http://www.gsusignal.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/01/10/43c495b1c4f11The right wing’s attempts to hijack government funding for their religion hit another road block last week when the Supreme Court of Florida declared a private school voucher program to be in violation of the state constitution. Coming on the heels of the Pennsylvania federal ruling recognizing “intelligent design” for the theological hokum it is, the Florida ruling is neither shocking nor revolutionary. This case is merely the latest in a long line declining to provide government aid to help accomplish the infinitely expansionist agenda of the “evangelical” Christian church.
The pivot of the Florida decision is a clause found right at the beginning of the education section, Article IX of the Florida Constitution, specifying that “{a}dequate provision shall be made by law for a uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality system of free public schools….” The court cites a 1927 ruling that if a law defines a specific way of accomplishing its goals, it impliedly prohibits any other method. Because the constitution imposes a duty to educate the state’s citizens and specifies “free public schools” as the method of doing so, vouchers for private schools are right out.
Further, and to my mind more importantly, the court held that the requirement of uniformity was also violated. Private schools receiving voucher students weren’t required to meet the same standards as public schools. Because the government gives the money to the family of the voucher student instead of directly to the private school itself, the school is able to sidestep all the requirements aimed at “schools receiving public funds.” What does this add up to? Non-uniform schools.
Though the two dissenters argued that there was no evidence before the court that the schools were actually non-uniform, the five-member majority held that such evidence was unnecessary. To hold such regulations inapplicable in the private school context is impliedly to say that it is okay for private schools to deviate from them. This is like declaring that prohibitions on murder don’t apply to Tom, then, when someone complains, ruling that such regulations don’t need to apply to Tom because the plaintiff can’t show that Tom actually committed murder.