The end of another school year has arrived—and for most of us in the legal academy probably arrived several weeks ago. For those of us who are parents, the elementary and secondary school year also has come to an end, although summer vacation for our kids is still new and fresh (at least to our kids if not us parents).
In recent weeks and months, members and friends of Mirror of Justice have reminded us of the vital importance of Catholic elementary and secondary education generally, for our children and communities:
In a very important work, “Catholic Schools and Broken Windows,” (SSRN) Margaret Brinig and Nicole Garnett explore the impact that the disappearance of Catholic schools has had on urban neighborhoods.
Patrick Brennan in “Differentiating Church and State (Without Losing the Church)” (SSRN) reminds us that the liberty of the Church has often been closely associated with the availability of Catholic education, citing the closing of thousands of Catholic schools in France as totalitarianism rose in the years before World War II.
With some regularity, the Mirror of Justice has hosted discussions of educational choice and the need for vouchers to allow children from disadvantaged families the option of attending a high quality Catholic school if they so choose.
And, of course, Rick Garnett has been indefatigable in boosting Catholic education. His philosophy, which I share, was most directly presented two-and-a-half years ago in this Mirror of Justice post: “I am a big fan of Catholic schools. Every parish should have one, every Catholic kid should be in one.”
To be sure, in determining the best education for their children, Catholic parents cannot all be expected to reach the same conclusion about whether to enroll children in the local public school or to select a Catholic school. Family resources, number of children, the particular needs of each child, the availability of a quality Catholic school in the parish or nearby, special academic opportunities or other programs in other public or private schools, and other factors and circumstances will lead parents in one or another direction.
In starting a short series of short posts on why Catholics generally should choose Catholic schools for their children, I acknowledge these factors and circumstances. Reasonable Catholics of good will can and will weigh those factors and circumstances differently. Moreover, as a strong believer that parents are entitled to make educational choices and not have those choices dictated, I would not presume to state some kind of “law,” moral or otherwise, on this question.
Instead, I humbly suggest that all things being equal, Catholics should begin with a rebuttable presumption in favor of Catholic schools and should support public policies that strengthen the ability of Catholic parents to choose Catholic schools, just as other parents should be empowered to make the best educational choice for their children.
Over the next few days, I will make that case in five more parts, turning on the comments for others to add thoughts or critique:
(1) Catholic education offers the best venue for children to learn to integrate faith into all aspects of life.
(2) For parents of means to choose Catholic schools for their own children enhances the opportunity for other families of lesser means to do the same.
(3) By choosing Catholic schools, we make a statement for educational choice that amplified by other parents may bring about an educational reform in this society that respects parents choice.
(4) Vital Catholic schools are important to a vital community, having an impact on neighborhoods beyond the parents and children who attend.
(5) Maintaining strong Catholic schools strengthens liberty and the role of the Church in public life.
Although I’ve already turned on the comments, you may wish to wait until each individual point is made in the days to come before adding your thoughts. More tomorrow.
Greg Sisk
Thursday, June 24, 2010
This is, I think, good news: A judge in Quebec has invalidated -- calling it "totalitarian" -- a requirement that Quebec had imposed on Catholic schools that the schools teach a state-crafted-and-controlled "Ethics & Religious Culture" course from a "neutral" perspective:
This from the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance:
A recently introduced bill to reauthorize federal drug treatment programs includes language to ban from participation faith-based providers that take account of religion in hiring This is an attack on the SAMHSA Charitable Choice language that President Clinton signed into law in 2000. The bill would also undermine the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), also signed into law by President Clinton, in 1993. RFRA is Congress's own measure to ensure that the government respects religion when it acts.
The bill is HR 5466, co-sponsored by Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) and Rep. Gene Green (D-TX). The bill would reauthorize federal substance abuse treatment funding that is administered by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA).
The bill proposes to add to the Public Health Service Act, Title V, the requirement that every grantee and contractor must agree to "refrain from considering religion or any profession of faith when making any employment decision" about anyone who will be involved in providing the federally funded services. And this ban on religious hiring "applies notwithstanding any other provision of Federal law, including any exemption otherwise applicable" to a religious organization. . . .
I think I need a CTRL-ALT-"hiring for mission by religious institutions is not discrimination of the kind that should be troubling, even when those institutions contract with government to provide social-welfare services" macro.
Here is a worth-reading piece, in Christianity Today, about the (possibly) troubling implications of the Administration's shift from the term "freedom of religion" to "freedom of worship."
. . . The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom noted the shift in its 2010 annual report. "This change in phraseology could well be viewed by human rights defenders and officials in other countries as having concrete policy implications," the report said.
Freedom of worship means the right to pray within the confines of a place of worship or to privately believe, said Nina Shea, director of the Center for Religious Freedom and member of the commission. "It excludes the right to raise your children in your faith; the right to have religious literature; the right to meet with co-religionists; the right to raise funds; the right to appoint or elect your religious leaders, and to carry out charitable activities, to evangelize, [and] to have religious education or seminary training." . . .
The softened message is probably meant for the Muslim world, said Carl Esbeck, professor of law at the University of Missouri. Obama, seeking to repair relations fractured by 9/11, is telling Islamic countries that America is not interfering with their internal matters, he said.
As with all diplomatic decisions, the move is a gain and a loss, Esbeck said. Other countries may interpret the change as a sign that America is backing down from championing a robust, expansive view of religious freedom, which if true would be a loss, he said.
But the State Department has traditionally ignored religion's impact on foreign affairs, he said. "The Obama administration seems, at least in part, to get that a large part of successful foreign relations is taking religion into account."
If Obama is telling the State Department to be religiously sensitive, that's a gain, Esbeck said. . . .
I am in lovely (and steamy) Brooklyn for the first (I hope) annual Law and Religion Roundtable, and am enjoying the company, fellowship, and ideas of fellow MOJ-ers Rob, Amy, Michael P., and Patrick, along with many other great scholars in the field. Kid, meet candy store. More (substantive) updates to come . . .
