Posted on 07/24/2003 6:59:15 PM PDT by ShandaLear
Don't Carve Out a Religious Exception to Scholarship Funding for Students By Jay Sekulow Chief Counsel, American Center for Law and Justice The Supreme Court of the United States will have an important opportunity this fall to ensure that states cannot discriminate against college students who desire to focus on religious studies by denying them state scholarship funding - money that is provided to other students who choose a non-religious field of study.
The case before the Supreme Court will have profound implications and is likely to set a precedent that will apply to all state scholarship programs throughout the country. The case before the court originated out of the state of Washington where Joshua Davey, then a freshman at Northwest College in Kirkland, Washington was awarded more than $1,100 for the 1999-2000 school year through the Promise Scholarship. The Washington program provides financial assistance to students with economic need who exhibit high academic credentials and are enrolled in an accredited public or private post-secondary school within the state. Like scholarship programs in other states, the Washington program is based on need and awards academic excellence.
Davey met all of the qualifications. The Governor sent him a letter congratulating him on receiving the scholarship. But the state pulled the financial aide when Davey declared that he would pursue a double major in Pastoral Ministries and Business Management. The state withdrew the offer citing a policy that proclaimed state scholarship funds could not go to a student who focused on religious studies. In fact, the scholarship check had been cut - ready to go to Davey - but was pulled back once the state learned of his major.
The American Center for Law and Justice filed suit against the state of Washington on behalf of Davey. In July 2002, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned a district court ruling and declared the Washington policy unconstitutional saying the state did not have "a compelling reason to withhold scholarship funds" from Davey. The court also determined that the state's policy "lacks neutrality on its face" and concluded that the state "impermissibly deprived Davey of his scholarship."
The appeals court got it right. The state policy represents blatant anti-religious, viewpoint-based discrimination that violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
This case comes just one year after the Supreme Court voted 5-4 that states could constitutionally provide public funds in the form of school vouchers for parents to use at religious schools. The same legal principles that the court found to be constitutional in the voucher case are the same legal principles at stake in this case.
When the Supreme Court hears this case next fall, my oral arguments before the Court will focus on convincing a majority of the justices that the discriminatory action exhibited by Washington against Davey is not only wrong, but unconstitutional.
There is no constitutional prohibition for state scholarship funds to be used to further the education of students who want to major in religious studies. In fact, to deny those students scholarship funding - to carve out an exclusion based on religion - is a violation of their constitutional rights.
Nearly 40 states around the country have laws or policies on the books similar to the state of Washington. It's time for that type of discriminatory behavior to cease. The Supreme Court reached the proper conclusion last year in the school voucher case. Where will the Court come out on this issue? We believe the answer must be on behalf of students like Josh Davey who should never be penalized for choosing a particular course of study.
Jay Sekulow is Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice (www.aclj.org) - an international public interest law firm specializing in constitutional law. Mr. Sekulow will represent former Washington state college student Josh Davey before the Supreme Court in oral arguments this fall. The ACLJ is based in Washington, D.C.
Better plan: eliminate government loans for college.
Does that help?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.