A violation of law

In an article a few days ago, Board of Education member Galvin Deleon Guerrero expressed concerned about the “plight” of students who have taken religion courses in private schools and whose parents transferred them to public school when they can no longer afford the tuition rates. Committee on Instruction and Curriculum chair Tanya King made a recommendation for the public school curriculum to be changed to accommodate these students by allowing religion courses to be accepted as electives to fulfill the 28-credit requirement to graduate.

What I’m wondering is how can this even be a debate? Do they not know laws as well as I, a 17-year-old public school student? Do they not know the doctrine of “separation of church and state”? This debate doesn’t nearly offend me quite as much as the idea that these officials are part of the Board of Education, and don’t seem to know this aspect of government! This should not even be a question, let alone a debate. Also, the parents of these kids should be well aware of the circumstances of enrolling their children in private schools, and the consequences of transferring them to a public school system.

The very first Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This is known as the establishment clause, and in the landmark case of Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black stated that “neither a state nor a federal government…can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another…” What the BOE, or Galvin DLGuerrero, is proposing to do is violate the Constitution of the United States as well as an established case law. In the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) the court ruled that, to be constitutional, state aid (in this case, the acceptance of religion courses for credit) to parochial schools must have a clear secular nonreligious purpose, and, among other things, avoid “excessive government entanglement with religion.” If this does not emphasize the fact that the proposal to allow PSS curriculum to accept religion courses is in violation of the law, I don’t know what does. Accepting religion courses as credit to graduate from a public school is just as bad as having it taught. The only person who has his wits about him on the BOE is the vice chair, Herman Guerrero, and for that, I applaud him.