Archive

ShareThis Page
Using a bludgeon in Wis. | TribLIVE.com
News

Using a bludgeon in Wis.

Tribune-Review
| Wednesday, November 19, 2014 9:00 p.m.

MILWAUKEE

It is as remarkable as it is repulsive, the ingenuity with which the Obama administration uses the regulatory state’s intricacies to advance progressivism’s project of breaking nongovernmental institutions to government’s saddle. Eager to sacrifice low-income children to please teachers unions, the Department of Justice wants to destroy Wisconsin’s school choice program.

DOJ’s perverse but impeccably progressive theory can be called “osmotic transfer.” It is called this by the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL), which is defending Wisconsin children against Washington’s aggression. DOJ’s theory is: Contact between a private institution and government can permeate the private institution with public aspects, transferring to it, as if by osmosis, the attributes of a government appendage.

Children are accepted for the choice schools randomly and no child accepted by the lottery can be rejected by a school until its capacity is filled. Parents of admitted children are informed by the private schools — about 85 percent of them religious — if the schools cannot afford to offer to those with disabilities as rich a menu of services for the disabled as government schools offer. If the parents consider this unacceptable, they can return to public schools. Tony Evers, Wisconsin’s Department of Public Instruction (DPI) superintendent, acknowledged in 2011 that the DPI had never received a complaint from parents alleging discrimination against a child with a disability.

Nevertheless, DOJ suggests that the choice schools discriminate because they do not offer the panoply of services that public schools, with ample state and federal funding, offer to children with special needs. DOJ is attempting to order Wisconsin’s DPI to require the choice schools to offer services they cannot afford or leave the voucher program.

Closing the voucher program is the obvious objective of the teachers unions and hence of the Obama administration. Herding children from the choice schools back into government schools would swell the ranks of unionized teachers, whose union dues fund the Democratic Party as it professes devotion to “diversity” and the downtrodden.

The Supreme Court has held that commandeering state officials to enforce federal laws is unconstitutional. This, however, is the least of DOJ’s departures from the rule of law.

Religious schools are exempt from certain requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. And the ADA section that DOJ is commanding the DPI to enforce against the choice schools applies only to “public entities.” Undaunted by inconvenient law, DOJ argues that because public funds, in the form of tuition vouchers, flow to private schools, the schools become “public entities.”

Inconveniently for DOJ, the U.S. Supreme Court has said the fact that a “private entity performs a function which serves the public does not make its acts state action.” The Supreme Court has held that under voucher programs government does not place children in schools; placements are made by parents empowered by vouchers.

The good news is that Washington is bludgeoning Wisconsin with a legal theory too cynical to succeed. The bad news is that the bigger government becomes, the bolder it becomes in bullying people with legal complexities, confident that its nastiness will rarely be noticed because there is simply too much government to monitor.

George F. Will is a columnist for The Washington Post and Newsweek.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com 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.