Today the High Court upheld a ruling by a lower court that state sponsored scholarships should not be extended to students pursuing divinity studies because it represents a violation of "church-state separation". The court's 7-2 ruling held that the state of Washington was within its rights to deny a taxpayer-funded scholarship to a college student who was studying to be a minister. That holding applies even when money is available to students studying anything else. Only Justices Scalia & Thomas voted against upholding the lower court's ruling. The two dissenting Justices emphasized that the ruling represents another form of legally-sanctioned discrimination against religion. I believe our much-maligned judicial combo of Scalia-Thomas is not only correct on legal grounds but theological grounds as well. UC-Berkeley, Univ. of Michgan and UVA are all outstanding state-supported universities that offer a degree in relgion or religious studies. If the state saw fit to authorize these academic programs at tax payer expense why is it unconstitutional to provide scholarship assistance to students in these same programs which the state has already approved? This is a glaring contradiction and represents the disparate outcome of the Court's flawed decision. Am I to believe that a future AME Pastor who desires to pursue an M.A. or Ph.D. in Religious Studies at UVA should be barred from receiving a state supported scholarship simply because he chose to enroll in this program as opposed to a graduate program in Archeaology, Nuclear Physics or (gasp) Economics? I'm sure the 3rd President of the United States and the chief architect of Monticello and a true early 19th century Renaissance Man, can't be pleased at this narrow-mided decision which unfairly penalizes the study of religion. QED

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2004

Answers

Bill, that is truly interesting. I still have to digest it all. Didn't Thomas begin his studies as a theological student?

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2004

You mean Justice Thomas got it right? And of course Justice Scalia, who takes his cue from Thomas, followed along with him. I'm glad to see Justice Thomas get some credit.

Be Blessed

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2004

I obtained the following information on Thomas from the Fox News Website. www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,7526,00.html.

"Attended Conception Seminary. Received an A.B., cum laude, from Holy Cross College and a J.D. from Yale Law School in 1974."

He got his, and it had to be through a scholarship program if he was as poor as he said he was at the time.

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2004

I would hazard to guess that Justice Thomas received some form of financial assistance while attending these elite (read: expensive) private institutions of higher learning. I don't think the typical native, black or white, from PinPoint Georgia has a net worth sufficient to 100% finance the cost of higher education. Today's court case however looks at the barriers now presented for scholarship assistance for future clergy who are matriculating at public or state supported colleges. Justice Thomas' stirring dissent is a clear message that such students should not be left out of the financial aid equation. It will be interesting to see how our mainstream black denominations respond to the Justice's dissent. The Univ. Michigan's affirmative action case last spring prompted much interest because of its impact on our racial spoils system. Nearly everyone had an opinion (though not always informed) about why that case was so "vitally important". The issue today however is simple and straightforward. Does the state have a complelling interest to withold scholarship money from students who are interested in pursuing state-approved academic programs in divinity/religion leading to baccalaurette and graduate degrees? A majority of the Justices said yes while Thomas & Scalia argued no. Just like in the case of Joshua and Caleb's "minority report" about the conquest of Canaan, today's minority report by our distinguished Justices is also the right report. QED

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2004

Dear Professor Dickens---

It comes as no surprise to me that Mr. Justice Thomas' dissent is "correct" on the issue under consideration, that involving the eligibility of divinity students for scholarship aid in state sponsored schools and colleges, like other students.

As a practicing attorney, who represents individuals, usually plaintiffs, as opposed to institutions or governments, I often have occasion to cite Justice Thomas' decisions, in support of my clients. This may seem ironic given the public perception of him, but he is one of the strongest defenders of the right to trial by jury on the Court, and many of the people who I represent are being denied the right to trial by jury in federal courts by a procedural mechanism known as "summary judgment," especially in civil rights cases.

Just like Booker T. Washington took an undeserved hit from certain organizations, who purport to know what's best for "us," it would appear that Justice Thomas is suffering a similar fate. While I do not agree with all of his rulings (I do not agree with ALL of any judge's rulings, as far as that goes!) he is no worse that most federal judges, and is better that many! Now, stick that in your pipe and smoke it!

Great topic! Keep'm coming!

Larry D. Coleman, Esq.

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2004

I disagree with Bill's reading of the Supreme Court's decision in Locke v Davey. I agree with the court decision because it supported the right of the state of Washington in accordance with the state constitution to set a particular limit on promise scholars not to pursue a "devotional theology degree." Both parties in this suit were in agreement that Mr. Davey's pursuit of a degree in pastoral studies was a pursuit of a devotional theology degree. The types of programs that Bill refers to are not "devotional" in nature but academic and most of the posters on this board would not recognize them as being Christian at all.

There are remedies for this first, the people of the state of Washington could amend their constitution to allow for the funding of religious training. Notice that the scholarship did not deny Mr. Locke the right to attend a religious institution as long as it was accredited nor did it bar him from taking courses that were devotional in nature. I do not think that this ruling bars any future AME pastor from pursuing the advanced degrees that Bill refers to in his post because there are no pre-requisites in these programs that requires the applicant from having an undergraduate degree in theology or even religion.

Also don't get too excited about the dissent of justice thomas, his paragraph states that the study of theology should not be limited to being devotional. However since both of the parties to this case agreed that this particular study was devotional his dissent is of no real consequence in this case but it might serve some small use in another case where the argument centered on whether a course of study in religion as offered by secular state universities is by nature "devotional" but that was not the issue in this case. And Mary sorry to say in the primary dissent thomas once again followed his mentor scalia.

-- Anonymous, February 26, 2004

Harold opines -

"There are remedies for this first, the people of the state of Washington could amend their constitution to allow for the funding of religious training. Notice that the scholarship did not deny Mr. Locke the right to attend a religious institution as long as it was accredited nor did it bar him from taking courses that were devotional in nature. I do not think that this ruling bars any future AME pastor from pursuing the advanced degrees that Bill refers to in his post because there are no pre-requisites in these programs that requires the applicant from having an undergraduate degree in theology or even religion."

Really??? After reading Rehnquist's majority opinion it is clear he and the other six members are equally confused about the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause. Your proposed remedies actually support my argument about the state funding a religious department yet denying a student from receiving financial aid to support his/her intended major. I raise the issue about UVA, UC- Berkeley & Michigan to illustrate the internal inconsistency of the High Court's argument. As Justice Thomas points out in his dissent (which I have read) the Promise Scholarship Program does not define theology nor does it take into account that the study of theology is not limited to pastoral devotional issues for purposes of proselytizing. Many students enroll in theology without any intent on becoming leaders of a church or congregation. They are enrolled primarily for the intellectual and academic benefits gained from the program. Hence, there is no violation of the Establishment Clause. Many state supported universities (HBCUs as well) offer undergraduate programs in religion. I happen to know a dynamic AME minister who completed his BA in religious studies at FAMU and went on to pursue a MDiv at Duke. Now according to the logic of the Court's recent decision Florida's tuition assistance grants would be unconstitutional for this gentleman to use because of the proposed degree. Nonsense. Even the very liberal 9th Ciruit Appeals Court of San Francisco agreed that Washington state was unfairly penalizing religion by excluding worthy students from this state benefit. This case wouldn't have gotten to the High Court if Governor Gary Locke had not appealed the 9th CIrcuit's ruling. The regrettable outcome is the High Court sanctions discrimination based on religion. That my maverick friend is morally indefensible and legally repugnant. QED

-- Anonymous, February 26, 2004

Whether or not the court is biased against religion is neither here nor there. The people of Washington via their constitution have stated "No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise or instruction, or the support of any religious establishment." Northwest College's school of Ministry says it helps men and women develop their gifts so that these students can become leaders who have the tools to make a difference in communities, whether in their local neighborhood or overseas. The school prepares students for all areas of vocational ministry, including pastoral ministries, youth ministry, children’s ministry, and missions.

In Contrast the University of Michigan religious studies department mission is stated thusly The Studies in Religion Program provides students with a basic knowledge of the history, psychology, philosophy, and anthropology of religion; promotes an understanding of diverse religions traditions; and examines religious questions which arise in all cultures. The concern of the program is not to inculcate a particular doctrine or faith but rather to broaden and deepen a student's knowledge and understanding of religious traditions.

The program at UVA you allude to is a liberal arts based study of religion which requires a concentration 3 courses in one religion and a secondary concentration in another. This program does not have as its intent preparation for vocational or devotional ministry.

You correctly state that many do major in religious studies without a desire to pursue a profession in ministry but that was not the case in Locke v Davey. Davey did intend to pursue a professional career in ministry and his college's program was designed specifically for ministerial preparation.

Unfortunately for your position the US Constitution does not prohibit or restrict states from refusing to fund religious organizations. The ninth circuit was wrong and the court was quite clear in their decision and I did not find scalia's dissent compelling, but I thank thomas for clarifying the obivous.

-- Anonymous, February 26, 2004