Title: The Supreme Court Considering Further Erosion of the Church-State Divide in Schools
Should citizens be compelled to fund religious schools despite the prohibition of imposing regulations on such establishments? This question is at the heart of a case currently under review by the Supreme Court, which includes the inclusion of Oklahoma's Catholic charter school in its docket.
Initial inquiries about the state's potential approval of a church-run charter school came from the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board. The board, in an unexpected move, disregarded the opinion of the state attorney general and approved the St. Isidore of Seville virtual charter. The Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa were responsible for this proposal, stating that the school would adhere to Catholic teachings and doctrines, including its views on sexual orientation and gender identity.
The Oklahoma State Attorney General, Gentner Drummond, a conservative Republican who later announced his candidacy for governor, condemned this decision as contrary to Oklahoma law and not in the best interests of taxpayers. Drummond argued that these actions would place Oklahomans on a "slippery slope," forcing them to fund charters promoting religions in which they do not believe.
The case then reached the Oklahoma State Supreme Court, where the decision revolved around determining whether the charter school is a state actor, thereby subject to state laws and regulations. If it is, the charter school must be non-sectarian, as stipulated by Oklahoma law, and the state cannot fund religious institutions, as per the constitution. The court ultimately ruled against the charter, determining instead that St. Isidore is a public school and a state actor; therefore, the Establishment Clause and Oklahoma Constitution apply, and the Free Exercise Clause does not.
This ruling, however, is the subject of interest for the Oklahoma State Charter Board, which would like to see it overturned. The goal is to finance a Catholic school while remaining free from state rules and regulations, specifically those involving discrimination. The petition to the Supreme Court cites three cases: Trinity Lutheran, Espinoza, and Carson, which have demonstrated an erosion of the wall between church and state.
Justice Sotomayor's dissent in Carson further exemplifies the significance of this case. In a direct shift, the court's decision in favor of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual Charter School could pave the way for an influx of religious charter schools, particularly struggling Catholic institutions aiming to obtain a substantial infusion of taxpayer money. As Oklahomans grapple with the possible implications of funding a diverse range of religious charter schools, skepticism remains regarding the impact on the state's educational system and taxpayers.
The case's outcome could have significant implications for leadership in Oklahoma's educational system, as it could potentially encourage more religious institutions to seek funding for charter schools. Additionally, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of allowing state funding for religiously-affiliated charter schools, it might lead to a shift in the focus of education towards religion, potentially impacting the quality and inclusivity of secular education.
