This letter to the editor from Kirby Thomas West, a lawyer for the Institute for Justice who lives in Alexandria, Va., appeared Monday on washingtonpost.com. For additional context on Carson v. Makin, read reimaginED senior writer Lisa Buie’s post here.
In her Dec. 7 opinion essay, “Taxpayers should not fund religious education,” Rachel Laser claimed that the issue before the Supreme Court in Carson v. Makin is whether taxpayers can be forced to fund religion.
Instead, the issue is whether, if a state creates a school-choice program, it can bar parents from choosing religious schools for their children. Notably, no one in the case is arguing that states have to create school-choice programs — only that if they do, they must not discriminate against religion.
In 2002, the Supreme Court recognized that school-choice programs, because they rely on parental choice and are neutral toward religion, do not violate the establishment clause. Curiously, Ms. Laser failed to mention this well-established principle of constitutional law.
(Or that school choice programs, including religious options, have been the norm for decades, including in D.C., with none of the “religious coercion” parade of horribles she warns about.)
Instead, Ms. Laser suggested that Carson could have a negative impact on state anti-discrimination laws that protect LGBTQ individuals. But such laws aren’t at issue in the case, which is evidenced by the fact that even if a school welcomes LGBTQ students, Maine says it need not apply to the program if it provides a religious education. The only discrimination at issue in Carson is religious discrimination.
Ms. Laser apparently wants the court to perpetuate this discrimination. For the sake of parents seeking better educational opportunities for their children, let’s hope she’s wrong.
