The United States Supreme Court's announcement that it will
decide whether Cleveland's school voucher program is
constitutional was welcomed by Agudath Israel of America,
which has long been a proponent of permitting the use of U.S.
tax moneys by parents to educate their children in the schools
of their choice.
As to the constitutional question, the Orthodox Jewish
organization has argued in numerous legal briefs -- including
briefs in earlier stages of the Cleveland case -- that as long
as funds are provided to parents and not directly to schools,
such programs, even when used for religious schools, do not
violate the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment separation of
church and state.
The Court said it will hear three related cases arising from a
program that provides tuition aid to parents of nearly 4,000
students who left public schools in Cleveland that their
parents felt were failing. Lower courts have reached opposite
conclusions about whether the program is constitutional, and
the High Court's decision, expected next June, will settle the
issue -- and perhaps decide the fate of similar programs in
other states as well, depending on the grounds that the Court
gives in deciding the questions.
Commented Agudath Israel's executive vice president for
government and public affairs, Chaim Dovid Zwiebel:
"For far too long, the debate over school vouchers has been
dominated by legalistic discussions of constitutional concern.
If the Supreme Court upholds the Cleveland program, as we
expect it will, perhaps we'll finally get around to focusing
on the really important issue: improving education by
expanding parental choice."
Beyond the issue of vouchers itself, which divides the Jewish
community, the ramifications of a Supreme Court decision could
extend beyond education to the government financing of other
activities, including charitable choice.
In its first week, the Supreme Court ruled on an issue of
concern to the Jewish community when it rejected an appeal by
four Orthodox Jewish students who claimed Yale University had
violated their religious beliefs by requiring them to live in
coed dorms.
The voucher decision could have a major effect on charitable
choice, the expansion of government funding to faith-based
groups to provide social services.
The issues are seen as similar because both involve public
funding for religious-based programs.
The policy, which had been a top priority in the early months
of the Bush administration and is still favored, remains one
of the most divisive issues in the Jewish community.
Many secular Jewish groups fear that an expanded partnership
between government and faith-based Jewish organizations could
break down the constitutional walls separating church and
state and infringe on religious liberties.
Orthodox groups favor allowing religious institutions to play
a greater role in providing social services.
The high court, often controlled by a 5-4 conservative
majority, is closely divided on church-state separation
issues.
The justices had several opportunities to rule on the
constitutionality of vouchers in the past few years, but chose
to sidestep the issue by declining specific cases.
Another case of interest to Jewish groups that is already on
the court's docket this term is one that addresses how people
with disabilities are accommodated in the workplace.
The court's decision in that case could shed light on how it
might deal with cases involving religious accommodation in the
workplace.
Jewish groups also are watching several cases that the Supreme
Court may yet decide to take. One would examine the
constitutionality of a moment of silence and another would
further delve into the constitutionality of prayer at a
graduation ceremony.
The court could also take up one of several cases challenging
race as a factor in college admissions policy, an issue that
divides Jewish groups.
Also, some terrorism-related cases could find their way to the
high court as a result of the Sept. 11 terror attacks in New
York and Washington.
These cases could look at issues of interest to the Jewish
community such as racial profiling, search and seizure
techniques, wiretapping and detention of suspects.
