Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Wisdom?
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
The Old and the New; the Wise and the ... well, the New
 |
 |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
| ||||
The Case for Catholic Schools (Part Four): Making a Statement for Educational Choice
This is the fourth in a series of six. Here you may find Parts One and Two and Three. As before, I have turned on the comments.
By choosing Catholic schools, we make a statement for educational choice that, when amplified by other parents making the same choice, may both strengthen educational choice and bring about reforms in this society that respect parents choice. (And, yes, this message is sent in equally compelling fashion by those who choose home-schooling.)
It is one thing to support parental choice. Nearly every informed Catholic supports the existence of educational choice and some form of vouchers or tax credits to allow more parents to make that choice. But it is another thing to exercise parental choice. By “putting our money where our mouth is,” so to speak, we clearly communicate to other Catholics, neighbors, and others that we believe in and are willing to take a stand for Catholic education.
By choosing Catholic schools (or home schools), we communicate several things, some explicitly and some implicitly:
* We clearly say that we cherish the right of parental choice in education by making that choice for our own children. Our friends and neighbors will see that people of character and responsibility in our society are the type of people that choose Catholic education, thus defeating the stereotype of those who bypass public education as odd religious zealots or societal misfits.
* We encourage other Catholic families to consider Catholic education for themselves. When they see our example, those who are on the fence or have been worried about whether it is possible or wise to forgo public schools may have the confidence to make the choice for Catholic education for their families. In other words, we become not only advocates, but witnesses, for Catholic education.
* We hearten dedicated Catholic educators, who have made considerable sacrifices to apply their educational training and skills to faith-based education. By showing that we appreciate their efforts and calling upon them to work with us in educating our children, we validate their work and inspire them to greater efforts and successes.
* We also make clear, perhaps more implicitly, that we will stand behind parental choice and can be counted to oppose regulations or public policies that would limit the ability of parents to make the right choice for education of their children, including religious choices. In this respect, those of us who believe Catholic schools are the best option should have no illusion but that the fate of Catholic education also turns on protection of the right of parents to make the alternative choice of home-schooling. The most aggressive of those who advocate for strictly regulating or prohibiting home-schooling, if they were to be successful, undoubtedly would turn their attention next to Catholic schools and other threats to the public school monopoly. Indeed, some secularists already are looking for greater government controls on private religious schools.
For some people, choosing private alternatives to the public schools counts as well as a protest against public schools, even a campaign to close or diminish public schools. Although I understand and respect that message, and I agree there is good reason to criticize much that happens in public education, the message of essential opposition to public schools is not mine. By endorsing parental choice, concretely and emphatically, and by expressing a strong preference for Catholic education for Catholic parents, I do not thereby suggest dismantling public education or denying that choice to parents who find it preferable. I do intend to challenge the public school monopoly over education (and believe that competition would also serve to reform public education). But my goal is to increase educational competition and not narrow the choices to only my preferred option.
In sum, the statement I suggest that we should and do make by choosing Catholic education for our children is a positive message for faith-based and other private school alternatives, at the choice of parents rather than government bureaucrats.
Greg Sisk
Monday, June 28, 2010
Feeding the Perception That the Government Stands in Opposition to People of Faith
With sometimes over-the-top rhetoric and with occasional exaggerated or even mythical tales of episodes, a growing number of religious leaders argue that our government has become, not just indifferent, but actually hostile to people of traditional religious faith. We are told that the government abandoned traditional values and respect for religious faith during the middle of the twentieth century, as represented most conspicuously by the ban on prayer in public school. Then, the argument continues, the government began in the 1960s and 1970s to promote liberal secular ideologies, such as typically found in public school sex education programs, which conflicted with traditional religious and moral teachings. Now, the story goes, the government has entered the final stage by affirmatively suppressing those who dare to express religious values in public life.
The exclusion of the Christian Legal Society as a registered student organization by the Hastings College of Law, which was upheld as constitutional in today's Supreme Court decision, will become another object lesson for those who portray our public institutions as hostile to people of faith. And that perception will be more powerful because, in this case at least, the perception is grounded in harsh reality. Even assuming good faith and sincere progressive ideals by the Hastings law school administration in its enforcement of "anti-discrimination" policies against the Christian Legal Society, the inescapable fact remains that a prominent member of the legal academy has suppressed a counter-cultural religious minority (that is, a minority in law school settings) and weakened the religious speech and association rights of traditional Christians in law school. With this, and similar bans or restrictions on student faith-based organizations that almost surely will follow at other publicly-funded law schools, the legal academy will be sealed more tightly into a liberal secular echo chamber.
Very sad. And so contrary to the principles of diversity and freedom of thought so often touted by the legal academy.
The Christian Legal Society is about as mainstream a religious organization as could be found in this country. Far from representing a tiny sliver of Christianity or espousing narrow sectarian theology, the Christian Legal Society has a "Statement of Faith" which every Christian can affirm. Nor is the organization a partisan political entity or one that holds to a fringe political agenda. Members of the Christian Legal Society range from fundamentalists and evangelicals to mainline Protestants and Catholics. Liberals, conservatives, Republicans, Democrats, political activists, poverty lawyers, big firm lawyers, small firm lawyers -- all are found in the active membership of the Christian Legal Society. Even in its position on sexual morality, espousing the traditional view that sexual relations should be occur only within "God’s design for marriage between one man and one woman," the Christian Legal Society reflects the broad mainstream of American Christianity. Like it or not, the overwhelming majority of Christian churches and denominations, attended by the overwhelming majority of the Christian faithful in America, adhere in official statements and church policies to traditional views on sexual morality. Those Christian denominations that accept same-sex or other non-traditional sexual relationships remain a tiny minority, mostly mainline denominations with declining membership. At present, an endorsement of traditional sexual morality represents the sweeping middle of American Christianity. Thus, for Hastings Law School to ban the Christian Legal Society from among its registered student groups takes a swipe at the lion's share of the believing population in this country.
One of the legacies of the Christian Legal Society decision will be the further decline by people of faith in support for public initiatives and the further withdrawal of many faithful people from engagement in public life. On the Mirror of Justice, we have had vigorous debates about Catholic teaching and principles and the use of government to promote the common good, especially the poor and disadvantaged. While we have had strong disagreements on the prudence of government involvement in certain matters and the degree of government involvement overall, all (or nearly all) of us on the Mirror of Justice agree that the public, sometimes through government activity, has a vital role in promoting the common good. That case will be harder to make in the future.
Why should people of faith support with their tax dollars public education programs when people of faith are excluded or denigrated? When public university presidents hold out their hands for more money (or at least fewer budget cuts) at each legislative session, why should people of faith respond favorably if public universities treat Christians as second-class citizens? Or, taking it a step further, why should people of faith trust the government to have a larger role in the economy through regulation of business enterprises or provision of health care, when too many government elites not only do not share the values of believers but appear to be hostile to them?
Greg Sisk
Christian Legal Society v. Martinez
I share Rick’s disappointment in today’s Martinez decision. Four quick points about the reasoning employed by Justices Ginsburg (for the majority) and Stevens (concurring):
First, has the Supreme Court ever had a gift that has kept on giving like Lawrence v. Texas? At oral argument, Michael McConnell argued (on behalf of CLS) that while a group could properly be prohibited from discriminating based on status, prohibiting discrimination based on belief unduly compromises a group’s ability to foster any sort of coherent identity. The Martinez majority rejected the feasibility of this distinction as posing a “dauting” task for a university to monitor, and then relied on the Lawrence Court’s statement that “When homosexual conduct is made criminal by the law of the State, that declaration in and of itself is an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination.” A religious student group’s right to participate in the life of the university may seem to raise starkly different considerations than the state’s power to criminalize sexual conduct engaged in primarily by a certain category of individuals, but apparently the status-belief distinction is no longer viable in either category.
Second, the majority noted that the law school’s (alleged) “all comers” policy could be a reasonable expression of the school’s desire to encourage tolerance, cooperation, and learning among students. Fair enough. But, the majority added, to the extent that the policy “sometimes produces discord,” the law school can reasonably include among its goals for the policy “the development of conflict-resolution skills, toleration, and readiness to find common ground.” The message to CLS: “you nutty evangelicals have the opportunity to learn tolerance and cooperation by admitting all students, even those who defy your group’s animating beliefs; if you find that this policy creates discord, you have the opportunity to learn conflict-resolution skills.” Obviously, the same skill sets could be equally in play with a policy that permitted groups to pursue their own chosen beliefs, with significantly less fallout for associational freedom and expression.
Third, Justice Stevens, in his concurring opinion, notes that “the policy may end up having greater consequences for religious groups . . . inasmuch as they are more likely than their secular counterparts to wish to exclude students of particular faiths.” (emphasis added) Note what this phrasing communicates about the Justice’s mindset. I’ve never met a CLS member or leader who desired “to exclude students of particular faiths.” The point, for CLS and every other religious group of which I have been a part, is to engage in the mutual formation and expression of truths held in common. A desire to exclude is not the point of the project, nor is the exclusion aimed at “particular faiths.” The exclusion is a consequence – and usually a consequence that is neither celebrated nor trumpeted – of a commitment to meaningful inclusion.
Finally, the Court emphasizes that the reader should not confuse the advisability of the law school’s policy with its permissibility. That seems to be the next challenge – how can we help expand our public discourse about “discrimination” to include a recognition that associational diversity is a key component of religious and moral liberty, and that even if a university now has the right to make all groups accept everyone, it’s a right best left unexercised?
The Court gets it wrong on "discrimination", diversity, and speech
The Court handed down its opinion in the Christian Legal Society case this morning. By a 5-4 vote, the Court upheld a rule requiring officially recognized student groups at Hastings College of the Law to "accept all comers" as members and leaders. As Justice Alito explains in his dissent, this rule is not the rule that was actually applied to the Christian Legal Society when it was denied official recognition for insisting that its members and leaders affirm a Christian statement of belief. Instead, this "accept all comers" rule -- which, even if it were in fact the rule, would be a very silly rule -- seems to have been seized upon in order to make less apparent the extent to which Hastings was singling out the Christian Legal Society, its views, and the views of other such groups, for special disapproval. (Justice Stevens' concurring opinion is more candid in expressing this disapproval.)
The opinion and outcome is, I think, deeply disappointing. (Note: I filed, with Tom Berg, an amicus brief in the case.) Like Justice Alito, "I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that today's decision is a serious setback for freedom of expression in this country." What is particularly unsettling, even ominous, is that the Court -- and Justice Kennedy in his concurring opinion -- seems entirely unable to understand (or perhaps simply does not believe) that it is not invidious, and it is not contrary to dialogue, diversity, education, etc., for associations to act in accord with a shared, distinctive ethos.
The Temple of Our National Religion?
Sunday, June 27, 2010
The Case for Catholic Schools (Part Three): Expanding Access to Catholic Education for All Catholics
This
is the third in a series of six.
Here you may find Parts One and Two. As before, I have turned on the comments, which have been
interesting and vigorous and, almost without exception, have been thoughtful
and generous in substance and tone, both in agreement and disagreement. (Note: While I have not removed any comment thus far, anonymous
comments will be deleted in the future; your email will not be disclosed on the
blog.) I am sure that I will learn
from the continuing discussion accompanying this thread, and I know from the
feedback both on and off-the blog that Mirror of Justice readers are watching
the unfolding discussion with anticipation.
In
today’s post, I suggest that no single action we could take does more to
increase access to Catholic education for all Catholic families than to support
our own parish Catholic school by choosing it for our children. As I emphasized in the preface to this
whole discussion (Part One), parents rightly should have the power to make
educational choices for their children, a right which we as Catholic lawyers,
legal scholars, and advocates in public life should zealously defend (more on
that point tomorrow). As I also
said then, faithful Catholic parents will reasonably make different choices
under different circumstances. But, when Catholic parents are balancing the
factors and educational options for their children, a powerful additional
reason to select a Catholic school is that such an affirmation enhances
opportunity for others as well.
Consistent with Catholic Social Teaching, solidarity with other Catholic
families and the preferential option for the poor are advanced by an
educational choice that opens up Catholic education to the impoverished, to
struggling single-parent families, to families suffering recent unemployment,
etc.
When
those of us who have been financially blessed make the economic sacrifice of
forgoing the public schools supported by our taxes and instead paying tuition
for our children to attend Catholic schools, we thereby enhance educational
choice for others in two vital ways.
First, by supporting Catholic schools, we ensure that future generations
will have the same opportunity for quality Catholic education that was afforded
to us and our children. Second,
because Catholic schools nearly always operate close to the margin, especially
in the parish setting, stability and growth in tuition-paying students makes it
possible for Catholic schools to offer scholarships for Catholic children whose
families could not otherwise afford Catholic education.
In
our legal and public advocacy, we as Catholics should encourage and defend
public policies that expand educational choice for all. The Supreme Court’s decision in Zelman
v. Simmons-Harris in 2002 upholding tuition aid to Cleveland students seeking
alternatives to the failing public schools, specifically including faith-based
education, was a tremendous victory for educational choice. But the Court upheld school choice by a
narrow five-to-four margin, and some state courts have ruled against vouchers
to religious schools under state constitutional provisions. Moreover, even though
constitutionally-validated, such programs exist in only a few places, such as
Cleveland, Milwaukee, and, until recently, Washington, D.C. But while full educational choice for all, regardless of economic means, is a battle yet to won, we can take modest steps now as Catholic parents to expand access for other Catholic families through our support of Catholic schools.
In any strong Catholic parish with an elementary school at its heart, no Catholic family in the parish should be turned away from Catholic education because of disadvantage. And if the parish and parish school are not financially able to afford such an opportunity to all parishioners, then we have work to do in strengthening that parish and school so that Catholic education is accessible to every Catholic family. Likewise, we should be supporting the precious Catholic high schools in our community, including contributing to scholarship programs (a step which I myself need to take but have not yet), so that all Catholics can enjoy the faith-based and academic opportunities that they offer. In contrast with so many politicians who choose private schools for their children while holding the door shut against others, we should put our commitment to educational choice into concrete action by not only choosing it for ourselves but by helping to open the door for others.
Greg Sisk
USCCB on the Phoenix abortion case
Here is the US Bishops' Committee on Doctrine's statement on the Phoenix abortion case.
Richard M.
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
