The Head Start reauthorization process has taken a turn for the worse with the recent House vote to allow privately operated (but publicly funded) Head Start centers to make hiring decisions based on applicants' religious affiliation. I have no idea whether this provision will make it through the Senate or conference, but it has the feel of 1) a sort of line in the sand on legislative vs judicial power just as the Roberts nomination is being considered and 2) a poison pill that can sink some of the other provisions in the bill that the Republicans have grudgingly agreed to -- ie the reauthorization of Head Start and the suspension of National Reporting System testing.
I'm actually surprised at how little play this move has gotten, given the huge church-state issues involved. But this church-state business isn't even the biggest thing going on here; Head Start reauthorization is huge -- it critically affects almost a million underprivileged children in this country, at a time when poverty and opportunity ought to be at the forefront of our minds. And Head Start works; a recent federal study concluded that it had a significant effect both on children's pre-literacy and their health. Let's hope this isn't forgotten in the debate over freedom from religious discrimination any subsequent policy haggling.
From your mention of the "judicial power" and the "church-state issues" do I take this to mean you think there might be some constitutional or legal infirmity with the bill?
If all it does is repeal the Civil Rights Act nondiscrim provisions for certain private employers who happen to receive public money, it's pretty much beyond question.
Jesus, is that really true? What a fucked up country we live in. These aren't just any private employer -- they're schools whose purpose is to create a level playing field for disadvataged children in a world where that doesn't happen by itself. The idea that the teachers in these schools could be hired based on their religion is completely toxic to my conception of what this country is supposed to be about.
Well, for better or worse it is pretty well established that the Fourteenth Amendment and the First Amendment (which would be the relevant texts) only prohibit governmental action, not private action, so private discrimination is perfectly okay with the Constitution. That's why we had to pass, e.g., the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
So that only leaves the question of whether the government by giving money to a group that engages in discrimination, itself does something unconstitutional. There have been some very brief gestures at this in the Bob Jones case but they have since fallen by the wayside.
Federal statutory or state law is still a pretty big deal, though.
Post a comment