Denying Catholic virtual charter school violates principles of equal treatment | Opinion

When our Founding Fathers sought to describe and enshrine the principles that would establish our nation and help it flourish, they recognized the importance of cooperation between public and private entities for the common good.

Among those private entities, they valued faith and religion as essential for the flourishing of society and the nation as a whole. They understood that faith and religion help form among citizens the character necessary for the American project of self-rule. Thus, they desired that the positive contributions of faith and religion would not be hindered by two extremes: the state establishing or sponsoring an official religion to the exclusion of others; or, the state discriminating against a religion or all religions.

The relationship between state and church in America is a unique and, at times, curious feature of our system that acknowledges the value that public-private partnerships can have for the populace as a whole.

A different take:Oklahoma doesn't have minute of publicly funded instruction time to lend to sectarian studies

It might be healthy to admit that conversations can become rather hyperbolic concerning public-private partnerships when they involve religious entities; thus, sober study of the issues and claims is in order. Much commentary quickly focuses on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and the oft-used phrase not found anywhere in the Constitution of “separation of church and state.” Less frequently cited, however, is the fact that the First Amendment of the Constitution also contains the Free Exercise Clause.

In reality, we all benefit from public-private partnerships for services that the state cannot possibly meet alone. For instance, when a loved one requires hospitalization, no one objects to a hospital receiving public funds, even if it is operated by a religious entity. Similarly, when disaster strikes and private agencies like Catholic Charities or Oklahoma Baptist Disaster Relief assist with public funds, no one claims a violation of the Establishment Clause. People readily accept aid from such organizations without protest.

The value of public-private partnerships is a timely topic, especially given the recent Oklahoma Supreme Court decision that a Catholic-run charter school, St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, is unconstitutional. According to Oklahoma law, a charter school is a public school within the larger system of public schools, operated by a private entity. This public-private partnership raises many questions and strong reactions, unlike the previous examples of health care and disaster relief.

It is legitimate to question whether such a partnership violates the Constitution or other laws, particularly when public funds are involved. It is also good to remind citizens that public money from tax dollars is not the government’s money but comes from the governed ― all the governed, regardless of the services they receive or their religion. If public-private partnerships can legally receive public funds for other services, it is reasonable to consider how a charter school operated by a religious entity does not violate the Constitution concerning education.

At the heart of the misunderstanding in public debate, and perhaps among Attorney General Gentner Drummond and the Oklahoma Supreme Court justices ruling in the majority against St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, is an overly narrow focus on the Establishment Clause while ignoring the Free Exercise Clause. This is crucial in the debate over religious entities running charter schools because the U.S. Supreme Court has already recently ruled in favor of religious entities participating in publicly funded education programs. While the Constitution prohibits the establishment of a state religion, it also prohibits actions that would impede the free exercise of religion.

Considering the entirety of the First Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent rulings are relevant to the debate over St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that while states are not required to create publicly funded programs for privately operated schools (as with charter schools), if they do, they cannot prohibit participation by religious entities solely because they are religious. For the state to do so, as the Supreme Court of Oklahoma has done, is an express violation of the Free Exercise Clause, regardless whether state statutes or the state’s constitution give plausible permission to do so.

The state of Oklahoma, through its elected legislators, has chosen to create charter schools within the public school system, forming a public-private partnership for the benefit of education. Charter schools can receive allocated education funds. The denial of equal treatment to St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School by reason of its religious identity is an excellent example of what the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against. The state would not violate these principles if it decided not to admit charter schools into the public school system. However, this would go against the will of Oklahomans and the desire for school choice for the best outcomes for all Oklahoma students.

A sober assessment of the U.S. Constitution, the entirety of the First Amendment, the establishment of charter schools in Oklahoma and the allocation of funds to them clearly demonstrates that the Oklahoma Supreme Court and Attorney General Drummond are in error in their opinion and decision.

The Rev. Stephen V. Hamilton is a Catholic priest serving in Edmond and is the chairman of the Oklahoma Advisory Committee on Founding Principles (OACFP).