Replies

As expected, the AJC is taking a position against expanding Jewish educational opportunities if this is in conflict with leftism. This should not be a suprise. Check out their tag line, "Advancing Religious, Ethnic, and Racial Understanding Worldwide." The word "Jewish" is missing. This is universalist leftism.

http://www.ajc.org/InTheMedia/PressReleases.asp?did=564

AJC Denounces Supreme Court Decision Upholding Cleveland Voucher Program
June 27, 2002 - New York -- The American Jewish Committee expressed severe disappointment with the 5-4 decision by the United States Supreme Court today in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris finding Cleveland's publicly-funded voucher program constitutional.
"This decision represents a troubling endorsement of unsound public policy, and, by allowing for the direct government subsidy of religious education, takes a battering ram to the constitutionally mandated wall of separation between church and state," said Jeffrey Sinensky, AJC's General Counsel. Nevertheless, he added, "AJC is undeterred and will continue to fight vouchers as invalid under state constitutional laws that often contain more stringent safeguards."
As a strong supporter of public education, AJC believes that the use of public money to support private schools, sectarian and nonsectarian alike is simply bad public policy. Contrary to the claims of voucher advocates, government subsidies will not make the difference for many low-income parents as to whether their children attend private schools. Many of those parents who now cannot afford private schools without vouchers will still be unable to do so with vouchers. Thus, low-income families will, as a rule, still be unable to send their children to quality private schools.
"Voucher initiatives create an illusion that they will somehow assist the public-school system by introducing competition," said Mr. Sinensky. "However, most poor children will remain in a public-school system already subject to severe budgetary constraints, especially in the inner city."
Mr. Sinensky emphasized that "voucher programs will inevitably deplete scarce resources even further, weakening public schools by diverting limited tax revenues to private and religious schools that often face no requirements for how they spend tax dollars on curriculum content, teacher certification, student testing, enrollment diversity, and services for students with disabilities."
The Cleveland program provided students with publicly funded vouchers to attend "alternative schools," including religious schools. Because of the way the program was designed, over 80 percent of the schools participating in the program were religiously affiliated and over 90 percent of the students enrolled in the program used their vouchers for tuition at a religious school.
As it did in the lower courts, AJC filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court arguing that, "despite its laudable goal of improving educational opportunities for a select group of students, the program is a misguided effort both in policy and in law." On the constitutional question, AJC's brief pointed out that the program is "grossly skewed towards religious education" and has the impermissible effect of directly subsidizing the religious missions of the participating schools.
Serving as counsel to the AJC brief were Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, University of Southern California Law School Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, and New York attorneys Howard G. Kristol, Michele Cerezo-Natal, Jai Maitra Griem, and Thomas F. Wong.
###
Contact: Kenneth Bandler (212) 751-4000 Ext 271 PR@ajc.org