The U.S. Supreme Court seemed to do the impossible: It gave legal ammunition to opposing sides of the controversy over state aid to church schools.
By unanimous vote the high court last week refused to deny a blind student state rehabilitation funds to pursue studies for the Christian ministry. The Reagan administration was pleased and so were the traditional watchdog groups.
Education Secretary William Bennett praised the court ”for recognizing the Constitution is not offended when aid is provided to students who independently choose to expend that aid at private, religious institutions.” By contrast, the secretary had accused the court last July of ”fastidious disdain for religion” when it outlawed U.S. funding for teaching in sectarian schools.
Bennett interpreted the latest ruling, which involves a Washington state case, as an endorsement of his voucher program now before Congress. Designed to circumvent last year`s ruling, the program would channel government money directly to poor parents so they could choose remedial schooling for their children.
Yet Bennett`s critics saw it differently. ”Bennett`s reading something into the decision that isn`t there,” said Joseph Conn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
The American Civil Liberties Union, another opponent of Bennett`s position, emphasized the tentative nature of the high court`s decision. Since 1971 the court has applied a three-part test to determine whether a disputed law favors any establishment of religion in violation of the Constitution.
Justice Thurgood Marshall, who wrote the opinion, found that the state`s funding of Larry Witters` studies easily cleared the first two hurdles: It had a secular purpose and did not have ”the primary effect of advancing religion.” The court declined, however, to reach the third prong of the test –whether such funding would foster excessive government entanglement with religion–because the Washington state courts had never dealt with the question.
There also were other matters peculiar to the Washington case. The state assistance is paid directly to students–adults, rather than impressionable children–without regard to the schools attended. In effect, the program creates no incentive to attend a sectarian school.
In sending the case back to the state court, Marshall ordered the state courts to resolve the entanglement issue.
To the dismay of four justices, Marshall made no mention of a 1983 ruling in which the court approved a Minnesota law allowing tax deductions for school expenses of grade school or high school students.
