted out of line by enforcing a mask mandate despite the governor’s explicit order.
On Aug. 13, 141st district court judge John P. Chupp ruled in the parents’ favor, blocking the mandate. At first, it appeared that Treger and her team had won. But when court proceedings on the case resumed Sept. 3 — and Chupp again granted a temporary injunction against FWISD’s mask mandate — the district opted to appeal.
FWISD filed its appeal with the Second Court of Appeals on Sept. 9, essentially pausing the temporary injunction and making the mask mandate enforceable again. The ISD sent word to parents that a mask mandate will be back in place starting Sept. 13.
But, just hours after the mandate took effect that Monday morning, the Second Court of Appeals knocked it down, making mask-wearing once again unenforceable by the district.
If you’re confused, well, so are kids and parents at FWISD.
For parents like Treger, the stance against mask-wearing hinges on three main arguments: that children shouldn’t be forced to wear masks because they don’t get affected by COVID-19 as severely as older individuals, that masks are not as effective as some claim, and that mask-wearing can actually be harmful, leading to increased inhalation of carbon dioxide and psychological effects that can impede learning.
For the first claim, parents suing the ISD cite the source that’s harped on mask-wearing from the get-go — a July 2021 article by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), stating that “children are less likely to develop severe illness or die from COVID-19.” According to the CDC, younger individuals tend to experience milder symptoms or be asymptomatic, hence making them also prone to spreading COVID-19 without knowing it.
Doctors and other officials at Cook Children’s Health Care System, however, continue to stress that children are not entirely exempt from serious symptoms. In a State of the System news conference held Sept. 1, the hospital disclosed that it had seen 1,129 children with COVID-19, 241 of which were admitted to the Intensive Care Unit. Seven died, including a 4-year-old and 15-year-old the week the news conference took place.
“Adults have borne the significant brunt of the burden, but that doesn’t mean kids haven’t been affected, including both having the disease themselves plus having destruction in their families due to family members being affected by COVID-19,” Dr. Justin Smith, a pediatrician at Cook Children’s, told Fort Worth Magazine in an interview. “It’s not necessarily fair to say that kids haven’t been affected.”
The second claim — that masks are not as effective as many believe — pulls from a May 2021 article published by the American Institute of Physics, which states that “standard surgical and three-ply cloth masks, which see current widespread use, filter at apparent efficiencies of only 12.4% and 9.8%, respectively. Apparent efficiencies of 46.3% and 60.2% are found for KN95 and R95 masks, respectively, which are still notably lower than the verified 95% rated ideal efficiencies.”
That contrasts with recommendations published by the CDC, Mayo Clinic, and other sources advocating masks to protect from COVID-19. A January 2021 article published by the National Academy of Sciences, for example, notes multiple studies on mask usage, one of which took place in Beijing, where “face masks were 79% effective in preventing transmission if they were used by all household members prior to symptoms occurring”; granted, “none of the studies looked at the relative risks of different types of mask.”
The article concluded “in favor of widespread mask use as source control to reduce community transmission.”
The third claim argues that masks do more harm than good. A June 2021 article, published by JAMA Pediatrics, initially claimed that masks increase carbon dioxide intake but was later retracted in July. Parents also express concern over the effects mask-wearing may have on mental health — a concern backed by University of Southern California public policy professor Neeraj Sood, PhD, and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD. Their July 2021 article, “Mandatory Masking of School Children Is a Bad Idea,” contended that mask-wearing impedes communication and makes positive emotions less recognizable.
Dr. Smith at Cook Children’s says he agrees — and disagrees: “For me, that’s the saddest part about masks … But for now, the benefits of masks outweigh the downside when it comes to mental health because it helps us to keep schools open and keep kids in school.”
Todd Daniel, one of the parents involved in the lawsuit against the ISD, says he recognizes conflicting opinions over mask-wearing. At the end of the day, he says, the issue is about who truly has the authority — the governor or the district — and whether health becomes the responsibility of the individual as opposed to a governing body.
“I’m not trying to force anyone else in my belief system,” Daniel says. “But a mask mandate is — it is trying to force everyone into a belief system. That’s what the divide is.”
THE MASK DEBATE AT FORT WORTH ISD: A TIMELINE
July 29: Gov. Greg Abbott issues executive order that masks cannot be mandated at government entities.
Aug. 10: Fort Worth ISD sends an email to parents stating that masks will be required for students and staff who enter FWISD facilities.
Aug. 12: Jennifer Treger and three other parents file a lawsuit against FWISD.
Aug. 13: 141st district court judge John P. Chupp issues a restraining order, blocking the mask mandate.
Sept. 3: Court proceedings resume for the case. Judge Chupp again grants a temporary injunction blocking FWISD’s mask mandate. FWISD opts to appeal.
Sept. 9: FWISD files appeal with the Second Court of Appeals, pausing the temporary injunction and allowing the mask mandate to be enforceable again. The mandate was expected to begin Sept. 13.
Sept. 13: Second Court of Appeals reinstates a temporary injunction, and the mask mandate is once again unenforceable.
Jan. 17, 2022: When the case is expected to go to trial.
