Introduction
The case of Carson v. Makin is a significant case of the Supreme Court of the United States from the year 2021. The case concentrates on religious freedom and widens the meaning of the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The First Amendment has two views on religion: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
In Carson v. Makin the Court ruled that sectarian schools cannot be excluded from Maine’s tuition system where some children living in areas where public schools are not available are allowed to attend private schools at public expense. According to the Court, secular and sectarian schools cannot be put in different positions when it comes to tuition given by the state for this purpose. The ruling has an influence on education in lightly populated states which have similar systems.
Basics of the background of the case help to put the ruling into context. The state of Maine guarantees the access to free public education for every child by allowing some to attend private schools at public expense. This way Maine does not have to run as many public schools to obey its own constitution. Maine has ruled that the schools must meet the criteria set for them, which include being ”non-sectarian”. A sectarian school is “associated with a particular faith or belief system and which, in addition to teaching academic subjects, promotes the faith or belief system with which it is associated and/or presents the material taught through the lens of this faith.”
The petitioners are David and Amy Carson who have sent daughter O.C. to Bangor Christian Schools (BCS), which otherwise meets the criteria Maine has set for the schools but it is considered sectarian. The family sees that O.C. should be allowed to attend BCS at public expense. Another family is also present in the case. Troy and Angela Nelson have sent their daughter A.N. to public school, and their son R.N. to Temple Academy (TA). TA as well meets other criteria but is considered sectarian. The Nelsons want A.N. to attend Temple Academy (TA) as well, but can’t afford it, so they as well see that they should be allowed the benefit.
Both schools in question aim at developing a Christian world-view to their students. They heavily discriminate against homosexuals and transsexuals. The teachers in both schools must be “Born Again Christians”, as well as all other employees. The BCS teaches the inequality of the genders and TA accepts students pretty much only from Christian families. Both schools teach all subjects through a religious lens.
This text analyses the key arguments used in the brief of the respondent and how they are reflected in the majority opinion of the court.
The key arguments used by the respondent
The first argument of the respondents is one that seems quite self-evident to a Nordic person. The respondents argue that sectarian education and public education are not comparable. As the respondents state in their brief, “the public benefit Maine is offering is a free public education. Petitioners want an entirely different benefit – a publicly subsidized sectarian education.” Maine should be able to set criteria for the education they spend public money on, and they have done this by setting the “non-sectarian requirement”. Thus, there should be a legitimate difference between the present system and another system where money is given to extremely religious education.
The second argument is about whether the exclusion is based on religious status or the way how the public money would be used. The respondents argue that the religious status of the families has nothing to do with how they are treated. A non-religious family that wants to send their child to a sectarian school will be denied the benefit all the same as a religious family. The meaningful point is that they are “prohibiting public money from being used to promote and inculcate religious beliefs”. The respondents argue as well that schools’ religious status is not the reason why they are excluded; it is whether they provide sectarian education or not.
Conclusion
Both of the above mentioned core arguments were accepted in the First Circuit, but the Supreme Court majority rejected them.
When examining the distinction between status and use, the Court saw that the use of public money on religious purposes depended on individuals’ own choice. Therefore, it was not offending the First Amendment. The Court also saw that the tuition system was clear religious discrimination: “The State pays tuition for certain students at private schools – so long as they are not religious.” The whole argument seems a little artificial to me from both sides. The respondent’s argument seems to ignore that the exclusion in reality impacts only religious families, and the Court’s argument exaggerates the level of discrimination to an untruthful dimension. The exclusion is not targeted against all religious students. The next chapter deepens my suspicion even more towards the respondent’s arguments.
When relying on common sense, the argument about the question being “what can be public education and what cannot be” seems quite strong. However, when reading the majority opinion and the reasons why the argument didn’t survive, I am almost willing to agree with them. The non-sectarian private schools only need to be accredited by The New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC), and that is one weak accreditation. The curriculums must not meet the ones of the public schools. The private schools can actually teach all kinds of suspicious stuff outside the sectarian content. The fact that both TA and BCS were accredited by NEASC tells the whole story. Even if I recognize the strong arguments behind protecting children from religious education reaching the level of brain washing, I also recognize many non-religious harmful ways of educating. The majority opinion argues that since the criteria Maine is applying is that loose, it cannot be said that the private schools accepted are part of the public school system. I see the point there.
I must say that from a Nordic perspective, Maine’s educational system is disappointing in how it tries to protect children’s right to quality education. This also raises a question whether the results would have been different, if the criteria had been stricter.
S.N.C.S.H.S.