Lemon v.Kurtzman
US Supreme Court, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)
The states of Pennsylvania and Rhode Island had actions brought against them by citizens and taxpayers of the states. The appellees clamed the states statutes for supplementing secular nonpublic schools violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Both states had adopted statutory programs that would provide financial support to nonpublic elementary and secondary school.
Pennsylvania’s statute would reimburse schools for moneys spent on books, teacher salaries, and instructional materials. These funds could only be used for classes, teachers and materials that were “presented in the curricula of the public schools.” It was limited “solely” to courses in the following “secular” subjects: mathematics, modern foreign languages, physical science, and physical education. The schools seeking aid had to keep separate financial books on moneys spent. This act went into effect on July, 1968
Under the Rhode Island statute, the state would pay directly to the teachers in nonpublic schools a supplement not more than 15% of their salary and no more than that of a public school teacher’s yearly pay. To be eligible for the supplement the teacher must teach in a nonpublic school that has a less than average per-pupil expenditure of the public school. The teacher must only teach the subjects that were taught in the public school, nothing religious. This act was enacted in 1969.
The court in this case developed a three-step test for laws dealing with religion, The Lemon Test. In this three-step process the courts look at the states statutes: 1) the statute must have a secular legislative purpose, 2) its principle or primary effect must neither advance nor inhibit religion, and 3) the statute must not foster “an excessive government entanglement with religion. The Supreme Court found that the states of Pennsylvania and Rhode Island statutes passed the first two questions but not the third. They determined that to aid the nonpublic religious school furthered a process of religious inculcation, and that the surveillance necessary to enforce the laws of the statues would cause entanglement of the states and the religious affiliations. With this the court found that the statues did in-fact violate the First Amendment.
I believe the Supreme Court did file correctly in this case. They also set precedence to use in later court cases that had religious relations. I understand and applaud the states for their actions. They believed they took all precautions to help aid in education of students both at public and private schools. However, these were still private-religious schools, and their foundations are instilled throughout the buildings and grounds on which they set. For the state to say they would have no dealings with the religious portion of the schools is very juvenile thinking on their part.
I believe this case falls under Domain 1 which is to respond to pertinent political, social, and economic issues in the internal and external environment. These case forces me to think about the statutes and laws we produce whether be at a state level or at a campus level. Even though the law is to protect or support for positive outcome, there may be others they are offended by the act.
jagem
6 comments:
cdedad:
I understand the Supreme Court's reasoning and the steps of the Lemon test. I understand how there would have been too much "government entanglement" while dealing with a religious organization. I also understnad the need for separation of church and state. So, obviously, the court had to make the decision it made. Like I said, I understand all of this, but I do not necessarily agree with it. States give public schools funds for teacher salaries and textbooks. States have compulsory attendance laws that to varying degrees bascially say that all children under 18 must be in school. Pierce v Society of Sisters allowed students to attend non-public schools instead of public schools in order to satisfy the compulsory attendance laws. So if Pennsylvania and Rhode Island were giving money to schools for textbooks in secular subject areas and for salraies of the teachers who taught in those areas, how is that different from those two states giving money to their public schools for textbooks and salaries?
Wow! I have to say that cdedad raises a very good point.
However, we already complain that the state tries to micromanage our schools. If they had to monitor and enforce the laws of these statutes it would cause “an excessive government entanglement with religion". This does fail the third part of the Lemon test. Therefore, I agree with the court and jagem.
Besides, imagine the paperwork the state would require to monitor this!! And you thought TAKS was bad.
comment by Tiffany
I agree with the courts decision in this case. I personally think that this case should not have passed the second question in the Lemon Test, due to funds going to private Roman Catholic schools, and many of the teachers were nuns. I personally don't have an issue with nuns teaching, however we are dealing with the entagelment of church and state. I believe this is an underhanded way of promoting a particular religion. If monies were being divided equally among all types of religous private schools my outlook would may differ.
I must say that cdedad does make a very valid point, however according to Alexander, "lines must be drawn in reference to the three main evils against which the Establishment Clause was intended to afford protection, "sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity." States providing funds to these schools would violate the Establishment clause according to the above quote. I agree with the blogger and with the courts decision. States are having a hard time funding their own public schools, why would they begin funding private schools as well. Essentially taking funds away from students, to support the practices of private schools that are not to be funded by the states is not fair to those students attending public schools.
posted by doglover
As a native Keystoner, I understand the educational system in Pennsylvania and concur with why they initially started to give state financial assistance to private schools. They were trying to give every child in Pennsylvania an equal education. However, I have to agree with the blogger in that there was definite entanglement specially when over 90% of the teachers receiving salary enhancements are from parochial schools and therefore entangle the state in religious affairs regardless of the state's intent. This case was beneficial due to the fact that future cases involving religion were referred back to the test applied in this case in order to protect religious freedom from government interferrence or establishment thereof.
On my campus I would never allow any religious organization to come into my school for a service that I would pay them for out of tax dollars because this would be seen as endorsing religion.
Posted By Fatboyslim
One of the first issues that the founding fathers had to deal with was the idea of church and state. It was one of the underlying ideals of our constitution. When school became compulsory and some turned to religious schools to fit the bill we now have a new church and state issue to deal with. The lemon law seems a bit complicated but if its a filter we need then its a filter we will get. Its uniform, equal for all and fair by todays standards. I can see this test being developed and used for additional issues between church and state as time goes on. How about a local version that can be used on school campuses???
The Supreme Court made the right decision in this case. When the government adopts programs that will give aid to a secular private school you get some definite red flags. The "creation" of the Lemon Test is a great way to filter through the red flags and determine whether or not there is a Constitutional violation. By clearly stating the possible issues with state funding of private institutions and giving a test by which to measure each of these possible problems the Court has established a feasible method for dealing with a sticky situation.
1995 frog
Post a Comment