Immaculate Heart of Mary,
a Catholic School in Michigan, is filing lawsuits to challenge the State over
its public health mandate, with no public funds being provided to help meet
that standard. The School says that it should not have to burden itself to comply to public mandates while not enjoying public benefits. They argue that they are disadvantaged by this arrangement, stemming from the Blaine Amendment. The Blaine Amendment is an amendment that has at this point be added to 38 states constitution, which states that no money from the public may not go to religious schools. The Michigan version is particularly strict in that it does not allow for vouchers. The ACLU is engaged in a court battle from last year over a passed 2.5 million appropriation to help private schools met their mandate, they and public school plaintiffs say that the appropriation could serve as a "gateway" to vouchers and violates the state's no aid to private instruction policy. The
The two positions boil down to if it is constitutional to aid religious schools for the sake of meeting public mandates. Bursch, a former Michigan solicitor general said, “When you’re talking about funds for hundreds of thousands of private school students for the public purpose of safety and welfare, that’s clearly a public purpose.” On the flip side is the right of the state to not fund private schools and expect them to meet public criteria. The public and ACLU supporter claim to not target the religious schools, Steven Norton, an executive director of Michigan Parents for Schools, said his group joined the ACLU’s lawsuit because the $2.5 million for private schools appeared to be an attempt to chip away at the rules about public funding. “The question isn’t whether schools belong to or are affiliated with any religious organization,” Norton said. “The question is whether the schools are accountable to the public or not.”
I do not agree with the anti-Catholic sentiment of the amendment, as the motion is equally prohibitive to all religions, and all private institutions. The school is not being discriminated against due to religion, not is it disadvantaged from being religious, it is disadvantaged for being private. For the argument of the school receiving aid to adhere to public mandate, it is a religious school, so on top of the private argument, they must defend their other status. I find the Blaine amendment to be constitutional, as it does not burden or advance religion, the school is burdened by its mandated public safety requirement, but that is not part of the Blaine Amendment. I agree with the Justice Jackson opinion of “No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion,” although I have to disagree with his conclusion in Everson v. Board of Education. If we take this statement from Justice Jackson and the Lemon test we can find that any sort of reimbursement of money given to the Catholic school will aid its religious instruction and establish it. In order to be an accredited and safe institution under Michigan law, you must adhere to public mandated ordinances, even if not a publicly funded school.
The two positions boil down to if it is constitutional to aid religious schools for the sake of meeting public mandates. Bursch, a former Michigan solicitor general said, “When you’re talking about funds for hundreds of thousands of private school students for the public purpose of safety and welfare, that’s clearly a public purpose.” On the flip side is the right of the state to not fund private schools and expect them to meet public criteria. The public and ACLU supporter claim to not target the religious schools, Steven Norton, an executive director of Michigan Parents for Schools, said his group joined the ACLU’s lawsuit because the $2.5 million for private schools appeared to be an attempt to chip away at the rules about public funding. “The question isn’t whether schools belong to or are affiliated with any religious organization,” Norton said. “The question is whether the schools are accountable to the public or not.”
I do not agree with the anti-Catholic sentiment of the amendment, as the motion is equally prohibitive to all religions, and all private institutions. The school is not being discriminated against due to religion, not is it disadvantaged from being religious, it is disadvantaged for being private. For the argument of the school receiving aid to adhere to public mandate, it is a religious school, so on top of the private argument, they must defend their other status. I find the Blaine amendment to be constitutional, as it does not burden or advance religion, the school is burdened by its mandated public safety requirement, but that is not part of the Blaine Amendment. I agree with the Justice Jackson opinion of “No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion,” although I have to disagree with his conclusion in Everson v. Board of Education. If we take this statement from Justice Jackson and the Lemon test we can find that any sort of reimbursement of money given to the Catholic school will aid its religious instruction and establish it. In order to be an accredited and safe institution under Michigan law, you must adhere to public mandated ordinances, even if not a publicly funded school.
5 comments:
This issue reminds me of Everson v Board of Education. I believe that this issue should be decided in a similar manner to Everson v Board of Ed because only funding that is necessary should go towards private schools. This includes things such as transportation, policing, etc. If the government is providing these necessary things to public schools, the government also has a vested interest in making sure that the private schools are up to standard for the good of the kids. If the policy is related to school safety, it has nothing to do with religious education. Additionally, it is not discriminatory as these are the same standards for both public and private school. Therefore, in this case, I support Immaculate Heart of Mary.
As was ruled in Everson v. BOE, a public mandate must serve a compelling state interest and neither advance nor hinder religion. In this case, the Michigan public health mandate does both. Not only is there a compelling state interest to ensure all students receive the regulated vaccinations and treatments, it is also indisputably separate from a religious obligation/practice. Therefore, when a state policy needs to apply to public and non-public schools, it must be facially neutral by providing equal funding to both. I therefore support Immaculate heart of Mary in that failing to do so directly hinders Catholic schools. Thus, not providing the funds is discriminatory on the basis of religion.
I would have to disagree with your standing. If private Michigan schools are complying with State health mandate, they should be entitled to some reimbursement, if the State finds it appropriate. I agree with Bursch's statement, there is a clear public interest in ensuring private school adheres to the State's health mandates. It is obviously costly for these school who would probably like to use the funds for complying with the mandatory public health mandate, elsewhere. $2.5 million is a relatively small portion of Michigan's $16 billion education budget and it appears many of these private schools are struggling for funding. I also disagree with the statement, "If we take this statement from Justice Jackson and the Lemon test we can find that any sort of reimbursement of money given to the Catholic School will aid its religious instruction and establish it." I find reimbursements for textbooks, complying with state mandates, and other secular reimbursements to have a secular purpose. Thus, if the State has a compelling interest to aid nonsecular schools for the purpose of benefiting the general welfare then, they have the right to do so.
I respect your opinion but cannot agree with your belief on the issue.
To start, although yes, the Blaine amendment technically treats all religions the same,it was created, as with all other Blaine amendments, during a time of anti-Catholic and anti-Mormon beliefs. The amendments were made for the express purpose of burdening minority religious schools because the public education system was largely controlled by Protestant values and practices.
Secondly, although you could argue facial neutrality towards all religions, the amendment isn't neutral to religious and secular institutions. Private, religious schools are burdened just for the fact that they are religious.
To respond to the point about public funds indirectly aiding religion, the practice, in precedent, has been allowed many times including Everson vs. Board of Ed. and Zelman vs. Simmons-Harris.
It was determined in Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing that services such as bussing, police protection, and fire protection for parochial schools are "separate and so indisputably marked off from the religious function." I believe bussing and forms of protection are of equivalent importance to a public health mandate. In addition, a public health mandate is secular in purpose.
Post a Comment