Agostini v. Felton (1997)
Supreme Court Decisions on Religious Liberty
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Background Information
A New York parochial school board challenged a District Court's upholding of a twelve year-old Suprme Court Decision in Aguilar v. Felton, prohibiting public school teachers from teaching in parochial schools.
New York City had offered to help needy students in private schools by sending public school teachers to tutor them after school. New York was forced to offer remedial help to students through 'local educational agencies' and parochial school students did not need to attend public schools in order to be eligible for the assistance. The only students permitted to receive the federally funded assistance were those who:
- reside in low income areas or
- failed or were at risk of failing the state's student performance standards
Court Decision
Arguments were presented on April 15th, 1997. On June 23rd, 1997, in a 5-4 Court Decision, the Court allowed public school teachers to tutor private school students in their private schools, even if the schools were primarily religious in nature.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor stated in her majority opinion that the Court had already effectively overruled the 1985 Aguilar case, citing two later Court Decisions: Witters v. Washington (1986) and Zoberst v. Catalina Foothills School District(1993).
First, The ruling in Zobrest did not permit a ban on placing all public employees in sectarian schools (a sign language interpreter had been provided for a deaf student). Since there is little difference between providing a sign language interpreter, which the Court already allowed, and a tutor, then interaction that would result between the state and church is allowable.
Second, the Court held that not all government aid that directly assists in the educational function of religious schools must be assumed to also promote religion. The location of the classroom (either in public or religious schools) should not be relevant.
Third, O'Connor decided that school boards were capable of creating administrative rules that ensure that teachers act in a religiously neutral fashion, neither promoting nor hindering sectarian religious views.
Finally, O'Connor found that there was no reason to assume that the parents of students attending secular public schools will get the impression that the city government approved of religious education merely because government employees were also working in religious schools.
Significance
This Court Decision reinforced the idea among many that the state can conduct public programs in religious institutions without becoming excessively entangled with that religion. This stands in direct contradiction to the earlier position that there must be an absolute wall between public and religious schools.
In his dissent, Justice Souter argued that the Court was improperly applying previous Court Decisions and that Aguilar had not been overruled. This Court Decision certainly created a lot of controversy, inciting supporters of school voucher programs to think that they had support even though the case did not involve direct financial aid to religious schools.
Although O'Connor's opinion was narrowly written, it is legitimate to wonder: if it is permissible for the government to aid poor students by paying for remedial teachers in religious schools, why not send money directly to those schools for remedial learning programs?
On a personal note, I'd like to add that I find it odd that parents who choose to reject the services of a public school should want to take with them some of those services. If a school is incapable of providing a proper education for their child, why would they choose to pay extra money to send their child there?
Further Information
Back To: Court Decisions on Religious Liberty (main page)
-->