Bethel Christian Academy, a private Christian
school that educates more than 250 students from pre-K through eighth grade, was
once a part of BOOST. Yet, after two years of participation, in August of 2018,
Bethel was removed from this voucher program. In addition, the state of
Maryland requested that Bethel pay back the $106,000 in state funds it had
received due to the discriminatory nature of the school.
To justify this decision, Maryland officials
pointed to a BOOST requirement which stated: “all participating schools must
agree that they will not discriminate in student admissions on the basis of
race, color, national origin, or sexual orientation.” Bethel’s mission statement is “to create an
authentic Christian learning community to train students to know, love, and
serve the Lord Jesus Christ, and to equip them spiritually and academically to
be lights of the world.” Although the school is dedicated to serving children
from all ethnic and religious backgrounds and affiliations, the school’s
handbook states that marriage can only between a man and a woman, and that God
assigns gender to a child at birth. Further, the school expects the conduct of
faculty, staff, and students to align with these beliefs. These views were
found to be discriminatory by the state of Maryland, leading to Bethel’s
expulsion from the program.
Prior to the removal, Bethel had admitted any
qualified student applicant, Christian or not, and had never discriminated
against an applicant based their sexual orientation. The school just expected
admitted students to comply with its faith-based conduct standards. Therefore, to combat this discrimination claim, Bethel Christian Academy has
filed a suit in the federal court claiming that the state has infringed upon its
First Amendment rights to free exercise, and has asked that the
court reinstate the school in the voucher program and dismiss the financial
reimbursement.
This case has broad
implications for the voucher system, anti-discrimination laws, and the
competing interest of religious liberties and civil rights. In this case, the
difference between belief and action must be accounted for. The BOOST
requirement states that there can be no “discrimination in student admissions” which is an action, not discrimination in belief. Bethel has not shown any discriminatory action as
it accepts any student who meets the school’s academic standards, while it
merely holds beliefs that some may view as discriminatory. Furthermore, the
low-income families who participate in this program have over 176
private school options. Once approved for a BOOST scholarship, a parent’s
decision to send their child to Bethel is the parent’s choice, not the state’s.
Thus, there is no endorsement of religion, as there are a multitude of private
schools available to choose from, both religious and non-religious. Consequently, the aid provided by the state is not give directly to religious schools. The tuition is
awarded to parents and therefore the distribution of aid relies solely upon the discretion of the parent to
decide which school fits their child’s education needs.
To reference Zelman v.
Simmons-Harris, in 2002, the Supreme Court ruled that the Ohio Pilot
Project Scholarship Program which provided tuition aid to attend public or
private schools, religious or non-religious, of the parent’s choosing, did not
violate the establishment clause. The court’s ruling was based upon the secular
purpose of this program to provide educational opportunities. The aid that religious
schools received financially was only due to the “true private choice” of the
recipients of the aid, not the state itself.
The ability of the state to
determine eligibility for the BOOST program in Maryland based upon the
religious beliefs of each school is unconstitutional. Barring certain religious
schools from this program creates a preference of non-religion over religion. Thus,
to maintain neutrality, both secular and religious school should be qualified
for this program. Looking to Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v.
Comer, in 2017, the Supreme Court ruled that the government
cannot exclude churches and other faith-based organizations from a secular
government program simply due to their religious identity. Like Trinity
Lutheran, Bethel Christian Academy is fighting for its right to participate in
a government program for which it is qualified for, without having to disavow its
religious beliefs. To be neutral in respect to religion, the BOOST program must give the choice of a secular or religious school to the parent, not
the state.
If this case were to make
it to the Supreme Court, proving the discrimination charge brought on by the
state would be challenging considering there is no specific case of a student
being discriminated against during Bethel's admissions process. Thus, the
rationale for Bethel’s disqualification will rely solely on the school’s
religious beliefs rather than actions. The beliefs of religious private
schools, such as Bethel’s, are being targeted and evaluated unfairly by this state
program. The state should not treat religious schools differently that
non-religious schools due to the state’s alignment with certain ideologies and theologies.
If the court decides to remove Bethel from this program, the state’s opposition
will be perceived as hostility towards religion.
Sources
3 comments:
This discussion came up in my education class as well. Essentially, the vouchers from the BOOST program seem to be a establishment of religion within themselves. They are tax supported vouchers that are being used at religious schools for the schools benefit. However, this is not the question at hand and I agree with the authors opinion. The way the vouchers work is that they can be redeemed at any school the families want. In addition, these families would not be able to go to some of the schools in the first place because of income concerns. This particular school could have helped a lot of low income kids that come in based off the voucher. I find it unconstitutional to not allow this school to be apart of the program if other private religious schools are.
I agree with the author's opinion on this case. However, my biggest question is does a school or any institution need to religiously discriminate before they can be deemed as having unconstitutional beliefs. Looking at the author's comment, "Thus, the rationale for Bethel's disqualification will rely solely on the school's religious beliefs rather than actions." Looking at past cases and this one, if religious discrimination can be predicted, is it constitutional to remove this school based on their beliefs?
I agree with the author. This is a regulation of belief, which has been deemed "absolute" by the Supreme Court. Until Bethel acts discriminatorily, there is no grounds for which they should be discriminated against by this program. BOOST is a direct aid to families, not to the schools. Therefore, I think how the parents wish to use this voucher is up to their discretion, not up to BOOST's choosing.
Post a Comment