Court Says States Need Not Finance Divinity Studies
Very upsetting news from the Supreme Court today.NY Times: Court Says States Need Not Finance Divinity Studies
The court ruled that states are free to exclude students who are otherwise eligible for scholarships on the basis of academic merit and financial need if they want to use the money to major in theology and train for the ministry. The 7-2 ruling found that this activity would not violate these students' free expression or the exercise of the religious beliefs, and therefore was not unconstitutional.
Although this specifically addressed state scholarships, I fail to see how theology students can qualify for any government-sponsored financial aid under this ruling, whether it is a grant, loan or scholarship, on the federal, state or local level. The principle that the court has upheld is that a student at an accredited academic institution pursuing an accredited degree program can (should?) be disqualified from government financial aid so as not to favor religion by investing public scholarship dollars in it.
Although I'm surprised at the company I'm keeping, I am solidly with Justices Scalia and Thomas, the lone dissenters, who see such a law as hostile to religion, rather than neutral. Why should, for example, Concordia be able to provide government scholarships to all of its students except the religion majors? Does this mean that a music major with an emphasis in performance can receive government assistance, but that one with an emphasis in church music cannot? The court has ruled that not all bachelor's degrees be treated equally by the government... by providing assistance to students in every other area of study, the government is effectively discouraging the practice of religion by frustrating and financially descriminating against the students who wish to become religious leaders.
It's obvious that these students are among the most idealistic in our academic institutions today, and that they are also among those who are most in need of financial assistance. Clergy are among the lowest-paid professionals in our country; there are few other master's degrees one can earn and still make less than the manager of the local McDonald's restaurant.
Theology students do not enter into their field of study for financial gain; however, they face huge educational costs and a lifetime of low-paying work in their vocation. They count, more than most students, on financial aid if they are to ever even begin to manage the crippling debt load.
The government is forbidden from giving religion and religious institutions preferential treatment simply because they are religious. It is, however, an outrage that the government should be permitted to subsidize every other academic program under the sun based on a student's need and merit, while refusing to support students within this one particular academic field.
The Supreme Court was wrong. Flat wrong.
I am disgusted.
The court ruled that states are free to exclude students who are otherwise eligible for scholarships on the basis of academic merit and financial need if they want to use the money to major in theology and train for the ministry. The 7-2 ruling found that this activity would not violate these students' free expression or the exercise of the religious beliefs, and therefore was not unconstitutional.
Although this specifically addressed state scholarships, I fail to see how theology students can qualify for any government-sponsored financial aid under this ruling, whether it is a grant, loan or scholarship, on the federal, state or local level. The principle that the court has upheld is that a student at an accredited academic institution pursuing an accredited degree program can (should?) be disqualified from government financial aid so as not to favor religion by investing public scholarship dollars in it.
Although I'm surprised at the company I'm keeping, I am solidly with Justices Scalia and Thomas, the lone dissenters, who see such a law as hostile to religion, rather than neutral. Why should, for example, Concordia be able to provide government scholarships to all of its students except the religion majors? Does this mean that a music major with an emphasis in performance can receive government assistance, but that one with an emphasis in church music cannot? The court has ruled that not all bachelor's degrees be treated equally by the government... by providing assistance to students in every other area of study, the government is effectively discouraging the practice of religion by frustrating and financially descriminating against the students who wish to become religious leaders.
It's obvious that these students are among the most idealistic in our academic institutions today, and that they are also among those who are most in need of financial assistance. Clergy are among the lowest-paid professionals in our country; there are few other master's degrees one can earn and still make less than the manager of the local McDonald's restaurant.
Theology students do not enter into their field of study for financial gain; however, they face huge educational costs and a lifetime of low-paying work in their vocation. They count, more than most students, on financial aid if they are to ever even begin to manage the crippling debt load.
The government is forbidden from giving religion and religious institutions preferential treatment simply because they are religious. It is, however, an outrage that the government should be permitted to subsidize every other academic program under the sun based on a student's need and merit, while refusing to support students within this one particular academic field.
The Supreme Court was wrong. Flat wrong.
I am disgusted.
posted by Bob at
12:50 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home