Future Church-State Battles Loom

Wall St Journal ^ | July 1, 2002 | RICK GARNETT

[SJackson]

In constitutional law, as in comedy, timing is everything.

Last week, just before the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of Cleveland's school choice program, an appellate court in California shocked even the Senate with its decision that the Pledge of Allegiance violates the First Amendment. In light of the Supreme Court's determination that the Ohio vouchers do not "establish" religion, one would be right to wonder about the law governing church-state relations. How could the same few words of the Constitution require both these results?

[SJackson]

Though I disagree with his dissent, Justice Souter has a clear understanding where the risk of vouchers lies, and where the real battle will be fought. It's in creating private religious schools that, over time and with "federal help" may become as "religious" as your typical Church founded college.

[camle]

it used to be "Church/State SEPARATION", not it's Church/State "RELATIONS" new euphemism heard here first.

[anniegetyourgun]

Agreed. It is a danger. However, it's also a first step in breaking up the monopoly. Tax credits have a better chance now. (That angle is not popular ONLY because we have so many folks not paying taxes.) I for one will support anything that furthers the separation of state and school.

[robertpaulsen]

It would be a potential problem if the religious school was forced to take the children with vouchers. Most schools are very selective, especially if you're not a member of the associated church. Troublemakers are not tolerated.

[FreeTally]

It would be a potential problem if the religious school was forced to take the children with vouchers. Most schools are very selective, especially if you're not a member of the associated church. Troublemakers are not tolerated.

Thank you for posting that. I too try to point that out everytime the excuse that private schools will lose their independence once they except "public" money. That will not happen. No religious school is going to bow down to the government's requests over a couple thousand dollars a year. Accepting vouchers doesn't really help the private school, it helps the student. It could actually hurt the private school - remember, these students are supposed to becomming from failig schools where the education is sub-par. The private schools will simply not accept vouchers if there are "strings attached".

[Guillermo]

Judge Souter is absolutely correct. That's why I'm totally against vouchers.

Private schools who take vouchers will soon be public schools.

If I was a leftist, I would be pro voucher.

[apillar]

That's the one thing that has always troubled me about vouchers.

Vouchers look good now, tuition paid with no strings attached, but what happens ten years down the line when a religous school get 60% of it's funding through voucher students?

The government starts passing laws making vouchers contingent on institutions offering birth control, passing government "inspection", teaching a government approved cirriculum, hiring only union "NEA" employees.

The school would then have some very difficult choices, massive layoffs and downsizing or compromising their principles. The liberal argument will be, well it's the governments money, we should have some say in how it's spent.

Think the government wouldn't do it? Look at the laws to cut off federal highway money to states in 2003 if they don't lower their blood alchol level to .08 That's just one example their are many more.

[Pietro]

"Justice Souter's dissent foreshadowed these conflicts when he warned that religious schools which accept "public" funds in the form of vouchers should not be surprised when those funds come with secularizing regulatory strings attached"

You're absolutely correct and this is the reason I've been somewhat skeptical re vouchers. If the state can dictate everything from curiculum to hiring practices to acceptance criteria they have the ability to destroy the private schools just they have done to the public schools. The crux of the argument is whether or not these are "public" funds.

The stakes have been raised. Which makes the battle for control of the courts all the more critical. And that battle is waged at the polling booth, and it won't be won by voting 3rd party.

[Congressman Billybob]

Give it a rest on the "vouchers-will-destroy-religious-schools" argument. The G.I. Bill started subsidizing college educations for returning veterans in 1945. For more than a half century, students have been using military scholarships to attend any college they chose, including Notre Dame.

I have not noticed that Notre Dame University has somehow become "less religious" by force of law, in that 57 year period? Have you?

School vouchers are a form of scholarship, in which the recipient (or his/her parents) has free choice in picking the school where they will be used. Either explain why 57 years of federal scholarships have not destroyed Notre Dame University, or recognize that your argument is faulty.

Congressman Billybob

Click for: "Supid is as Stupid Does, Even Among Federal Judges."

[Khepera]

court affirmed the right of a private group to determine its own values, and to hire and fire on the basis of those values. So why are businesses (which are a private group) not allowed the same consideration as the Boy Scouts? I believe it is unconstitutional to tell businesses they cannot discriminate in their hiring and firing practices.

[okiedust]

You make a good point, but college is considered desirable but optional. Elementary and secondary education are compulsory and in the national interest, hence public schools are fully funded by the government. Don't you think that argument will be used to insert government activity into private elementary and secondary schools if they begin to accept voucher students? Allowing parents total freedom to choose the education for their children threatens the governments control. They will fight viciously to keep their hands on the controls.

regards

[SJackson]

Give it a rest on the "vouchers-will-destroy-religious-schools" argument. The G.I. Bill started subsidizing college educations for returning veterans in 1945. For more than a half century, students have been using military scholarships to attend any college they chose, including Notre Dame.
I have not noticed that Notre Dame University has somehow become "less religious" by force of law, in that 57 year period? Have you?
School vouchers are a form of scholarship, in which the recipient (or his/her parents) has free choice in picking the school where they will be used. Either explain why 57 years of federal scholarships have not destroyed Notre Dame University, or recognize that your argument is faulty.

Though I've known a few grads, I don't know much about Notre Dame. If you're telling me that Notre Dame provides a rigorous Catholic education to it's students, I guess I have to believe you, though I'm skeptical.

I’m a graduate of a Protestant college, as is my son. My daughter and son and law attended a large Catholic college. In no instance did any of those schools have any religious agenda at all. Maybe Notre Dame is an exception.

Vouchers don’t have to destroy religious schools, but it is a significant risk. If I was pro secular, anti voucher, the battlefield I’d be preparing for is the one expanding federal regulations to schools accepting federal funding (as is done with private colleges who accept federal scholorship $ or research grants).

I think “giving it a rest” is simply giving the opposition a head start. This is a battle they will fight. Voucher programs should originate at the state level, and must recognize school independence from the start.

A question, Catholic schools in Chicago accept many non-Catholic students who want to receive an education. I don't know percentages, and it doesn't matter. At what attendence level of state or federally (worse) funded non Catholic students do you think the Chicago archdiocese will be on the receiving end of a lawsuit abridging their right to force a "Catholic" education on their students? I'd suggest the threshold will be low.

This isn't a death knoll, simply a problem we have to be prepared to face, preferably in advance in voucher enabling legislation.

[Richard Kimball]

Agree with your statements. Would also point out that there will be serious issues with lawsuits specifically intended to make the private schools as incapable of having standards or discipline as government schools are now. Tuition at private schools will likely jump enough to cover the vouchers while still requiring out of pocket expenses similar to what most parents are paying now.

There will also be a spate of con artists opening schools just to get the federal funding. What I fear most is vouchers for home schooling. We home school, but the reason home schooling is so effective is that it's difficult enough that people only do it because they want their children to get a better education. Once some people find out they can get a $2500 voucher, you're gonna see a bunch of "home schooled" kids roaming the streets while mom collects the welfare. Then, of course, home schooling will fall under the same guidelines.

It can work, but we're going to have to deal with the leeches and gremlins who are immediately going to follow the money or try to screw it up.

[taxcontrol]

I disagree

The government has NO business in public education. If you push government in public education, the parents need to have options that allow the OUT of the public schools and the 14th amendment says that everyone should be treated the same way.

If the taxpayers fund X dollars per student in public education, the same about should be available to the student to attend any school of choice.

The TRUE issue here is equality and empowerment of the student/parents. If an atheist wants to send their children to an atheist school (current public schools) then fine, they can use their funds to do so. Others place higher emphasis on values - not diversity. As such, we feel that the proper raising of children REQUIRES an emphasis on what is right and wrong. Those values are NOT being taught at public schools and what is even worse - those values are being DIRECTLY contradicted by the current education.

I do not want my kids learning that homosexuality is a NORMAL lifestyle. I want them to know that GOD calls it an abomination.

I do not want my kids to learn that fighting is bad. I want the to know that there ARE things worth fighting for in life. Things like this nation, freedom and justice.

I do not want my kids being taugth that sex is ok for teens. I want them to know that GOD wants them to be virgins till they are married - both boys and girls.

I do not want my kids taught that boys and girls are the same. I want them to know they are different, that they react differently, that they have different needs, and that those differences should be celebrated - not masked and repressed into one overall Amorphous group of non-individuals.

I do not want my kids taught to "pass". I want my kids to know that merit, ability and acheivement is what takes a person to the top in this world. Not just getting by.

I do not want my kids being taught to be muslim, or to ape an arab warrior on jihad. I'm raising my children to be christian and to obey GOD's word as revealed in the Bible.

I do not want my kids to be taught that guns are bad. I want my children to know that guns are dangerous but they have a purpose and use.

In short - I want the government to get out of the business of trying to raise my kids and teach them values. I will teach them values. All I want them to teach is english, math, science, american history and american government. Prepare them for college by arming them with facts, research techniques, and study habits. I will prepare them for life by teaching them that there is such a thing as right and wrong. That we will be held accountable for our actions - even if not seen, caught or convicted by the LAW.

Now, having said my full rant, allow me to address the point of the voucher strings. Yes, there is a danger that will happen. BUT, it is already happening now!!!!

Those things that you fear about the strings for vouchers are ALREADY IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS! To prevent the same "strings" from attaching themselves to vouchers, we must be ever vigilant against those who would try to impose their views on us.

Just my .02

[John O]

At what attendence level of state or federally (worse) funded non Catholic students do you think the Chicago archdiocese will be on the receiving end of a lawsuit abridging their right to force a "Catholic" education on their students? I'd suggest the threshold will be low.

if the Chicago Archdiocese is anything like the diocese where I attended school, I'd say that the suit would be laughed out of court. The enrollment was a contract stating exactly what the school would do, exactly what the parents would do and exactly what was expected of the pupil. One family in my school didn't like it that their precious little baby boy was paddled for some infraction and tried to protest. The principal pulled out the contract, waved it in their face and said (basically) shut up or get out. They got out with no tuition reimbursement. That was covered in the contract also.

(I thought it was just too cool)

God Save America (Please)

[SJackson]

if the Chicago Archdiocese is anything like the diocese where I attended school, I'd say that the suit would be laughed out of court. The enrollment was a contract stating exactly what the school would do, exactly what the parents would do and exactly what was expected of the pupil. One family in my school didn't like it that their precious little baby boy was paddled for some infraction and tried to protest. The principal pulled out the contract, waved it in their face and said (basically) shut up or get out. They got out with no tuition reimbursement. That was covered in the contract also.

State court in Illinois you’re right, lots and lots of Notre Dame grads. Federal court could be different. The very contract that your principal used is what will be challenged (and is in some cases now).

I don’t oppose vouchers, though I think they should be state administered and funded, not federal funding. Every state may not want them, which is fine.

But I think we need to be vigilant about the potential for influence, particularly as these programs grow. Administrative rules have a way of establishing themselves under most peoples radar screen.

Your principal’s decision making process would have been different if his school got 25% of it’s funding from the government, and if the government administrators decided to ban or discourage corporal punishment. He might have come to the same decision, others might not, but he’d be operating in a changed environment.

[Guillermo]

Well, public money sure changed the Citadel and VMI

[John O]

Your principal’s decision making process would have been different if his school got 25% of it’s funding from the government, and if the government administrators decided to ban or discourage corporal punishment. He might have come to the same decision, others might not, but he’d be operating in a changed environment.

In the theorized case above She (a feared and vicious nun nicknamed hook), upon being informed that corporal punishment wasn't allowed for voucher students, would have expelled the lot of them and said take your vouchers elsewhere. And the parish would have stood up and cheered for her.

Catholic schools will remain Catholic. Private protestant schools (those that are Christian) would remain Christian. The only ones that would buckle under are the liberal protestant (non-Christian) schools which are essentially public schools now anyway.

GSA(P)

[SJackson]

Catholic schools will remain Catholic. Private protestant schools (those that are Christian) would remain Christian. The only ones that would buckle under are the liberal protestant (non-Christian) schools which are essentially public schools now anyway.

Could be. Note Guillermo's example of VMI and the Citadel in 17.

Again, I'm not opposing anything here (other than federalized vouchers, state level is where it belongs), just pointing out a risk we need to be very aware of.

[Guillermo]

Not only VMI and Citadel, but EVERY "private" university that takes federal money in the form of grants, scholarships etc has to abide by it's standards in regards to hiring, firing and admissions.

One might say "well, this is OK as they are not messing with the curriculum", but I would have to disagree. In Universities, each school has wide latitude in choosing its curricula. This is not the case in K-12, where the Gov't makes it up for them.

Vouchers = Gov't deciding the curriculum of private schools. If I ran a private school, I would refuse Gov't money.