The Universal Notebook: LePage, Bowen let down public schools

Of course, the separation of church and state only goes one way for vicious partisans like Mr. Beem and Mr. Limbaugh. Walls, of course, have two sides. The side Beem doesn't appear concerned about is the one where, under long-established Supreme Court precedent, the Government cannot -- except in the most serious cases -- compel religious organizations to fund directly activities which they believe are immoral. And so, just like the government cannot advance a particular religious agenda with public money -- which leads me to oppose vouchers for parochial schools -- it cannot compel a person or group to give up their religious beliefs through funding things like contraception and abortion. Easy. But, angry and one-sided partisans like Beem can't see both sides. It's too inconvenient, and too inconsistent with their alternatively haughty and boorish arrogance.

In addition, I must oppose, based on constitutional principles, publicly funded vouchers for parochial schools despite the fact that significant numbers of Americans will suffer lousy educations as a result -- perhaps dooming them to lives of low pay, suffering, and bad decision-making. Poor families around the country whose children are being crippled by bad public schools are being denied the opportunity to find their own, better way to get their children the education they need so desperately. But, that's the nature of the Constitution. Unlike Mr. Beem, I understand that it can be rough medicine when it doesn't cut your way, as in not providing an funding for contraception for a 30-year old activist studying law at a Catholic university that charges $65,000 a year for tuition. She'll have to dig down into her pockets, maybe give up the iPhone data plan and rely on free WIFI, to afford birth control, and I know that's tragic. He can take some comfort in the fact that, if common sense and the rule of law prevail, $3000 a year (saved across the board) might lower premiums for other folks, or be used to provide much needed services for the poor.

Now, perhaps I've jumped the gun in assuming how Mr. Beem would come out on the issue du jour. I doubt it.

N.B. I'm not sure why Mr. Beem continues to parade his ignorance about the Citizens United case. CU stands for the simple proposition that the right of free speech does not vanish when people join together to speak collectively. It protects corporations, to be sure, including the not-for-profits that own media outlets of all kinds of issue advocacy groups, but also unions, trade associations, PTAs, and every other collective of individuals recognized by law. You'd think Mr. Beem would understand why, in today's age of costly mass communication, we shouldn't be silencing collective speech. Would he prefer to leave it to rich individuals? (And, like the Establishment Clause, here again is the two-sided nature of the First Amendment. If you believe that some collectives should be able to speak collectively -- and, remember, this case has nothing to do with campaign contributions, just direct speech -- then you can't, as a matter of basic First Amendment law, discriminate between one collective or another without a very real risk of falling afoul of the constitution. But, perhaps this is a good challenge for Mr. Beem: On what basis would you prevent for-profit corporations from speaking collectively, but give a pass to not-for-profits? What basis would not fall afoul of the First Amendment? Remember, Mr. Beem, you can't use the "for profit" nature of the entity -- that's long been held to be unconstitutional -- nor the fact that their speech may be commercially motivated.)

N.B.B. It's clear that Mr. Beem also doesn't understand the concept of "corporate personhood," which has only a marginal relevance to the CU holding. Such personhood was adopted to protect ordinary citizens like Mr. Beem in three major respects. First, it allows corporations to be sued. Second, it requires corporations to be adequately financed, so that suits against them, if successful, will result in monetary recovery. Third, it allows individuals, like Mr. Beem (directly or through 401(k) or other investment devices) to own shares in a business without being personally liable if the corporation goes bankrupt or engages in activity that results in a judgement it cannot pay. This last protection, it should be noted, does not inure to the people who run the corporation if they were involved in the conduct that led to the judgment.

A couple of points:

1) Family income and student performance often (not always, but often) go hand in hand. Students from 2 parent well off homes will, on a whole, perform better than those from lower income homes. Therefore, if a family can afford to send their child to a private school/academy, the child is likely to already possess the tools to succeed. That is precisely why private schools and public schools from more affluent communities often rank higher in standardized testing than those from lower income communities. Subsidizing (via school choice) and sending a group of 'poor kids from the hood' to, say, Waynefleet, doesn't guarantee success. A good home life is a better place to start.
2) The idea of public funding for religious schools will crash and burn the moment taxpayer funds are funneled into an Islamic school. If the governor's proposal passes, it would happen eventually. And then we can all watch the boys MHPC have a hissy fit.

EAB say's: "Don’t let them take your tax dollars out of our public schools and spend it on their inferior religious schools."

I can understand why a person like yourself would be opposed to giving operational money to parochial schools. I don't agree with you, (do I ever?), but I think I can understand why you think that.

What I don't understand is why you think parochial schools are inferior to public schools? You give no evidence why they are inferior.

Do students that graduate from Cheverus High School score lower on their SATs than the students down the road at Deering High School because Cheverus is an inferior school? If they do then I dare you state that.

Are there more high school dropouts from John Bapst than there are at Bangor High School? If thats true then I bet the staff at John Bapst would love to hear you say that.

I'd really like to know why you think private religious schools are inferior to your almighty public schools.