The ruling on the Pledge of Allegiance always struck me as more of a human interest story rather than a political one. It will be reversed in no time flat and life will return to normal. The ruling on vouchers, though, now that's news! The Supreme Court is, of course, the final word on the matter until they choose to hear it again, which one suspects will be a long time from now. The decision is, of course, celebrated by conservatives and denounced by liberals. It doesn't mean too much and is a small victory, but it does mean that the movement hasn't been killed in its tracks and that districts are free to experiment with it. If it works, it'll be kept. If it doesn't, then it won't move far beyond Milwaukee and Cleveland.

Over at Slate, Dahlia Lithwick lays out the best argument against the ruling that I have found to date. She fairly assesses both sides and explains why she's on the side that she is. Generally, I've thought that the constitutional arguments against vouchers were just bunk, but she does a good job of explaining where they are coming from and giving me a good opportunity to explain why she is wrong:

The tension in these religion cases is between those who believe the Establishment Clause merely bars the government from funding and promoting one single state-sponsored church and those who believe that government efforts to fund or promote any religion are impermissible.

I would restate my side's position as being the belief that the Establishment Clause bars the government from funding and promoting any religion or religions at the expense or other religions (or lack of any religion at all). Therefore, if vouchers were allowed for Christianity and Judaism but not Hinduism because Hinduism doesn't believe in one true and everlasting God, that would clearly qualify as a breach of the constitutional. If the government were to support certain schools that were Christian and Jewish but not schools that were Muslim because the Muslim schools teach discriminatory things, then that becomes iffy. The beauty of vouchers is that the government is not making the decision. The parents are. The only way that it strikes me as unconstitutional is if the government says certain schools can't be chosen due to their religious or ideological nature, which to my knowledge is not the case.

I believe much of Lithwick's argument is borne from ignorance of the mechanics of church-run schools. The primary goal of religious schools (at least the ones I've known about) is education. It is not religious instruction. That's what church and bible study are for. So because government money goes to St. Goode's Catholic Church for the services of St. Goode's Parochial School does not mean that the government is giving them money to push religion on Sunday mornings. What they are paid, and how they are paid, is not determined by the quality of their sermons but by parental satisfaction of the services that they supply at the school. Yes, yes, the church is still getting its grubby hands on government money, but in return for a service provided. A service, it's worth noting, that is not directly religious in nature.

Lithwick makes the subtle implication that the entire vouchers issue is, instead of an education movement, a religious one. She points out some 82% of schools in the area are Catholic and 96% of the students go to one of those schools. I am not Catholic. I don't agree with Catholic doctrine on a number of points. This is not a religious issue with me. Honestly, I don't care who teaches them or what religion they are from a public policy standpoint. I'd support vouchers if a majority of the schools Jewish or Buddhist or Hindu (I'll get to Muslims in another post). Those who do support vouchers as a religious movement are probably going to be very disappointed. The reason that so many of the schools are now presently Catholic is that right now private schools fall into one of a few niches: religious, elite, and military.

Religious schools provide Catholics, Jews, and others a chance to opt out of secular education. Because they are run by churches, they are not for-profit by nature and therefore they are an inexpensive for less wealthy parents to get their kids out of the public system.

Elite schools are as likely than not to be secular in nature. They supposedly offer a quality education at a very stiff price. It's for parents who want to keep their kids out of the grubby school nearby and are not comfortable sending their kids to a Catholic school. Because they are so expensive, there don't make up for much of the populations of schools out there. Most people can't afford them.

Military schools are for those who are either delinquints or planning to go into the military. It was always the threat my parents had whenever I misbehaved. They are less populated because they generally require its students to live on campus and therefore is considerably more expensive than a religious school.

Initially, religious schools will benefit the most from voucher programs at first. Elite are far too expensive and will immediately price themselves out of any voucher program that they can't explicity exclude themselves from. Military schools serve a special market and are also going to be unaffordable for those that benefit most from a voucher program. However, if the voucher program becomes big enough, you will see more and more private schools opening up that won't waste their time on religious indoctrination or military protocol and focus solely on what the parents want: education. Private schooling itself will no longer be a niche market and the schools will start serving the larger public who wants to get their kids out of a public school, but doesn't want to have to pay so much to do it. In Texas, we have a number of charter schools that are essentially private schools recieving public money because there is a big market here for unconventional academic programs. There is a school tailored to art students, another for aspiring medical professionals. In an ambitious voucher program, expect to see a lot of this sort of thing.

Lithwick might ask why we need religious schools if these others will appear. It's simple, because the religious schools are already there. They are completely set up and ready to go. They will be a good test to see if vouchers are really something worth trying or whether they will, for one reason or another, be a big giant flop. Without private schools, it will be hard to experiment and we would have to ask schools to set up for a program that might only last a couple of years before being shown to be ineffective and killed off. The importance of this ruling is that it will let such experiments take place. That's a start and something to celebrate