Debate Desk
Should Religious Schools Be Excluded From Public Programs Like Vouchers?
The Court has held that states may not exclude religious schools from neutral aid programs; the old Blaine amendments were born of anti-Catholic bias.
The claim
Opponents say that taxpayer dollars should not go to schools that teach religion, that doing so forces citizens to support beliefs they do not hold and that a strict separation protects both church and state.
The answer in three points
- Neutral programs treat religious and secular options alike. When a state gives families money to spend on education and the families choose a religious school, the aid goes to the family, which chooses. Excluding the religious option penalizes a family because of its faith.
- The Supreme Court has said so in a line of cases. Trinity Lutheran v. Comer (2017), Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020) and Carson v. Makin (2022) held that states may not exclude religious schools or churches from otherwise available public benefits because of their religious status or use.
- Many of the state rules at issue, called Blaine amendments, came from a nineteenth-century movement against Catholic immigrants and their schools. Using them today to exclude families from programs repeats the discrimination that produced them.
The principle is simple: the government may not penalize a family or a school for being religious. A state is free to fund education broadly or not at all, and if it chooses to fund it, it must do so on terms that do not single out faith for exclusion. That leaves the choice to the parents, where the law and the founders placed it.
The numbers
- The Supreme Court decided Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue in 2020 by a vote of 5 to 4.
- The Supreme Court decided Carson v. Makin in 2022 by a vote of 6 to 3, holding that Maine could not exclude religious schools from its tuition program.
- Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002) upheld a voucher program that included religious schools, by a vote of 5 to 4.
What they will say next
"Taxpayers should not fund religion." Taxpayers fund many things they dislike. In a neutral program, the funds follow the choice of the family, and the government endorses nothing.
"Religious schools can discriminate in admissions." Programs can set conditions, and many religious schools serve students of other faiths. The state can set academic standards for all.
"Public schools need the money." The purpose of public funds is education of children, and the school is the means.
"This ends separation." It follows from neutrality. A state that excluded religion from aid would be treating it with hostility.
A family's choice of school is a matter of conscience, and the state should treat all choices equally.
"Religious schools may teach what public schools cannot." True, and families who choose them know it. A program can still require that every participating school meet academic standards, report results and follow the law on safety and civil rights. Accountability and neutrality are compatible, and the families in these programs are usually the ones with the fewest other choices.