Vouchers and the Constitution

by Christopher G. Adamo

Perhaps it is time for a "reality check" in the debate about the notion that school vouchers might violate the Constitution. At issue here is not the question of whether the use of vouchers at religious schools compromises the vaunted "separation of church and state," though such is the chief argument being made by their opponents in a case presently being heard in the United States Supreme Court. In truth, the overwhelming majority of those who vehemently oppose school vouchers have absolutely no problem with "religion" being taught in the schools, just as long as it is their religion of "political correctness." Possessing a malignant zeal sufficient to make them the envy of the Taliban, the gurus of “PC” have entrenched themselves at the very heart of this country’s education establishment.

Make no mistake about it, the philosophy of the "politically correct" amounts to nothing less than a religion of secularism, complete with a dogmatic code that must be blindly accepted, adhered to, and professed. In a manner completely consistent with the most oppressive “religious” structures, humiliation, censure, and even excommunication await those "heretics" who refuse to wholly embrace its precepts. What is of greatest concern to the disciples of “PC” is that its facade can only be maintained within the impressionable minds of young people in the total absence of any contradictory evidence. Hence, educational vouchers pose a mortal threat to the agenda of those on the left by ensuring that a huge portion of the children, presently stranded in the grip of the public education monopoly, could escape into private schools where they might once again focus on academic basics.

Of course, none of the above is likely to enter into the arguments being presented to the Court. Instead, the professed contention of voucher opponents is that, by allowing public funds to eventually find their way into religious schools, the government is somehow “endorsing” such schools, and thus the religious institutions which sponsor them. Sadly, though nonsensical on its face, this argument has been allowed to go virtually unchallenged over the years while numerous instances of government “funding” of religious institutions can be readily found in our midst.

Consider, for one example, the case made by opponents of educational choice that, since the vast majority of vouchers used in Cleveland’s private schools (where the lawsuit originated), are being redeemed at Christian and parochial schools, government money is being unfairly channeled into religious organizations. Justice David Souter (who single-handedly proves how irrelevant one’s credibility is to have been appointed by a Republican President), seems to buy into this notion, suggesting that since 96 percent of voucher money goes to religious schools, some inappropriate advantage exists for them. According to Souter, “The money’s going to end up where it’s going to end up, and the 96 percent is pretty persuasive.” Sidestepping the obvious question of just what percentage Souter might deem as constitutionally “appropriate,” consider for a moment the manifold uses of public money which regularly benefit religious establishments.

In past years, literally trillions of dollars have been dispersed in various public assistance programs - welfare and foodstamps in particular. Yet not once has there ever been any stipulation given to the beneficiaries of these programs by which they are prohibited from spending this money on religious objects such as Bibles, Torahs or Korans, or that in the name of religious neutrality they must refrain from buying Kosher foods. (As a matter of fact, this writer often buys Kosher foods, not because of any edict of Levitical law, but rather because such foods are often prepared with extra care and concern for quality - a point which is highly pertinent to the issue of educational choice and should not be lost on Justice Souter.) Nor has any recipient of government assistance ever been admonished against putting a portion of that money into the collection plate. On the contrary, the very nature of personal choice in the expenditure of such money renders it separate from government involvement.

Of course the liberal leadership, which extols the virtues of every form of welfare-style government “assistance,” fervently expresses its abhorrence for educational choice. Although such stances seem to be at total variance with one another, the fact is that they are completely consistent when viewed from a standpoint of just what is in the best interests of the liberal leadership. For although welfare and other public assistance programs foster dependency on the institutions of the state, educational choice would ultimately result in academic excellence for millions of children, enabling them to become self-sufficient and productive members of society. In the long run, this would lessen their need for the “nanny state,” thus diminishing its power.

Irrespective of any facet of constitutional law, the big question that will be answered, once all of the judicial gymnastics have ceased, is whether or not parents and communities will be enabled to take the necessary and decisive steps to truly correct the problems with their local educational institutions. Absent that, the only other option will be to perpetuate the futility of the current approach, which is to mindlessly throw ever increasing sums of money into the present system. If such is the determination of the Court, the result is certain. No academic improvements will occur. It is in the best interests of the educrats to ensure that test scores and overall academic achievement never improve, but rather they continue on their downward slide. The dirty little secret is this: On the day the public education monopoly fixes its problems, it forfeits its best excuse to demand more money.

Growing up during the turbulent decades of the ‘60's and ‘70's, Christopher  Adamo saw, to his dismay, the nation's moral foundations being destroyed  before his very eyes. But even then he was a staunch Conservative at heart,  and rejected outright the tenets of America's counterculture revolution.

 After a hitch in the Air Force, where he specialized in airborne  electro- optical systems, he pursued a career in the field of aerospace,  working for major defense contractors in California, Florida, and Colorado. But his career plans abruptly changed during the industry-wide downsizing that followed the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster.

Presently he is working in the field of industrial instrumentation in the state of Wyoming. Concurrently, he has become involved in that state's political process, attending state GOP conventions as a delegate, and serving as a member of the Wyoming Republican Central Committee. He has also aided in the candidacies of local legislators and state senators, as well as a U.S. Senator and Congresswoman.

From 1993 to 1996, he edited and wrote for “The Wyoming Christian”, the state newsletter for Christian Coalition of Wyoming. During that period, he developed an acute awareness of the harm being done to Conservatism by liberal activists within the Republican Party as well as the Democrats. This remains a favorite theme of his articles, which now appear as a regular feature on GOPUSA.