February 6, 2012
Economic Development Administration
Office of Chief Counsel
Suite D-100
U.S. Department of Commerce
1401 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20230
Re:
Docket No. 110726429-1418-01: Comments on EDA’s
regulations
To
Whom It May Concern:
We,
the undersigned organizations, write to submit
comments regarding the proposed rule titled:
"Economic Development Administration Regulatory
Revision" (hereinafter "Proposed Rule"), which
was published in the Federal Register on
December 7, 2011. We oppose the Proposed Rule in
so far as it would "remove the content of
current paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of §314.10, which
provides that notwithstanding the release of the
Federal Interest, Project Property may not be
used for inherently religious activities
prohibited by applicable Federal law."1
First, the provision that bars the federal
funding of property that will be used for
inherently religious activity is necessary under
the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment
of the U.S. Constitution. Even if the
Administration takes the position that binding
constitutional law does not bar the federal
funding of structures used for inherently
religious activities, it should reject the
change because it is simply bad policy as
violative of fundamental principles of religious
liberty.
In
addition, this rule change contradicts the
asserted policies and the procedural framework
established by Executive Order 13559 ("Executive
Order"),2 which President Obama issued to reform
the Faith-Based Initiative and strengthen its
constitutional footing. The Proposed Rule also
defies the recommendations issued by the
President’s Advisory Council on Faith-based and
Neighborhood Partnerships ("the Council").3
The Proposed Rule Change
The
Proposed Rule would strip language that
currently prohibits entities from using property
for inherently religious activities after the
government releases its Federal Interest. The
Rule notes that "EDA programs support the
construction of economic development related
Projects, such as a job training facility or
business incubation center."4 If this language
is stripped from current regulations, recipients
of Project Property would be able to transform
these facilities into sanctuaries, seminaries,
or houses of worship, even though the property
was originally funded by the government.
The Language That Currently Exists in Section
314.10 (c)(1)(ii) Is Required by the
Establishment Clause.
Tilton and Hunt Demand that the
Language Remain.
As
explained in the "Supplementary Information"
section of the Proposed Rule itself, Section
314.10 (c)(1)(ii) was inserted into the
regulations "to address the legal requirements
of Tilton v. Richardson, (403 U.S. 672
(1971))."5 And, because those legal requirements
still apply, the protections must remain.
Tilton involved a challenge to the
constitutionality of a federal law under which
federal funds were used by secular and religious
institutions of higher education for the
construction of libraries and other campus
buildings. Although the law allowed money to go
to religious institutions, it also contained a
provision that expressly forbade funds from
being spent on buildings that would be used for
worship or sectarian instruction. The Court
upheld the program, but it unanimously
held that the provision was constitutionally
necessary and unanimously invalidated
part of the statute that would have allowed
religious schools to convert the
federally-funded facilities for worship or
sectarian instruction after twenty years had
passed. The court explained: "If at the end of
20 years, the building is, for example,
converted into a chapel or otherwise used to
promote religious interests, the original
federal grant will in part have the effect of
advancing religion."6
Two
years later, the Supreme Court clearly
reaffirmed the principle that the First
Amendment prohibits the government from funding
the construction or repair of buildings used for
religious worship or instruction. In Hunt v.
McNair,7 the Supreme Court upheld the South
Carolina Educational Facilities Authority Act,
which established an "Educational Facilities
Authority," through which educational facilities
could borrow money for the construction and
renovation of their facilities at favorable
interest rates. The Act, however, required each
lease agreement to contain a clause forbidding
religious use in such facilities and allowing
inspections to enforce that requirement.8 The
Court upheld the Act, including the condition
that government-funded physical structures could
never be used for religious worship or
instruction.
In
Committee for Public Education v. Nyquist,9
the Supreme Court also held that the
Establishment Clause barred the funding of
repairing buildings used for religious activity.
The Court struck down New York’s program of
providing grants to nonpublic schools for the
maintenance and repair of "school facilities and
equipment to ensure health, welfare, and safety
of enrolled students." The Court summarized its
previous holdings as "simply recogniz[ing] that
sectarian schools perform secular, educational
functions as well as religious functions, and
that some forms of aid may be channeled to the
secular without providing direct aid to the
sectarian. 3
But
the channel is a narrow one."10 The Court then
held that "[i]f the State may not erect
buildings in which religious activities are to
take place, it may not maintain such buildings
or renovate them when they fall into
disrepair."11
The
issue in Tilton and Hunt—whether
the government could release property to a
private entity if that property would be used
for religious activity at any time in the
future—is the very issue contemplated in this
Proposed Rule. The situations are impossible to
distinguish.12 Thus, the rule of Tilton
and Hunt apply and the restriction must
remain in place.
Tilton and Hunt Remain Good Law.
The
Proposed Rule justifies removing Section 314.10
(c)(1)(ii) by claiming that "the courts have
made a number of distinctions to Establishment
Clause jurisprudence"13 since the Tilton
line of cases. Even if the Court has made some
distinctions in the Establishment Clause arena
since these cases were decided, the rule set
down by the Supreme Court in Tilton,
Hunt, and Nyquist has never been
formally overturned by the Court and remains
controlling law.14 Indeed, the controlling
opinion in Mitchell v. Helms, reaffirmed
Tilton as standing for the proposition
that aid must contain a "secular content
component."15 Furthermore, Congress recently
recognized the applicability of this Supreme
Court jurisprudence when it limited green
construction funding in the economic recovery
bill to buildings in which secular activities
take place.16
Two
more recent federal court decisions also apply
the rule of Tilton, Hunt, and
Nyquist.17 In the 2007 case, Community
House v. Boise,18 the Ninth Circuit applied
Tilton to find that a publicly financed
building may not be diverted to religious use.
And, in 2001, the Seventh Circuit struck down
cash grants to create telecommunications access
for both public and private schools. The court
relied on the fact that "there are no real
restrictions on the use of the grant money by
the religious schools; the money may be used as
easily for maintenance of the school chapel or
for the religious instruction classrooms or for
connection time to view a religious website,
instead of payment for the telecommunications
links."19 4
Thus,
current law prohibits federal funds from being
used towards the construction, maintenance, and
rehabilitation of houses of worship and other
structures in which explicitly religious
activities will take place. The changes made by
the Proposed Rule, therefore, cannot survive
constitutional scrutiny and must be rejected.
The
Office of Legal Counsel Opinion on the Old North
Church Does Not Justify Removing the Language.
In
2003, the Office of Legal Counsel ("OLC") issued
an opinion asserting that funds allocated to
preserve historic structures under the Save
America’s Treasures program could be utilized to
preserve historic houses of worship such as the
Old North Church. In doing so, the OLC opinion
claimed that Tilton’s holding is
extraordinarily narrow. OLC justified this
diminishment of the holding of Tilton
based on severe doubts as to the continued
viability of the case. This treatment of
Tilton is inappropriate for several reasons.
First
and most fundamentally, it is not the business
of the Office of Legal Counsel—and, by
extension, the Department of Commerce—to set
aside as "narrow," standing Supreme Court
precedent based on speculation as to what the
Court may do in the future.20 Moreover, in
undertaking this analysis, the OLC opinion
relied upon cases that are wholly irrelevant,
predominantly relying upon free speech forum
cases that the Supreme Court has squarely held
are inapposite to federal aid cases.21
Second, regardless of whether it is
constitutional to expend government funds in
order to provide historic preservation
assistance to religious properties, basic
respect for the rulings of our highest court
mandates that it is the deviation from a rule
that should be viewed as narrowly possible,
rather than the other way around.
Finally, this situation, in any event, falls
within what the OLC called Tilton’s
"narrow" holding—making the current regulatory
provisions constitutionally necessary, even
under the OLC opinion’s own terms. Tilton,
like the situation before us, involved
restrictions on property in which the government
has released the Federal Interest—making
gratuitous the entire exercise of casting
Tilton into a narrow corner.
In
short, whatever the merits of OLC’s conclusion
that the Old North Church could constitutionally
receive public funds for the purpose of historic
preservation, the opinion erred in ignoring
admonishments from the Supreme Court to apply
holdings of cases directly on point and not to
deem precedent immaterial. Supreme Court
precedent, rather than the OLC opinion,
therefore, should be followed. 5
The Proposed Rule Violates Fundamental
Principles of Religious Freedom.
Even
if the Administration takes the position that
current Establishment Clause case law does not
bar the federal funding of structures used for
inherently religious activities, it should
reject this Proposed Rule for policy reasons.
One
of the basic principles of the Establishment
Clause is that taxpayers should not be forced to
fund religion—even if the religion funded
coincides with the beliefs of the taxpayer. This
funding bar is not hostile to religion, but
instead protects the autonomy of religious
institutions and the religious conscience of the
taxpayer. Using taxpayer funds to build,
construct, or repair structures that can
ultimately be used for inherently religious
activities—including structures that can
ultimately be used as sanctuaries and houses of
worship—violates this principle.
This Proposed Rule Runs Counter to the
Principles Established by the President’s
Executive Order, the Recommendations Issued by
the Council, and the President’s Framework for
Reform.
The
signers of these comments are organizations that
have advocated for the reform of the Faith-Based
Initiative since its creation by the Bush
Administration. Whether or not we supported the
formation of the Council, we engaged with the
Council because President Obama declared it
would be the venue to consider and recommend
such reforms.22 After the Council reported its
recommendations, the President issued an
Executive Order setting forth "fundamental
principles" for reforms, which were inspired by
the Council’s recommendations. The Executive
Order also established an Interagency Working
Group to implement these principles in a uniform
and consistent way. We expected, therefore, that
uniform regulatory changes would be proposed by
the Working Group rather than in piecemeal by
various agencies.
We
were disappointed, therefore, to discover that
this Proposed Rule—like the proposed regulations
recently issued by USAID23 and the interim rule
proposed by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development24—was proposed completely outside
the President’s reform process.
Furthermore, considering that the Council urged
the Administration to "strengthen constitutional
and legal footing" of partnerships and
identified deficiencies in the current
regulations,25 and the Administration’s
statements of support for the principle of
church-state separation,26 we were surprised to
see the Administration offer yet another
proposed rule that would strip church-state
protections from current regulations. We are
especially surprised by the Administration’s
actions given that the current language was
maintained by the Bush Administration.27
Although that Administration had undertaken
efforts to strip what we viewed as necessary
religious freedom protections from government
partnerships with faith-based organizations, it
still recognized the legal necessity of this
language.
Process conflicts
Adoption of the Interim Rule would violate the
process requirements provided by Section 3 of
the Executive Order. The Executive Order created
a Working Group to "review and evaluate existing
agency regulations, guidance documents, and
policies that have implications for faith-based
and other neighborhood organizations."28 The
Working Group has not yet completed this process
or submitted the report required by the
Executive Order.29 Adopting a Proposed Rule
outside the Working Group process ignores the
command of the President, while creating
duplicate work and contradictory rules.
The
Executive Order stressed the need to adopt
consistent rules throughout the agencies.
Indeed, one of the goals of the Working Group is
"to promote uniformity in agencies’ policies
that have implications for faith-based and other
neighborhoods organizations and in related
guidance."30 Nonetheless, the Department of
Commerce has proposed this rule completely
outside the Working Group structure.
Accordingly, this Proposed Rule should be
rejected and consideration of any rule should be
incorporated into the ongoing Working Group
structure.31
Conclusion
Adoption of the Proposed Rule would violate the
Constitution. In addition, it would violate
Administration policy and the process for reform
mandated by the President’s Executive Order.
Accordingly we ask you to reject this Proposed
Rule.
Sincerely,
African American Ministers In Action
American Association of University Women (AAUW)
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
American Humanist Association
American Jewish Committee
Americans for Religious Liberty
Americans United for Separation of Church and
State
Anti-Defamation League 7
Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty
Center for Inquiry
Commission on Social Action of Reform Judaism
Council for Secular Humanism
Disciples Justice Action Network
Equal
Partners in Faith
Hindu
American Foundation
Institute for Science and Human Values
Interfaith Alliance
Jewish Council for Public Affairs
National Council of Jewish Women
People For the American Way
Secular Coalition for America
Women
of Reform Judaism
1
Economic Development Administration Regulatory
Revision, 76 Fed. Reg. 76,492, 76,518 (proposed
Dec. 7, 2011).
2
Exec. Order No. 13,559, 75 Fed. Reg. 71,317
(Nov. 22. 2010) ("Executive Order").
3
President’s Advisory Council on Faith-based and
Neighborhood Partnerships, A New Era of
Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the
President (Mar. 2010) ("Council
Recommendations").
4 76
Fed. Reg. at 76,518.
5
Id.
6 403
U.S. at 683.
7 413
U.S. 734 (1973).
8
Id. at 744.
9 413
U.S. 756, 762 (1973).
10
Id. at 775.
11
Id. at 777.
12
Whatever might be the result in a program
available to all applicants on an equal basis,
the programs affected by this rule are
discretionary and thus not arguably governed by
cases such as Zobrest v. Catalina Hills
School District, 509 U.S. 1 (1993)—in which
all eligible applicants received available
aid—but by Tilton.
13 76
Fed. Reg. at 76,518.
14
"Although the Supreme Court has overturned a
number of Establishment Clause decisions from
the 1970s, the Court has never revisited the
limits on financing of religious structures
found in Tilton and Nyquist." Ira
C. Lupu & Robert W. Tuttle, THE FAITH-BASED
INITIATIVE AND THE CONSTITUTION, 55 DePaul L.
Rev. 1, 99 (2005).
15
Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U.S. 793, 819 (1999)
(quoting Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors
of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 842 (1995))
(Thomas, J.,); see also id. at 856
(O’Connor, J., concurring) (describing Tilton
as striking down the grant statute because
it lacked a "secular content requirement").
16
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,
Pub. L. No. 111-5, § 14004(c)(3), 123 Stat. 115,
281-82 (2009).
17
The Sixth Circuit case, American Atheists v.
City of Detroit Downtown Dev. Auth., 567 F.
3d 278 (6th Cir. 2009), is the only case that
diverts from the full Supreme Court precedent of
Tilton, Hunt, and Nyquist. Yet,
even this case does not stand for the
proposition that federal funds can fund the
purchase or construction of buildings in which
inherently religious activity takes place.
Instead, it distinguishes Tilton and
Nyquist, arguing that the grant program in
Detroit was a "one-time grant limited to
exterior cosmetic repairs" and "one-time
surface-level improvements" and Detroit "did not
construct the buildings by paying for them in
full." Id. at 298-99.
18
490 F.3d 1041, 1059 (9th Cir. 2007).
19
FFRF v. Bugher, 249 F.3d 606, 613 (7th Cir.
2001).
20 As
a unanimous Supreme Court stated, even if a
precedent’s continued viability appears unlikely
(as EDA asserts is the case here), "it is this
Court’s prerogative alone to overrule one of its
precedents." State Oil v. Khan, 522 U.S.
3, 20 (1997).
21 In
Locke v. Davey, 540 U.S. 712, 720 n.3
(2004), the Supreme Court explained that the
free speech line of case law does not apply to
federal aid cases. The Court explained: "Davey,
relying on Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors
of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 115 S.Ct.
2510, 132 L.Ed.2d 700 (1995), contends that the
Promise Scholarship Program is an
unconstitutional viewpoint restriction on
speech. But the Promise Scholarship Program is
not a forum for speech. . . . Our cases dealing
with speech forums are simply inapplicable."
22 To
our knowledge, the only reform issue that was
removed from the purview of the Council is the
issue of federally funded religious
discrimination.
23
Participation by Religious Organizations in
USAID Programs, 76 Fed. Reg. 16,712 (proposed
Mar. 25, 2011).
24
Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid
Transition to Housing: Emergency Solutions
Grants Program and Consolidated Plan Conforming
Amendments,76 Fed. Reg. 76,954 (proposed Dec. 5,
2011).
25
Council Recommendations at 127-29.
26
E.g., Joshua DuBois, blog post, "Upholding
Our Law and Our Values" (Aug. 1, 2011), <http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/
2011/08/01/upholding-our-laws-and-our-values>.
27
The Bush Administration issued an Interim Final
Rule in October 2008 that made changes to Part
314 of this regulation, but did not delete this
constitutionally necessary language. Revisions
to the EDA Regulations, 73 Fed. Reg. 62,858
(proposed Oct. 22, 2008).
28
Executive Order, Section 1(c) (setting forth new
Sec. 3(a)).
29
Id. (setting forth new Sec. 3(b)).
30
Id. (setting forth new Sec. 3).
31
The Department of Commerce will have input into
the report issued by the working group, as the
Executive Order specifically mandates that a
senior official from the Department be a member
of the Working Group.
February 15,
2012
The Honorable John Kline
Chairman
Education and Workforce Committee
2439
Rayburn House Office Building
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Re:
NCPE opposes any provisions in the package of
ESEA reauthorization bills that permit federally
funded private school vouchers.
Dear
Chairman Kline:
The undersigned members of the National
Coalition for Public Education (NCPE) write to
express our strong opposition to any provisions
in the package of Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) reauthorization bills that
that would allow the expenditure of scarce
federal funds on private school vouchers.
The Local
Academic Flexible Grant (Part B of H.R. 3990,
the Encouraging Innovation and Effective Teacher
Act) is one provision that is clearly designed
to fund and incentivize future implementation of
private school voucher programs. The summary of
the bill states that "private or public entities
could utilize these funds to support programs
that will help increase student achievement,
including scholarship
and
tutoring programs." "Scholarships" for "private
entities" are simply private school vouchers and
should not be funded with taxpayer dollars.
Because you will be reviewing the
reauthorization legislation at a hearing on
Thursday, we wish to object to this provision
and any language that would permit funds to be
used for private school vouchers.
Vouchers run counter to the very purpose of ESEA.
Instead of providing equal access to high
quality education or setting high standards and
accountability, voucher programs have proven
ineffective, lack accountability to taxpayers,
and deprive students of rights provided to
public school students.
At a
time when Congress is attempting to reduce
spending, it is poor public policy to funnel
taxpayer funds away from public schools and
toward private schools. Vouchers divert
desperately-needed resources away from the
public school system to fund the education of a
few, select voucher students, with limited, if
any, real impact on student academic
achievement. Congress would better serve ALL
children by using funds to make the public
schools stronger and safer than by creating a
new voucher program.
Vouchers support schools that are not bound by
the open and non-discriminatory acceptance
policies that are a unifying factor among the
diverse range of ethnic and religious
communities of our society and a strength of our
public school system. Public schools serve any
and all students that walk through the school
house doors, regardless of race, religion,
disability, or income.
Vouchers deprive students of rights and
protections they are awarded in public schools.
Despite receiving public money, private schools
that participate in voucher programs are not
subject to all federal civil rights laws and do
not face the same public accountability
standards that all public schools must meet,
including those in Title IX, IDEA, and ESEA—contained
in the very law the Committee seeks to
reauthorize.
Vouchers do not improve student education.
According to multiple studies of the District of
Columbia, Milwaukee, and Cleveland school
voucher programs, students offered vouchers do
not perform better in reading
February 15, 2012 Page 2 of 3
and
math than students in public schools. Vouchers
do not receive proper oversight, accountability,
or internal controls. Most voucher programs are
plagued with accountability problems, as they do
not have to adhere to the same standards set for
public schools.
Voucher programs primarily fund private
religious schools. To both protect the religious
freedom of taxpayers and the autonomy of
religious schools, many of our coalition members
object to taxpayer money being used to fund
religious education.
For
these reasons and more, NCPE opposes any
language that would permit a voucher program,
including language in the "Local Academic
Flexible Grant" as currently drafted. NCPE asks
that the language be revised to ensure that
public dollars remain invested in public schools
and that no ESEA funds can be used for private
school vouchers.
Thank
you for your consideration of our views.
Sincerely,
African American Ministers In Action
American Association of School Administrators
American Association of University Women (AAUW)
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
American Federation of Labor-Congress of
Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO)
American Federation of School Administrators (AFSA),
AFL-CIO
American Federation of Teachers
American Humanist Association
American Jewish Committee
Americans for Democratic Action
Americans for Religious Liberty
Americans United for Separation of Church and
State
Anti-Defamation League
ASPIRA Association, Inc.
Association of Educational Service Agencies
Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty
Center for Inquiry
Children and Adults with Attention
Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
Clearinghouse on Women's Issues
Council for Exceptional Children
Council of the Great City Schools
Disciples Justice Action Network
Equal
Partners in Faith
Family and Children’s Ministries, Disciples Home
Missions, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Feminist Majority
Freedom From Religion Foundation
Hindu
American Foundation
Institute for Science and Human Values
Interfaith Alliance
International Reading Association
Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
NA’AMAT USA
National Alliance of Black School Educators
National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People (NAACP)
February 15, 2012 Page 3 of 3
National Association for Bilingual Education
National Association of Elementary School
Principals
National Association of Federally Impacted
Schools
National Association of State Directors of
Special Education
National Association of Secondary School
Principals
National Center for Lesbian Rights
National Council of Jewish Women
National Education Association
National Organization for Women
National Parent Teacher Association
National Rural Education Advocacy Coalition
National Rural Education Association
National School Boards Association
People For the American Way
Public Education Network
Secular Coalition for America
School Social Work Association of America
Southern Poverty Law Center
Union
for Reform Judaism
Unitarian Universalist Association of
Congregations
United Church of Christ Justice & Witness
Ministries
Women
of Reform Judaism
cc:
Members of the House Education and Workforce
Committee
December 14, 2011
Faith-based and neighborhood
partnerships are breaking down the wall of
democracy.
The Institute for
Science and Human Values (ISHV) is a member of
the Coalition Against Religious
Discrimination
(CARD). We monitor and appeal to the
Congress and the White House to advance
separation of government and religion and to
defend our secular democracy. We have been
alarmed by the increased weight of the
faith-based initiative and neighborhood
partnership in breaking down the wall of
separation. We are concerned that President
Obama has not been strong enough in curbing
religious organizations use of tax payer's
dollars to discriminate in hiring staff to
administer citizen’s service programs.
Accordingly we have
united with other-like minded organizations to
send a letter of inquiry to all thirteen federal
agencies which house faith-based offices,
including the Department of Justice, the
Corporation for National and Community Service,
Department of Commerce, Environmental Protection
Agency, Department of Agriculture, Department of
Veterans Affairs, Department of Education, Small
Business Administration, Department of Health
and Human Services, Department of Housing and
Urban Development, Department of Education,
Department of Homeland Security and the
Department of Labor.
The letter
states:
Administration
officials have repeatedly stated that the
Administration makes this determination on a
"case-by-case" basis, yet it has never explained
the standard it applies or the process it uses
for the analysis.
Further we
ask:
What principles and
criteria are applied? Which administrative
offices handle these cases? How many, if any
cases have been examined and how have they been
acted on?
We wish to bring
clarity and transparency to this process. To
date although more than one religious group has
decried our inquiry to the press and on-line we
have not heard back from the government.
What can you
do to help? Take
the time to write President Obama and ask him to
have his administrators reply to the letter. Or
better yet, request that they publish detailed
information about the process on each of their
websites so citizens know they can protest and
how to do it if they run into job discrimination
by religious organizations.
November 14, 2011
Dear
Senator:
The undersigned members of the
National Coalition for Public Education (NCPE)
write to express our strong opposition to the
Financial Services appropriations provisions
within the Energy and Water Appropriations bill
(H.R. 2354) that would fund the District of
Columbia private school voucher program.
The bill would provide $20
million for the D.C. voucher program, even
though it has not been found to be effective in
improving educational outcomes for participating
students. At a time when Congress is considering
cutting trillions of dollars from the federal
budget, it should not be spending millions of
taxpayer dollars for a small number of students
to attend private schools.
In addition to the many problems
with the D.C. voucher program—including
religious liberty and civil rights issues—it has
proven ineffective. All four of the
congressionally mandated U.S. Department of
Education (USED) studies that have analyzed the
D.C. voucher program concluded that it did not
significantly improve reading or math
achievement, leaving no justification for
continuing its funding.
1
The USED studies further
found that the voucher program had no effect on
student satisfaction, motivation or engagement,
or student views on school safety.2
The studies also indicated
that many of the students in the voucher program
were less likely to have access to key services
such as ESL programs, learning supports, special
education supports and services, and counselors
than students who were not part of the program.3
Having failed to improve
the academic achievement and school experience
of the students in the program, the voucher
program clearly does not warrant continued
funding.
NCPE believes that instead of
sending federal taxpayer money to private
schools, these funds should be invested in the
public schools. We also note that despite
receiving public money, the participating
private schools are not subject to all federal
civil rights laws and public accountability
standards, including those in the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA), that all public
schools must meet. Finally, we also believe this
program continues to raise problems under the
First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
1 US Dep’t of Educ.,
Evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship
Program: Final Report xv, xix, 34
(June 2010) (Final
US Dep’t of Educ. Report);
Final US Dep’t of Educ. Report at 34;
US Dep’t of Educ.,
Evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship
Program: Impacts After Three Years 34
(March 2009) (2009
US Dep’t of Educ. Report); US Dep’t
of Educ.,
Evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship
Program: Impacts After Two Years 34,
36-38 (June 2008) (2008
US Dep’t of Educ. Report); US Dep’t
of Educ.,
Evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship
Program: Impacts After One Year xvii,
44, 46 (June 2007) (2007
US Dep’t of Educ. Report).
2
Final US Dep’t of Educ. Report at
43-47;
2009 US Dep’t of Educ. Report at
xxvi, xviii, 35, 44-45, 49-50;
2008 US Dep’t of Educ. Report at
42-43, 50, 57; and
2007 US Dep’t of Educ. Report at xx,
53-55.
3
Final US Dep’t of Educ. Report at 20;
2009 US Dep’t of Educ. Report at
xxii, 17;
2008 US Dep’t of Educ. Report at
xviii, 16.November 14, 2011 Page 2 of 3
The objective evidence does not
support spending millions of dollars of taxpayer
funding on the D.C. private school voucher
program. For these reasons and more, NCPE
opposes the provisions in H.R. 2354 that
would fund the D.C. voucher program.
Thank you for your consideration
of our views.
Sincerely,
African American Ministers in Action
American Association of School Administrators
American Association of University Women (AAUW)
American Association of University Women,
Washington DC Branch
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
American Federation of Labor-Congress of
Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO)
American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees
American Federation of School Administrators
American Federation of Teachers
American Humanist Association
American Jewish Committee
Americans for Democratic Action
Americans for Religious Liberty
Americans United for Separation of Church and
State
Anti-Defamation League
ASPIRA Association, Inc.
Association of Educational Service Agencies
Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty
Center for Inquiry
Christian Education Ministry of Disciples Home
Missions, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Clearinghouse on Women’s Issues
Council for Exceptional Children
Council of the Great City Schools
Disciples Justice Action Network
Equal Partners in Faith
Family and Children’s Ministries, Disciples Home
Missions, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Feminist Majority
Hindu American Foundation
Institute for Science and Human Values
Interfaith Alliance
International Reading Association
Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
NA’AMAT USA
National Alliance of Black School Educators
National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People (NAACP)
National Association of Elementary School
Principals
National Association of Federally Impacted
Schools
National Association of Secondary School
Principals
National Association of State Directors of
Special Education
National Black Justice Coalition
National Center for Lesbian Rights
November 14, 2011 Page 3 of 3
National Council of Jewish Women
National Education Association
National Organization for Women
National Parent Teacher Association
National Rural Education Association
National School Boards Association
Parents for Public Schools
People For the American Way
Public Education Network
School Social Work Association of America
Secular Coalition for America
Southern Poverty Law Center
Union for Reform Judaism
Unitarian Universalist Association of
Congregations
United Church of Christ Justice and Witness
Ministries
Women
of Reform Judaism
September 19, 2011
The
Hon. Barack H. Obama
President of the United States
The
White House
1600
Pennsylvania Ave
Washington, DC 20500
Dear
Mr. President:
The 56
undersigned religious, education, civil rights,
and health organizations write to express our
deep concern about your recent comments at the
July 22, 2011 Town Hall Meeting in College Park,
Maryland, regarding your Administration’s
policies on federally funded employment
discrimination. Your statement suggested that
you may now support allowing religious
organizations to hire and fire based upon
religion in federally funded positions. This
would flatly contradict your 2008 campaign
promise to end such discrimination. Your recent
statement, combined with the Administration’s
failure to take concrete steps thus far to
restore anti-discrimination protections, causes
us great disappointment. We write, therefore, to
ask that you clarify your July 22 remarks and
take steps to fulfill your commitment to end
federally funded employment discrimination.
[Read
More]
Testimony
Of
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human
Rights
American Civil Liberties Union
Citizens for Global Solutions
National Women’s Law Center
On
“Women and the Arab Spring: Spotlight on Egypt,
Tunisia and Libya”
Before the
Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on
International Operations and Organizations,
Human Rights, Democracy and Global Women’s
Issues
And
The Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South
Central Asian Affairs
November 2, 2011
We are pleased to submit this statement on
behalf of xxxx organizations, to support the
many local efforts to advance women’s equality
as part of the democratization taking place in
countries in the Middle East and North Africa.
We thank Senator Barbara Boxer, chair, and
Senator Jim DeMint, ranking member of the Senate
Foreign Relations Subcommittee on International
Operations and Organizations, Human Rights,
Democracy and Global Women’s Issues, and Senator
Bob Casey, chair, and Senator Jim Risch, ranking
member of the Subcommittee on Near Eastern and
South Central Asian Affairs, for convening this
hearing. We are pleased that this hearing will
shine a spotlight on the importance of ensuring
women’s rights as these new democracies begin to
take shape and urge that the committee consider
the importance of the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
against Women (CEDAW) in supporting these
efforts.
We are members of a broad-based, diverse
coalition of over 180 national organizations,
coordinated by The Leadership Conference on
Civil and Human Rights, and are seeking U.S.
ratification of CEDAW, the most comprehensive
women’s human rights treaty. Our organizations
have come together to increase the understanding
and visibility of CEDAW and to build a greater
awareness among policymakers and the public
about the need, importance and impact of
ratification of CEDAW by the United States, now
one of only six countries in the world that has
not ratified this treaty.
Since the start of the Arab Spring in Tunisia,
some countries in the region, including Egypt
and Libya, have toppled former dictators, while
other sitting governments, such as Jordan and
Morocco, have begun their own reform processes.
In each of these countries, women have been
important leaders and active participants in the
“revolutions” and are determined to continue to
press for equal participation in the
democratization process and to enshrine women’s
equality in their new laws and constitutions.
This September, Secretary Clinton, speaking at
the United Nations just before the start of the
General Assembly, noted: “We are in an age of
participation. Social networking and connective
technology has made that a fact. And every
party in any democracy should recognize the
rights of women and make room for women to play
roles in the political process. As the Arab
Awakening enters a new chapter, we all have a
stake in ensuring that the potential of all
citizens – men and women, boys and girls – have
a chance to be realized.” It is no coincidence
that this year the Nobel Peace Prize went to
three women, including Tawakkul Kaman from Yemen
“for their non-violent struggle for the safety
of women and for women’s rights to full
participation in peace building work.”
It is now well-recognized that empowerment of
women is central to building democratic,
peaceful and prosperous societies. On numerous
occasions, both President Barack Obama and
Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton have reiterated
that a society can be neither democratic nor
prosperous without the full participation of
women, and that no nation can thrive when it
fails to tap the potential of half its
population. In September, when the World Bank
released its
World Development Report: Gender Equality and
Development,
Robert Zoellick, president of the World Bank,
explained the need for the full participation of
women in a
Politico
op-ed entitled “Empowering Women Empowers
Nations.” He said, “Equality is not just the
right thing to do. It’s smart economics. How
can an economy achieve full potential if it
ignores sidelines or fails to invest in half its
population?”
The Senate has already gone on
record expressing bipartisan support for women’s
rights and political participation as leaders in
North Africa and the Middle East undertake
constitutional reforms to shape new
governments. In April, the Senate unanimously
approved a resolution emphasizing the critical
importance of women’s rights and political
participation in these transitional periods.
This resolution (S.Res.109), initiated by
Senator Olympia Snowe, was co-sponsored by the
16 other women senators of both parties, among
others. It was followed by a letter initiated
by Senators Barbara Mikulski and Kay Bailey
Hutchison, co-signed by all the women senators
and others, to the Supreme Council of the Armed
Forces of Egypt, urging the inclusion of women
in shaping the government. On July 29, the
Senate again unanimously approved a resolution (S.Res.
216) sponsored by Senator Boxer encouraging
women’s political participation in Saudi Arabia.
We believe another important step that the
United States should take to demonstrate its
leadership and support for the efforts of women
in the Middle East and North Africa is for the
U.S. to ratify CEDAW and formally join with the
rest of the world in working to advance equality
and eliminate discrimination at home and
abroad. CEDAW is a comprehensive international
agreement that affirms principles of fundamental
human rights and equality for women around the
world. CEDAW offers countries a practical
blueprint to achieve progress for women and
girls by calling on each ratifying country to
overcome barriers to discrimination. Around the
world, CEDAW has been used to reduce sex
trafficking and domestic abuse; provide access
to education and vocational training; ensure the
right to vote; ensure the ability to work and
own a business without discrimination; ensure
inheritance rights; improve maternal health; and
end forced marriage and child marriage.
Here in the United States, women enjoy
opportunities and status not available to most
of the world’s women. However, few would
dispute that more progress is needed
particularly to close the pay gap, reduce
domestic violence and stop trafficking. CEDAW
would provide an opportunity for national
dialogue on how to address persistent gaps in
women’s full equality. It would be a catalyst
for the United States to engage in a systematic
analysis of discrimination against women and
develop strategies for solutions.
CEDAW is the “gold standard” or international
norm that countries around the world consult in
shaping their laws and constitutions on equality
and women’s rights and that women’s advocates
use around the globe to urge recognition and
protection of these rights. One of CEDAW’s
primary goals is to ensure that women are able
to exercise the full rights of citizenship and
emerge as leaders in their own societies. For
example, last year in a hearing convened by the
Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Human Rights
and the Law, Wazhma Frogh, who works with the
Afghan Women’s Network, testified about how
women’s rights activists looked to CEDAW in
their successful effort to include a gender
equality clause in the new Afghan Constitution.
Similarly, in Tunisia and other countries in the
Middle East and North Africa, women are seeking
to incorporate the comprehensive approach of
CEDAW into their own new laws and
constitutions. These women activists also
report that some of their opponents question the
seriousness of the United States commitment to
women’s rights pointing to the fact that the US
has not ratified CEDAW.
CEDAW has been ratified by Egypt, Tunisia, Libya
and almost all of the other countries in the
Middle East. When many of these countries
ratified CEDAW, however, they attached
reservations to the articles dealing with issues
such as a woman’s right to retain her own
nationality and pass it on to her child, and the
right to freely contract and own property.
Women activists in the region, in collaboration
with the Women’s Learning Partnership, have
undertaken a systematic regional campaign to
promote the full implementation of CEDAW. As a
result of this campaign, Morocco, for example,
has lifted its reservations and in its new
constitution recognizes men and women’s equal
status as citizens and bans discrimination on
the basis of sex. Jordan has lifted its
reservations relating to women’s right to travel
freely and choose their place of residence.
One of the first acts of the new Tunisian
government this year was to remove its
reservations to CEDAW and other human rights
treaties. Discussions of CEDAW and efforts
toward implementation, including changes in laws
and policies, are taking place throughout the
Middle East and North Africa.
As you know, CEDAW has been ratified
by 187 countries. Only the United States and
five other countries (Iran, Somalia, Sudan and
two small Pacific Islands—Palau and Tonga) have
not yet ratified this comprehensive women’s
human rights treaty. As we noted above,
advancing women’s human rights is also
fundamental to America’s national security and
economic interests. Moreover, ratification of
CEDAW would continue America’s proud bipartisan
tradition of promoting and protecting human
rights.
Women in the Middle East and North Africa, like
women in many countries around the world, have
found CEDAW to be a valuable tool for protecting
and advancing women’s rights. The question they
always ask us is why the United States, a
trailblazer in guaranteeing these rights, has
failed to ratify CEDAW, this landmark treaty for
women and girls.
The United States is rightfully known as a
global leader in standing up for women and
girls. Yet our failure to ratify CEDAW enables
opponents of women’s rights in the Middle East
and elsewhere to decide that U.S. arguments on
behalf of women’s rights need not be taken
seriously. This September, Secretary Clinton
along with women heads of state and foreign
ministers from countries around the world,
endorsed a “Joint Statement on Advancing Women’s
Political Participation,” that reads in part:
“We reaffirm our
commitment to the equal rights and inherent
dignity of
women …….We call upon
all States to ratify and fulfill their
obligations
under the UN Convention
on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination
against Women (CEDAW)…”
We applaud the bipartisan consensus in the
Senate supporting women’s participation in the
transition to democracies in the region and the
recognition of the centrality of advancing
women’s human rights as an essential ingredient
of success. We believe the hearing today will
deepen our understanding and appreciation of the
need for U.S. policy and funding that strongly
support the acceptance of and implementation of
women’s human rights in countries in the Middle
East and North Africa.
U.S. ratification of CEDAW would put the muscle
of action behind words of America’s global
commitment to women’s rights as human rights.
Action now would come just when America needs
such leverage and credibility to enhance its
global leadership in standing up for women and
girls who are pushing for equality in the Middle
East. We urge the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee to build on this consensus on women’s
human rights and take up U.S. ratification of
CEDAW next year.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Chairperson Franks
Constitution Subcommittee of House Judiciary
Committee
Dear Chairperson Franks and Members of the
Constitution Subcommittee of House Judiciary
Committee
The State of Religious Liberty in
the United States
The Institute for Science and
Human Values is deeply concerned about genuine
threats to religious liberty in the United
States. These threats come in many forms and can
be found in surprising places.
As recently as 2010, the
Christian company Trijicon, Inc. was using
references to biblical messages on the
high-powered rifle scopes they were selling to
the military. Soldiers used these scopes in
Afghanistan and Iraq, and Trijicon was making
millions of dollars as a result. Not only was
such an action an affront to the non-Christian
members of the military, it no doubt offended
many Muslims and helped strengthen the notion
that the U.S. is engaged in a holy war against
Muslim lands.
Non-Christians are often made to
feel uncomfortable in the military. Members of
the Air Force Academy often feel besieged by
Christians trying to force their faith upon
them. In the army, in the fall of 2011, a young
soldier was taunted and threatened with
punishment at Fort Jackson, South Carolina,
simply for opposing forced prayer during a
chaplain-led ceremony.
Of course, the military is not
the only area in which threats to religious
liberty can be found. Some conservative
Christians maintain that Islamic law is coming
to the U.S., and that Muslims cannot be trusted
to defend the Constitution. Opponents of the
construction of the Islamic community center
near Ground Zero in lower Manhattan resorted to
legal and illegal means in attempts to stop it.
There have been similar attempts to block the
construction of mosques in other cities
throughout the U.S.
Religionists in the U.S. have used religion to
oppose same-sex marriage, to segregate bus
riders by sex, etc. However, we at the Institute
for Science and Human Values maintain that no
ideal—religious or otherwise—can ever trump
human liberty. We must strive to consistently
defend religious liberty, and to oppose attempts
to thwart it wherever they may be found. For in
the words of Martin Luther King, “Injustice
anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
Sincerely
yours,
Paul J.
Kurtz Norm
Allen Jr.
Chairperson
Director of International Outreach
