Discrimination tax
Published August 26, 2016
Editorial by Greensboro News-Record, August 23, 2016.
Schools participating in the state’s Opportunity Scholarship Program shouldn’t discriminate.
All taxpayers fund the voucher program, and all should expect it to offer equal opportunities.
That’s not how it is, however, according to recent reporting by The Charlotte Observer. It found that several private schools in its area expressly refuse to admit LGBT students, or claim the right to expel them for that status. Some require parents to be in a traditional marriage.
Such attitudes could be ignored by outsiders if those same schools weren’t accepting public dollars to educate North Carolina children. But once they put their hands out for the state cash, they assume a greater responsibility.
The authors of the voucher law understand that. They included a provision barring participating schools from discriminating on the basis of a student’s “race, color or national origin.” They just didn’t go any further than that. The law says nothing about denying admission to students on account of sex.
The N.C. Constitution does go further. Article I, Section 19 bars discrimination because of race, color, religion or national origin. That doesn’t address schools that expel gay students, but it raises the question of whether religious schools should be publicly funded in the first place.
That issue wasn’t addressed in the legal challenge decided in the state’s favor last year. By a 4-3 margin, the N.C. Supreme Court swept aside most of the constitutional concerns about the voucher program, concluding that it does serve a legitimate public purpose to spend tax money for private education.
The court avoided the claim of religious discrimination by saying the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue on that point.
“Here plaintiffs are taxpayers of the state, not eligible students alleged to have suffered religious discrimination as a result of the admission or educational practices of a nonpublic school participating in the Opportunity Scholarship Program,” the majority opinion said.
That leaves a door open for another suit by students who may be denied admission for religious reasons, including the “religious” reason that a school could not tolerate a gay student or one whose parents are gay.
But the court seemed too quick to deny standing to taxpayers, who have legitimate grounds to question why their money ought to pay for instruction with which they disagree — whether it’s Catholic, fundamentalist Christian, Islamic or Jewish. By far, most of the voucher money paid so far has gone to schools with religious viewpoints. Maybe if a school denied admission to children from Republican families, the GOP lawmakers who created this program would see why discrimination shouldn’t be supported by public dollars. Rather than worry about such things, however, they are rapidly expanding the voucher program.
Many parents want their children to receive private education and religious instruction at school. If that’s their choice, they should be willing to pay for it.
The public, on the other hand, shouldn’t be taxed for it, especially if participating schools discriminate for any reason.
August 26, 2016 at 9:58 am
Norm Kelly says:
Life is funny sometimes. Usually, when libs whine, it's not so funny.
Abortion is killing. Killing of innocent life. Babies who have never seen the light of day, who have never had the opportunity to offend anyone, are killed.
When ANYONE complains that tax dollars should not be spent to kill babies, libs come out of the woodwork to shut down all dissent. Libs refuse to even acknowledge that killing babies is actually killing babies. Libs couch this killing as 'a woman's choice'. Cuz, like most things lib, when it's described accurately, people realize what a disaster it is. When it's couched in pretty terms, like 'Affordable Care Act' instead of socialized medicine, libs are able to confuse and mislead enough of their supporters that the goofy program is allowed to continue. But, typical of libs, they are never satisfied with just a little. Perfect example is their desire to legalize tax-payer funded baby killing. It's not sufficient for libs to hide tax-payer funded baby killing, they want to bring it out into the open. Those of us who oppose baby killing are told we don't have a leg to stand on, that we MUST sit down, shut up, and allow our tax dollars to pay for baby killing.
When it comes to our kids being educated in some way OTHER than lib indoctrination, suddenly libs want to claim that taxpayers have rights too. Even if we support tax-payer funded private schools, libs tell us it's 'bad' for kids, bad for families, and outrageously terrible for tax payers. And libs want certain tax payers to now have a voice. But only those tax payers who agree with the lib position.
Killing babies = no tax payer voice.
Educating kids = certain tax payer voices.
With the voucher program, isn't the money designated to the parents, and the parents pick the school? If so, then it's not the school being funded by tax payers, it's the parents. Therefore, tax payers really don't have a voice in where the money is spent!
Funny how libs don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot. Wanna bet this ends up in the courts again?! Cuz when libs can't force their will through the legislative process, libs always resort to forcing their schemes through the courts. And continue to bring the case to higher courts until they finally get a court to agree with them. Relentless pursuit of their agenda/schemes, forcing upon the masses, regardless of what it takes. Cuz lib pols are simply smarter, and more capable, than the rest of us! Just ask them, they'll tell you how smart they are, how good their schemes are for 'the rest of you', but they always find a way to exempt themselves. Think obamacancer!
August 28, 2016 at 8:38 am
Penny Sandrock says:
Public tax money should not be used to pay for enrollment in private religious schools. One example of misplaced religious non thought is above and demonstrates the lack of self control or much else but hateful random thought. The idea that because parents are tax payers they should use all taxpayers money to fund their ideology is nonsense. I have no children in school why should I fund their personal beliefs with subpar schooling and radical uneducated fairy tales.
