Introduction and Note from John Holmes, ACSI Director for Government Affairs
Isn’t it amazing what happens when we get out of the way and the Holy Spirit takes over?
I’ve been sick recently with bronchitis and have been taking some strange drugs that have forced me to rest.
Meanwhile, God didn’t stop working to help the Christian school movement. (Duh!)
Despite very little help from me, God gave us new meaningful contacts with both political parties and access regarding pertinent federal bills—all because of our previous efforts. Our recently retired president, Dr. Ken Smitherman, had a goal for this office (i.e., our Department of Government Affairs office) to “get a place at the table,” because you never know what God can do once you are there. Well, it’s happening again, Ken. Thank you for your friendly and constant encouragement!
So let’s not forget the biblical imperative to pray for those in authority over us. And listen to Ken’s admonition. Get at the table, and see what God will make available to you, whether in the realm of local-government, state-government, or national-government issues.
Yours in Christ and in His “Monday school ministry”!
ACSI’s Opposition to HR 3017 and S 1584
Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2009 (ENDA). ENDA would prohibit employers from making employment decisions—decisions regarding hiring, promoting, and firing—on the basis of an individual’s “actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity” (emphasis added). Such employment decisions would be considered crimes subject to severe penalties. The term gender identity is incredibly broad and is defined as “gender-related identity, appearance, or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual.” (See the Library of Congress THOMAS website to read more of these bills’ text.)
ENDA claims to provide an exception for religious organizations. It could, however, drastically limit the existing exemption provided in current civil-rights law known as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which grants a full exemption for religious entities like Christian schools. But what about our member schools that are not part of a church and are run by a lay board? Would they be exempted?
Title VII allows a religious entity to make labor decisions on the basis of religious criteria. An organization doesn’t have to violate its religious convictions when making these types of decisions. That exemption was unanimously upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1987 case often referred to as Bishop v. Amos. In it, the Court reaffirmed and clarified that all categories of employment in a religious entity were considered religious, including the support staff (for instance, the janitor). But, would a lay-board religious school have to prove in court that it is religious? Such legal hassles could hurt the lay-board religious school both through legal costs and in the “court of public opinion.”
Dr. Stanley Carlson-Thies states, in an e-news article on the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance website, that ENDA does not exempt a “religious person who owns or controls a nonreligious business or corporation, no matter how deeply held the religious scruples of that person. Because the Title VII exemption largely has been interpreted to apply only to nonprofit organizations, the exemption does not seem to extend to religious businesses—e.g., for-profit religious publishers, bookstores, retirement homes, child care facilities, broadcasters, or summer camps” (eNews for Faith-Based Organizations, “ENDA Reintroduced—Revives Religious Freedom Concerns,” 7/8/09).
What we are doing, and what you can do. ACSI is opposed to ENDA’s limited religious-exemption language, and it is working to see that more extensive exemption language is included in the final legislation. It urges members of the House Committee on Education & Labor and the whole House to protect all religious people’s rights, whether those people work in a religious environment or a secular one. Action needed NOW: Contact your U.S. representative and senators now, and ask them to oppose both HR 3017 and S 1584, the identical Senate bill, and their inadequate religious-exemption language. Call 202.224.3121, and please remember that courtesy counts. Thanks!
ACSI agrees with the Family Research Council’s (FRC’s) president, Tony Perkins, in his opposition to HR 3017. Please take time to visit the FRC website to read his testimony.
From Capitol Hill
HR 3221, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009, passed the House on September 17, proposing $8 billion to start and expand a universal prekindergarten (UPK) program in various states. The bill has not yet been considered by the HELP Committee (U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, & Pensions) or by the Senate. HR 3221 may be attached to the health care bill (HR 3200), since both bills spend and save federal monies and only one bill is allowed to proceed by way of budget reconciliation. In that process of reconciliation, the bill can pass with a simple majority (51 votes rather than 60). The word is that Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) has sent the best memo (HSLDA’s “e-lert” from September 16, 2009) to encourage opposition: “Please oppose H.R. 3221 [especially the early learning provision]. This bill will create new federal funding for early education programs in the states. The federal government should not expand its involvement in early education programs. Parents, not federal or state officials, should decide what is appropriate for their children.” Action needed NOW: Please call your senators, and share the same message, because UPK could still be stripped from the Senate’s version of HR 3221. Call 202.224.3121, and ask for your senators’ offices.
Background of UPK legislation: The Heritage Foundation has provided an excellent background article on UPK legislation. Its WebMemo on the preschool proposals in the House version of HR 3221 is titled “The Early Learning Challenge Fund: Increased Federal Role in Early Education.”
ACSI and CAPE’s view of the early education language in a rough Senate draft of its version of HR 3221 seems to indicate that private and religious schools may be able to participate in UPK (in certain states). Knowledge of this draft came out of meetings that the Legal/Legislative Committee of the ACSI Executive Board had with Senate staff.
News You Can Use
Two school-choice news items:
1. “Do you believe in political miracles?” asked the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) on September 30 in an article titled “Dick Durbin and D.C. School Vouchers.” In D.C. School Vouchers Have a Brighter Outlook in Congress, WSJ quotes CER (the Center for Education Reform) president, Jeanne Allen. The following is a press release by CER:
Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, who has long opposed reauthorization of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, signaled today the possibility of supporting a reauthorization of the program under certain conditions.
In a hearing on the impact of federal funds on the education of children in the District of Columbia, Sen. Durbin said, “I have to work with my colleagues if this is going to be reauthorized, which it might be.” He later added his understanding that “many students are getting a good education in the program.”
“While some of his objections to the program’s operations are of concern, his signaling of support suggests that the concerted effort of proponents to bring the voices and needs of DC families to Sen. Durbin and his colleagues is having an impact,” said Jeanne Allen, president of the Center for Education Reform. “We applaud Sen. Durbin’s suggestion of positive action on the program’s reauthorization and will work to hold him to his word.” —The Center for Education Reform, “Sen. Durbin Signals Possibility of Saving DC School Choice Program,” 9/29/09
2. School choice and the law. American Center for School Choice (ACSC), a new overarching national group headed by Michael Guerra, is attempting to remind Americans that there is no necessary bar in our legal systems to creating and implementing wiser education policies that enable all parents to choose the school best suited to helping them fulfill their responsibility to their children. There are many avenues within our constitutional systems by which choice can be provided.
When forming education policy and debating the laws that regulate it, a thoughtful public will see the family not as merely a happenstance situation in which the child finds himself or herself, nor as a private consumer of publicly provided goods, but rather as an irreplaceable public resource, one that warrants support in law.
ACSC affirms that the dignity of parents in choosing their child’s educator is already fully legal and is wisely built into the education policies of our 50 states—for parents of means, that is. These families rightly prize their authority to select the educator, whether public or private; they recognize the enrichment of family life and the benefits to the common good that flow from parental responsibility for this fateful human decision.
A must-see! Visit the Voices of School Choice website to view Let Me Rise, a short film on the future of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. This compelling Heritage Foundation film features Juan Williams.
National Notes, November 2009