Sandra Feldman observes that:
For religious schools, public scrutiny and accountability raise issues of religious freedom; the deep infusion of religion throughout their curriculum and lessons is essential to them, as is their freedom to require children to attend religious services. They don’t want state interference in any of that. Yet, accountability to the broader public must go along with public funding (as cited in Brighouse, 2006, pp. 79-80).
This underpins the problematic of publicly funding parochial schools. That is, as an emanation of the state, publicly funded schools must be publicly accountable, both in terms of how that funding is spent, but also, in terms of how the institution is conducted. The operation of state institutions is a public matter and subject to scrutiny in the public domain. Matters of religion, in a free and liberal society, are private matters which have no place in the public domain.
Insofar as public schools (i.e., schools that are publicly funded), as part of a just state, are concerned with autonomy and human flourishing (and all that that entails), the issue becomes how to reconcile this role with the sometimes conflicting articles of faith parochial schools weave into their approach to education. The Ontario Catholic school system – which has been fully funded since 1984 – is both illustrative and misleading on this point. In the Marc Hall case (Hall v. Durham Catholic District School Board), the Catholic school system was forced to grapple with their position on homosexuality and society, through the state, was forced to grapple with the appropriateness of publicly funding parochial schools. As it turns out, the court employed some semantic gymnastics in order to avoid dealing with either of these issues.
However, the tone of this case brought to the fore a risk associated with the public funding of any institution, that is, self-preservation. From an economic perspective, once public funds are used to support an institution in society, that institution becomes influenced by the incentive to maintain that funding. Institutional decisions then become subject to a (intra- or extra-organizational) political/societal test which heretofore was not appropriate. When this happens, the oversight by the state of one if its funded institutions requires that the institution fall in line with respect to its conduct. In the Hall case, the requirement was to not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation pursuant to the Human Rights Code – even though Catholic teaching considers homosexuality wrong and abhorrent. This is not necessarily bad. That is, this influence is appropriate in order to protect the role of the public school with respect to the notion of fostering autonomy and human flourishing. The philosophical question then, is, “What is the point of publicly funding parochial schools if the funding undermines the raison d’etre of the parochial school in the first place?”
It seems the answer to that question, in the Canadian/Ontario context is political expediency. Since 1867, Roman Catholic schools have been a bete noir for politicians. They were protected (and grouped with dissentient schools – which is interesting) at the country’s founding because it was politically expedient; they were fully funded by then Premier Bill Davis because it was politically expedient; and the issue (as seen in the last provincial election) is loathe to be dealt with by politicians because to do so would not be politically expedient. In the result, the Ontario experience can be misleading. That is, parochial school funding exists in Ontario for reasons not necessarily associated with a public policy decision that parochial school funding serves the state’s role in fostering autonomy and human flourishing through its public school system.
So then, can a nation evolve? When America and Canada were founded, the society was very much concerned with faith – in terms of godliness and virtue. Both countries wove the ideas of God, moral good, and living virtuous lives into the institutions and symbols of state. In fact, educational leaders in both countries considered public education and faith to be inextricably linked – one of no use without the other. The mores and folkways of both societies have changed since that time. Whereas, in Canada in 1867, it was considered discriminatory to exclude Roman Catholic education from the constitution in order to protect minority rights, is it now discriminatory to maintain its protection to the exclusion of multi-cultural/religious minorities in Canada?
Probably. The public policy test to determine whether an institution should receive public money ought to be the same, that is, “Does this institution serve the public interest?” It is not good enough that the institution does no harm. It must be an instrument in the furtherance of the public interest which notably includes the protection of (all) minority rights. By way of comparison, the public health care system deals with publicly funded health care delivery for all citizens. Should a citizen wish to be treated by the laying on of hands, they may do so – but the state will not fund that faith-based activity. The public judiciary deals with matters of law for all citizens. Should a citizen wish to observe an article of Sharia, they may do so, so long as it does not contravene an article of public law. In this same way, the public school must be concerned with the flourishing of all citizens. Should a citizen wish to receive education in the Torah, they may do so, but the state should not fund that faith-based activity.
One’s faith, and all that it entails, is a personal matter – something an individual grapples with and makes decisions about. There is no place for the state in matters of individual faith; what one chooses to believe or not; what one’s conception of the good is. Likewise, public schooling is a public matter. There is no place for one faith in deciding what is right; defining one conception of the good; limiting autonomous choice.
Because both state-based oversight of faith-based organizations and faith-based oversight of emanations of the state are anathema to the public interest and because the interests of each can be intractable, reconciling the two can be a zero-sum activity. In the result, it is difficult to make the case for publicly funding parochial schools. The just state must concern itself with social justice and equity which in turn require it to find public policy solutions where accommodations can be sought for all interested parties – not just those with a statistically significant voter base.
