ShareThis Page
This isn’t the ‘American way’ |

This isn’t the ‘American way’

George F. Will
| Sunday, February 17, 2002 12:00 a.m

WASHINGTON – Roberta Kitchen of Cleveland, Tracy Richardson of Pensacola, Fla., and Tony Higgins of Milwaukee are black and have school-age children. And they are enemies of the American way. So say People for the American Way, teachers unions and others in the anti-choice coalition waging last-ditch resistance to people like Kitchen, Richardson and Higgins.

The three were in Washington last week to talk about their lives because this Wednesday the Supreme Court will hold in its hands their happiness and that of millions of similarly situated parents and children.

The case comes from Cleveland, where Kitchen, who is raising five children abandoned by their alcoholic and drug-addicted mother, has participated in a program that provides $2,250 scholarships to low-income students to attend participating private or suburban public schools. The program empowers parents to choose alternatives to the Cleveland public schools that Ohio declared to be in a state of “academic emergency” when the school district flunked 27 of 27 standards for student performance. At Euclid Park school, drug and gang-infested, one of Kitchen’s children reached sixth grade getting good grades — and essentially unable to read.

When Richardson’s income was $11,000 a year she rescued her daughter from a failing school through a Florida program similar to Cleveland’s. Higgins’ income was $14,000 when a similar Milwaukee program for his child that included after-school supervision enabled him to continue his education part-time. He gets his college degree this August.

Anti-choice forces have lost six consecutive attempts to get the Supreme Court to declare unconstitutional — as violating the separation of church and state — all programs in which individuals were empowered to direct public funds to religious schools or programs. The court says such empowerment is permissible, on two conditions. The conditions are tailored to prevent the perception of government endorsement of religion, and to guarantee that the primary effect of the program is not to advance religion.

One condition is that the choice of where to spend the money is a “true private choice” — what Justices O’Connor and Breyer have called a choice ” wholly dependent on the student’s private decision.” Cleveland’s program satisfies those justices’ condition: Scholarship checks are payable to the parents, who designate the recipient school.

The other condition is “neutrality.” Educational assistance must be for a class — in Cleveland, poor children — defined without reference to religion; the program must contain no incentive to choose religious schools; and the range of choices must include more than religious schools.

The anti-choice coalition attacks Cleveland’s program by substituting a misleading statistic for the court’s carefully crafted principle. The coalition says the program must be unconstitutional because so many parents have chosen inner city religious schools.

But of course most have. They have severely restricted options because suburban public schools refuse to receive poor inner city scholarship children. So the suburban schools have created the statistic which opponents of school choice say renders the program unconstitutional. Were the court to accept this perverse argument, it would be permitting a third-party veto over a program perfectly neutral regarding religion. Such a veto would be analogous to something the court has hitherto disapproved.

The anti-choice coalition’s position is that because some schools — those in the suburbs — reject poor inner city children, no school should be permitted to participate in the program. However, the court has held that under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, when public schools fail to provide appropriate education, children can choose to receive it, at public expense, from private schools.

Children in Cleveland, and millions elsewhere, are being disabled — their opportunities as restricted as they would be by some physical or mental disabilities — by the anti-choice coalition’s campaign to turn the Constitution into a barricade to prevent poor children from escaping from the public school plantation.

This is “the American way”• Surely the court will disagree.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.