Zelman vs. Simmons-Harris the First

Zelman vs. Simmons-Harris

The First Amendment of the Constitution dictates that all persons within the United States have the right to live their lives freely, according to their choosing, and without fear of persecution for any reason, whether on the grounds of religion, race or any other distinctive trait. The issue touched upon in the Zelman vs. Simmons-Harris case (2002) is indeed a constitutional one, but also one that is complicated and that can be viewed from either side. It appears however that the decision of the Supreme Court to allow public funds to be used for private schooling, whether religious or not, does to a certain degree defeat the inherently constitutional provision of non-discrimination and freedom of choice for all persons.

The impact of the decision on classroom practices is significant. The decision to allow public funds to go towards underprivileged children being educated in religious schools would result in a greater inflow of students to such schools. This in turn would result in a growth in this type of religious schooling, which could again impact upon the schooling system in general. Not only would these children then receive the "quality" of education aimed at by the ruling of the Court, but such education would also be religious. Children educated under these circumstances are not exposed to the constitutional freedom of choice in terms of, among others, religion. Thus, while the parents admittedly exercise their constitutional freedom of choice, these choices are imposed upon children. Parents therefore perceive that the educational needs of their children are met, whereas in fact this is not the case.

The quality of education that each child needs does not entail only academic instruction, but also a holistic type of instruction that will best equip them to live within general society. Allowing parents a choice of private schools that include those focusing on singularly religious teaching thus does not meet the needs of the child from the point-of-view of the rights guaranteed by the constitution.

American children need to be educated as Americans. This entails that the Constitution is primarily important, as it is the law upon which social fabric rests. In the classroom then, children should be exposed to the concepts of both choice and tolerance in every area of life. The tendency in religious schools is not to include this in classroom practice. Children's needs in these schools are seen from a religious viewpoint rather than a social one. Thus classroom practice focuses on this. Providing public funding for this type of education would encourage an increasing number of schools to adopt this practice, as the demand from the religious sector of the public would be higher.

As stated above, using public monies for private education that might include specific religious instruction is unconstitutional in terms of student needs. It is however also unconstitutional in terms of public freedom. While a stand can be taken from parents' point-of-view, that they see the needs of their children as including religious instruction, funding for such education should be on the shoulders of the parents themselves. They should not expect taxpayers to carry religious as well as general education. Quality of education is another concern altogether. Everybody has the right to a high quality of education. But specific education such as religious instruction should not rest on the shoulders of the public.

It is true that everybody has the right to instruct their children according to the religious choices available. Providing public funding for this however entails a fundamental problem relating to tolerance. The American public is made up of a wide variety of groups in terms of religion, race and ethnicity. Funding for education is carried by taxpayers, regardless of creed or religious choice. Allowing such funding to be used for possible discriminatory choices is thus discriminatory in itself, although it is not seen as such by the Court.

The decision of the Court is explained by the exact argument of freedom of choice. The money is provided for education. Any further choices are not the concern of the government providing the funding, as parents are free to choose for their children whatever education they deem necessary for the productive adulthood of the children. Once again, this argument fails in the light of the above discussion. Parents should not expect public funding for private religious schooling, because this is unconstitutional.

The problem is that the government leans towards a religious orientation rather than a socially constitutional one. The tendency is thus to interpret the law from this viewpoint, or indeed to manipulate the law in a way that favors a religious view. This might be seen as the basis for the Supreme Court decision in the above case. The needs taken into account then are not those of the children, but those of the parents receiving the funds, as well as those of the government in its mission to make the United States increasingly prejudiced in terms of religion. Neither the needs of the public, nor those of children are considered in a holistic manner.