"Liberal" and "conservative"

[Greg Sisk]

Paul Finkelman's point perhaps would have merit if the government had
not already intruded into this area by establishing government-run
schools that enforce a secular-view of reality in classrooms and to
which parents are required under penalty of law to send their
children -- unless of course they have the resources to go to a
private school.  Thus, the tax dollars of devout citizens who believe
that education must include express and regular acknowledgment that
they are the people of God are re-directed against their will to
institutions that have a very different view of the world.

Now I am not suggesting that there is any constitutional infirmity in
government establishing public schools or contending that public
schools could legitimately impose a religious viewpoint in the
curriculum.  I do not agree that public institutions may do so.  But
rather, I am saying that when we consider the question of vouchers,
we have to get back to first principles.  Professor Finkelman assumes
that the status quo of government-run schools is the foundation and
thus any proposal that does not put those government-run schools at
the forefront is a "massive transfer of money from people of one
faith to those of another."  But that neglects the fact that the
status quo already represents a major government intervention into
private life with severe consequences for religious liberty.

Instead of putting a government institution (public schools) in the
position of first priority, supporters of vouchers put parents first
and argue that they ought to have the choice of the appropriate
educational institution for their own children.  In a universal
voucher program, funds would be provided to parents -- not to schools
or churches, etc. -- who would then determine how it is to be spent
to further their child's education, a choice that would reflect their
own religious or non-religious views.  In other words, parents of
school-age children would have the very same educational options that
parents and college-age students already have to use financial aid at
the higher education level (where of course federal financial aid is
available on an equal and neutral basis to support attending
religiously-affiliated colleges and universities, as well as those
which are not).

In any event, a universal voucher plan is not likely in the cards.
President-elect Bush's proposal is a very narrow plan, applying only
to public schools that repeatedly fail to meet standards.  That
proposal can hardly be characterized as benefiting the elite or those
who are already sending their children to religious schools.  Failing
public schools tend to be those to which poor families in inner-city
areas are obliged to send their children.  Even after devoting
increasingly larger sums of money, many of these schools still fail
to provide a minimally-decent education.  For example, I have read
that the Cleveland School District spends the largest amount of money
per student of any district in the state, and yet educational quality
remains unacceptably poor in many of those schools.  For the
thousands of poor families provided access to an alternative in
Cleveland through a voucher plan (that of course is under continual
legal attack), the argument that vouchers benefit only the wealthy
and have nothing to do with access to quality education is
contradicted by reality.  Telling those families, as opponents of
vouchers have for decades, that they should keep trusting in the
public schools and things eventually will improve is cold comfort.
As a matter of basic morality, we cannot sacrifice another generation
of children in our most vulnerable communities on the altar of a
blind commitment to public education in every circumstance.


>Eugene:
>
>I guess it is hard for most of us to comprehend how religious
>liberty is served by using my tax dollars to support *someone
>else's* religious education.  Throughout our history religious
>liberty has worked best when 1) the govt. has stayed out of the
>business of running a religion and 2) the govt. has stayed out of
>the business of collecting tax dollars to support religion.
>
>It is a nice twist to always frame the argument as tax support for
>the poorest people to attend the school of their choice, but that is
>not the issue.  Almost ever religious school I know of goes out of
>its way to find scholarship money for the truly poor members of its
>faith that want to attend a church related school.  The reality is,
>that state aid to private school education will mostly benefit the
>elite, and secondarily others who are *already* sending their kids
>to religious schools.  It will simply be a massive transfer of money
>from people of one one faith to those of another, from some
>believers to other believers, and from non-believers to believers.
>This is hardly religious liberty.   "School choice" as you call it,
>with tax dollars supporting it  is not a "religious liberty."  We
>have that liberty; you are free to send your children to whatever
>school, or no school, as you choose.  Anything beyond that tramples
>on the religious liberty of everyone else.
>
>I am surprised, actually, that someone who is able to parse case law
>so carefully, simply accepts this  political slogan so easily.
>
>--
>Paul Finkelman
>Chapman Distinguished Professor
>University of Tulsa College of Law
>3120 East Fourth Place
>Tulsa, OK  74104
>
>918-631-3706
>Fax 918-631-2194
>
--
Gregory Sisk
Richard M. & Anita Calkins
   Distinguished Professor
Drake University Law School
2507 University Avenue
Des Moines, Iowa  50311-4505
515-271-4184
greg.sisk at drake.edu