The following is the opinion and analysis of the writer:
On June 30, a five-justice majority of the U.S. Supreme Court opened the door to state funding for religious schools.
In the case of Espinoza v. Montana, the majority held that while states were not required to aid private secular or religious schools, if they chose to do so they must make assistance available on an equal basis to all such schools.
This did not violate the U.S. Constitution’s “establishment clause” on religion, the opinion held, because state funds would be provided “neutrally” to nonpublic secular and parochial schools.
Parts of the ruling went further, suggesting existing prohibitions on aid to parochial schools mandated by the constitutions of 38 states might well be invalid because they originated in 19th century anti-Catholic agitation.
Since the Reagan administration, Republicans had urged that tax dollars be allowed to go directly or indirectly as student vouchers to private and religious schools. This was described as expanding family’s “freedom of educational choice.”
President Trump and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos hailed the court’s recent decision while liberal commentators feared the court had torn down part of the “wall of separation” between church and state.
Until the mid-19th century, the few religious primary and secondary schools in the United States were mostly Protestant and received minimal or no state aid. That changed with the influx of Irish, later Italian, immigrants after the 1840s.
Soon, Catholic parochial schools emerged as the main alternative to public schools. Irish and Italian Catholics flocked to parish churches and schools as sanctuaries amidst an often hostile society.
Many elite Protestants resented the religious and political views expressed by new immigrants and members of the Catholic hierarchy. Specifically, some prelates criticized democracy and voting as contrary to church dogma.
Many Catholics saw public schools as undermining orthodoxy because teachers often began the day reciting Protestant-style prayers and Bible readings, practices that continued through the mid-1960s.
Worried that the growing Catholic population might press state legislatures to fund parochial schools, church critics took preemptive action. In 1875, Maine Congressman and presidential aspirant James G. Blaine (later mocked by opponents as “Blaine, Blaine, continental liar from the state of Maine”) introduced a constitutional amendment to bar any government aid to parochial schools.
Although Congress narrowly failed to adopt the amendment, an undeterred Blaine convinced 38 states to incorporate this plank into their state constitutions. Several decades later, the new state of Arizona included similar but less ironclad language in its constitution.
For most of the next century, the Blaine amendments insured that no state funds supported parochial schools and that public schools promoted the twin ideals of democracy and a diffuse Protestant religious outlook.
Gradually, state and church leaders reached an accommodation, or quid pro quo. Catholics (and all faiths) were permitted to offer K-12 education with minimal civil oversight. In return, they would not press for or receive state funding.
State and federal provisions allow limited public funds to assist children with special needs enrolled in parochial schools. Overall, however, the “wall of separation” has remained largely intact.
Over the past two decades, conservative Protestants have allied with some Catholics to challenge the status quo. Objections to how public schools address issues such as sex education, gay rights, abortion, evolution and climate change created a partial united front among these previously antagonistic groups.
Not incidentally, the number of private Protestant schools increased dramatically since the 1960s, especially in the South where so-called segregation academies arose in response to racial integration. (Catholic schools, in contrast, were mostly integrated.)
In his concurring opinion, Associate Justice Samuel Alito suggested it might be time to overturn most state prohibitions on aid to religious schools or institutions because of the blatantly anti-Catholic origins of the Blaine amendments.
For all practical purposes, the court “neutered” these provisions. With state legislatures now free to steer tax dollars to religious schools, the question remains whether or not such schools would be subject to state oversight.
By extension, would it be permissible for states to directly fund churches so long as all faiths were equally eligible for a subsidy?
How, one might speculate, would President Trump or Education Secretary Betsy DeVos react to taxpayer dollars underwriting, say, the “Osama bin Laden Martyrdom Madras” or a Christian fundamentalist “No Jews or Muslims get to heaven” academy?
More likely, the diversion of scarce tax dollars to religious schools would not so much expand choice as starve public education.
The “wall of separation” long standing between church and state has served the nation extraordinarily well since its founding. Tearing down the guard rails presents a host of perils.
