Only in Congress can being a leader cost you a leadership job. Unfortunately, that’s the risk members take when their votes are driven by their conscience and constituents — not their careers. After a rough few years between Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and the House’s more conservative wing, GOP leaders have decided that some members have rocked the party’s boat a little too much.

As most Republicans know, there’s a price for bucking leadership — and Congressman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) is paying it. The popular North Carolina member, a respected member of the House, took it on the chin over the weekend for defying Boehner on last week’s rule vote for the trade bill. Like most conservatives, he knew that splitting with leadership would have its consequences. And losing his subcommittee chairmanship a few months into the new session is his.

In a purely punitive act, House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) stripped Meadows of his gavel just days after Mark voted “no” on the trade rule. One of 34 Republicans to rebel against Boehner, Meadows is among four people who are feeling the heat. Three others lost their prestigious whip positions — including our good friend Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.). Although none of the group were surprised, the punishment still stings.

For members like Franks and Meadows, who are among the most well-rounded conservatives in the House, the penalty was particularly severe. “I made a tough decision that I believe is in the interest of the Committee,” Rep. Chaffetz told reporters. “I think highly of Mr. Meadows but a change was needed based on multiple factors.” Although Chaffetz insisted the decision was his — and his alone — Mark’s choice not to vote for Boehner for Speaker in January almost certainly played a role. “We’re a team,” Boehner tried to explain, “and we’ve worked hard to get to the majority, we’ve worked hard to stay in the majority — and I expect our team to act like a team.”

When Politico broke the story, it pointed out that these procedural votes are the most aggravating for the GOP, since they typically fall on party lines. “Republican leadership sees the move as unacceptable — akin to ceding power to Democrats.” Like several conservatives before him, Meadows is being punished for choosing his constituents over party bosses. These type of petty acts (most of which are never reported because they happen behind closed doors on Capitol Hill) are driven by the demand for conformity to a certain party’s agenda rather than an agenda beneficial to the people who elected these members.

Ironically, these members were only doing what Americans asked of them: holding the line on conservative principles — the same principles that led to the wave of GOP success last November. It’s not only in America’s best interest, but the leadership’s, to have conservatives in the highest positions — men and women who are unapologetically strong on all three legs of the Republican stool: economic, social, and defense issues. If this is the standard leadership is setting — blind political allegiance — it’s no wonder that only 8% of Americans have confidence in Congress!

Fortunately for Meadows’s district, this Congressman isn’t backing down. “No one should be punished for voting their conscience and representing their constituents,” he said. “I didn’t run for Congress to be a Yes vote for House Republican leadership. I came here to represent the people of Western North Carolina. My voting card may have my picture on it, but it belongs to the people of Western North Carolina, and I will continue to listen to their voices regardless of the consequences.”

Currie Spices up Classroom Debate

Once upon a time, there was a teacher who undermined parents’ rights. Sound familiar? It should. This has become a common story in classrooms across America, as more liberal teachers latch on to kids’ books with homosexual themes. But for moms and dads in North Carolina, the news that their third graders were listening to gay fairy tales didn’t have the happy ending teacher Omar Currie hoped for.

A homosexual himself, the elementary school teacher thought the book King and King would encourage his class to treat others with respect. What he didn’t count on was the overwhelming feeling of disrespect parents felt when they weren’t consulted first. In the book, a crown prince rejects one princess after another until he falls in love with another man. The two marry, and the rest is supposedly history. Now, after a statewide controversy, Currie is history too. The teacher quit his job after weeks of backlash and district meetings. “I’m resigning because when me and my partner sat down and talked about it, we felt I wasn’t going to have the support I needed to move forward at Efland,” he said. “It’s very disappointing.”

Hours after he read the story to his class, Efland-Cheeks’s principal called Currie and asked for a meeting the next morning. Three parents had filed formal complaints, and within weeks, started a movement to remove the book from Orange County Schools completely. “When I read the story,” Currie admitted, “the reaction of parents didn’t come into my mind.” And that’s exactly the problem. If parents are going to entrust the moral and academic training of their children to government schools, then they need to be involved in what’s being taught. In this case, Currie took it upon himself to bypass families and introduce a controversial subject to eight-year-olds without even warning school officials.

As a result, 200 people turned out at a district meeting to demand the book be taken out of district classrooms. Twice, the committees voted to keep it. And while parents didn’t succeed in ousting King and King, they did manage to get a heads-up about what books are being taught. Under a new directive, teachers are required to submit a list of books teachers intend to read to students.

Fortunately in this case, school administrators were responsive to parents’ concerns. As David Parker will tell you, that’s not always the case. Back in 2004, he and his wife objected to the same book being read to his elementary school-aged son, and he was hauled off to jail for his objections! Like a growing number of moms and dads, the Parkers realized that it was time to consider other alternatives to public schools.

At some point, we have to step back and ask the question, “What is the purpose of school?” When did it stop being about the education of children and start becoming about political indoctrination?

This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Mr. Perkins is president of FRC.