quires much of the citizen, and demandsmuch of the instruments the citizensprovide, such as the schools, to carryout this program. Universal liberty isimpractical without universal education.In general, the public knows and real-

izes this, and is willing to assume theresponsibility demanded. Education isimperative for the strengthening ofdemocracy, and democracy is impera-tive for the dignity and liberty ofmankind.,

,PAtmd Pu~tic ?Autds & Uded 04f2ln-utie YA__,,&_ _

V. T. THAYER

The question stated in the title above is one to which many educatorsare giving careful and critical thought. In his analysis of the problem,V. T. Thayer, educational director of the Ethical Culture Schools,New York City, opens facets of the problem which must be recognizedin a thorough consideration of all issues involved.

IN HIS monumental work on TheAmerican Commonwealth James Brycewrites as follows regarding the relationof church and state in the United States:

"Half the wars of Europe, half the inter-nal troubles that have vexed Europeanstates, from the Monophysite controversiesin the Roman empire of the fifth centurydown to the Kulturkampf in the Germanempire of the nineteenth, have arisen fromtheological differences or from the rivalclaims of church and state. This wholevast chapter of debate and strife has re-mained virtually unopened in the UnitedStates. There is no Established Church.All religious bodies are absolutely equalbefore the law, and unrecognized by thelaw, except as voluntary associations ofprivate citizens."'

1 Vol. 11 (Second Edition, Revised) p. 643.Commonwealth Publishing Company, New York.19o8.

November 1947

And, he adds, "So far from sufferingfrom the want of State support, religionseems in the United States to stand allthe firmer because, standing alone, she isseen to stand by her own strength. Nopolitical party, no class in the community,has any hostility either to Christianity orto any particular Christian body. Thechurches are as thoroughly popular in thebest sense of the word, as any other in-stitutions of the country." 2

The Situation Has ChangedLord Bryce published these observa-

tions near the end of the nineteenthcentury. Were he writing today hewould record the fact that the "vastchapter of debate and strife" which hesaw as unopened in the United Statesis now being opened.

2 Ibid., p. 658.

85

The attack upon separation of churchand state takes the form of whittlingdown the distinctively American con-ception of this principle until it meansno more than a mutual policy of hands-off as between the two institutions.Surprisingly this conception finds en-dorsement in a recent report emanatingfrom the American Council on Educa-tion. Here we are told, "The core ofmeaning in the doctrine of separationof church and state we believe to bethis: there shall be no ecclesiastical con-trol of political functions; there shall beno political dictation in the ecclesiasticalsphere except as public safety or publicmorals may require it.""

The Court States Its JudgmentThis statement ignores completely the

peculiar fruits of American experiencein the relation of church and state andthe resulting policy that has made pos-sible the unique development of publiceducation in this country. To the doc-trine of non-interference Americanshave added the principle that no publicfunds can lawfully be appropriated toreligious institutions or to any educa-tional institution in which sectariandoctrines are taught. Both the majorityand the minority decisions of theSupreme Court in the recent case fromNew Jersey of Everson vs. Board ofEducation emphatically reaffirm thisinterpretation. For example, JusticeBlack states for the majority, '"No taxin any amount, large or small, can belevied to support any religious activi-ties or institutions, whatever they maybe called or whatever form they may

The Relation of Religion to Public EducationThe Basic Principles. By the Committee on Religionand Education, American Council on Education:Washington, D. C., p. 25.

86

adopt to teach or practice relgion."And Justice Rutledge adds for theminority, that the first Amendment tothe Constitution forbids not only anestablished church but the public sup-port of religion as such. Our constitu-tional policy, writes the Judge, "doesnot deny the value or the necessity forreligious training, teaching or observ-ance. Rather it secures their free exer-cise. But to that end it does deny thatthe state can undertake or sustain themin any form or degree. For this reasonthe sphere of religious activity, as dis-tinguished from the secular intellectualliberties, has been given the twofoldprotection and, as the state cannot for-bid, neither can it perfom or aid inperforming the religious function. Thedual prohibition makes that functionaltogether private. It cannot be madea public one by legislative act."

"But," it is asked, "if separation ofchurch and state means not only dis-establishment but a prohibition againstthe use of public funds for non-publicschools, how do we explain recent deci-sions of the Supreme Court whichapprove the transportation of parochialschool children at public expense andthe furnishing of free text books tochildren in public and non-publicschools alike? Or Congressional sanc-tion not merely of payment of tuitionfor G.I.'s to sectarian institutions, butas well the distribution of building ma-terials and instructional equipment tosectarian schools out of surplus prop-erty by the federal government?"

Judgments Need Not Be FinalUnquestionably these constitute seri-

ous deviations from the principle ofseparation of church and state if notoutright violations of it. Violations of

Eduational Ladership

the law are understandable and can becorrected, as the recent incident inNorth Chapel Hill, Ohio, clearly dem-onstrates. But the gradual transforma-tion of a legal principle throughjudicial interpretation is more serious.

For example, friends of separation ofchurch and state, as we have known andpracticed separation in this country,cannot accept as final the principle firstenunciated by former Chief JusticeHughes 1&hich distinguishes betweenaid to an individual and aid to an in-stitution. it is on this ground that theSupreme Court first approved the dis-tribution of free text books to privateschool children and, more recently, freetransportation to parochial schools. Oc-casion must be found for a judicialreconsideration of this interpretation.

Confusion Invites Violation

In the meantime these decisions leavethe situation badly confused, and con-stitute an open invitation for local viola-tion of the intent of the law. In eachinstance the Court was influenced bythe theory that in providing welfareservices to children the total expense tothe public is no different from what itwould have been had these self-samechildren attended public school. FromJustice Black's decision in the Eversoncase it seems clear that the majority ofthe Court would have ruled differentlyhad it been obvious that the publictransportation of parochial school chil-dren necessitated providing of specialfacilities for this purpose.

In practice, however, this is preciselywhat will follow upon furnishing trans-portation together with medical, health,and other welfare services to parochialas well as to public school children.Remember that there are 256 religious

November 1947

sects in this country that are privilegedto share in the benefits of aid to non-public schools.

It is not unlikely that the decisionto insure welfare services to children asindividuals within parochial schools willnecessitate a neutral organization andadministration of some of these func-tions-the establishment, for example, ofhealth centers on occasion in such a wayas to minister most efficiently to all thechildren of a given geographical areawithout respect to school attendance.Only thus would it seem possible toguarantee to each child his privilege asa child in a democratic communitywithout dissipating and wasting publicfunds through unnecessary multiplica-tion and duplication of public facilities.

Duplication Promotes Waste and Rivalry

To provide public funds for welfareservices to children in attendance uponparochial schools is one thing; to grantpublic funds for buildings, instructionalmaterials, and for direct or indirect re-lief to the salary budget of a sectarianschool is another. Were the Americanpeople to yield to the pressure now be-ing brought to bear upon Congress andstate legislatures on behalf of "non-public schools" they would deal a deathblow to public education as we have de-veloped it in this country.

The grounds for this assertion are notdifficult to understand. Education foreffective participation in modern lifecosts money. Already states and locali-ties are finding it difficult to secure theresources with which to maintain ade-quate salaries and to provide essentialmaterials and supplies and up-to-datebuildings. To divide these meager re-sources between public and privateschools involves more than a mere re-

87

duction in the total amount of moneynow available to public education. Asin the case of health services, it wouldinvite wasteful methods of expenditureand duplication and overlapping of faci-lities in order to accommodate the de-cision of numerous sects to maintainsectarian schools; for if we extend theprivilege of dipping into public fundsto one parochial group, we must yieldto similar wishes on the part of another.

Under these circumstances public ed-ucation would gradually lose its presentbroad base of support. Efficiency woulddecline without assurance of adequatereplacement by other institutions, withthe result that the per capita cost of ed-ucation for the total population wouldincrease while its quality declined.

Not only would the appropriation ofpublic funds to parochial schools de-prive public schools of sadly needed re-sources; it would foster competition andrivalry for legislative favor. An unholyscramble for the lion's share in the pub-lic purse would result not only as be-tween public education and parochialinstitutions, but rival religious bodies aswell. To these disastrous effects of reli-gious rivalry would be added attacksupon the integrity of public education.Already jealousy born of rivalry hasled to the ridiculous charge that ourpublic schools are "godless" institutions--as though the attempt to play fairand not to promote the sectarian doc-trines of any one group were evidenceof antagonism to these doctrines.

Support Without JurisdictionBut more than financial loss and the

resulting decline of quality in publiceducation are involved in this questionof public support for parochial schools.

88

The question involved is whether to-gether with financial aid, non-publicschools will be willing to accept, as well,genuine public control over the natureof the education thus promoted. In sofar as standards were imposed by thestate these standards would be bothsuperficial and external; restricted tomatters such as the maintenance of min-imum salary for teachers, but not re-lated in any vital sense to the quality ofteaching. Certainly they would not in-volve an insistence upon the nature andquality and integrity of thinking pro-moted by teachers such as, for example,the extent to which the methods of freeinquiry and reflective thinking are stim-ulated and developed as essential -toolsfor free men in a democracy.

In short, the decision to subsidizeparochial school education by means ofstate funds would constitute a revolu-tionary change in American publicpolicy. It would commit a democraticstate in principle to the support of anundemocratic education!

The Unique Contribution of PublicEducation

This prompts me to draw attentionto a distinctive contribution of publiceducation which we should cherish, notundermine. I refer to the method ofdisinterested thinking which its non-sectarian character serves to foster. Inthe realm of character education, for in-stance, the public school is freed fromthe temptation to ground "spiritual"ideals (such as the worth of personality,cooperation, tolerance) or the commonvirtues (honesty, reliability, temper-ance, self-control, etc.) in sectarian re-ligious doctrines. The necessity of being

(Continued on page 128)

Educational Leadership

Wilson, University of Nebraska, is a goodcondensed statement of the work of theUnited Nations. Although it was designedfor school children of the fifth grade level,it can be used by older children or byadults who want a simple, understandableexplanation of the work of the UnitedNations. It is published by the UniversityPublishing Company, 1126 Q. Street,Lincoln, Nebraska, and sells for 28 cents.

THE MARCH OF TIME has releasedForum Editions of its regular i6 mm.educational films for short-term bookingsof one, two, or three days or for extendedterm rentals. Forum Edition releases areselected from the regular March of Timeissues and are edited for special use ineducational groups. A discussion outlineincludes a summary of the script, intro-ductory and round table questions, studysuggestions, and a bibliography. The sub-jects available include a variety of issuessuitable for public school or communitystudy. Preview prints and further informa-

tion may be secured from the March ofTime, Forum Edition, 369 Lexington Ave.,New York 17.

RESOURCE-USE EDUCATION is con-cerned with a problem of national sig-nificance. A new annotated bibliography,Your Region's Resources, listing materialscovering the natural and human resourcesof the South, is now available from theRegional Materials Service, George Pea-body College for Teachers, Nashville 4,Tenn., for 25 cents. John E. Brewton isresponsible for this excellent publication.

AN EXCELLENT RECRUITMENTpamphlet is You'd Like Teaching, pre-pared and distributed by Central Wash-ington College of Education, Ellensburg.The pamphlet sells for $l.oo. It is one ofthe most attractive vocational bookletsavailable anywhere, presenting the teach-ing profession in a challenging manner.Many good photographs are included.

,9Ao"d J JA(&ei Cont aun Uud fr page 8

(Contimned from page 88)

neutral as between the sects encouragesthe public school to substitute for sec-tarian religious authority the principleof "by their fruits ye shall know them."From this it is but a step to the dis-covery that the morality we all hold incommon grows out of our common cul-ture, out of the day by day associationsof people, and is validated by these as-sociations. It thus becomes possible forpublic schools to bring to expression amethod of character education throughthe life of the school and the interpreta-tions of the classroom which holds forththe possibility of forging bonds of unitybetween people who are varied in back-ground and origin, race, color, andcreed. This is the method of reflection

128

which relates practice and precept andmodifies both in the light of experience.It is a method peculiarly appropriate toa character education that created char-acter, but it is a method that can like-wise apply to all areas of living. It is amethod that promises to foster peaceand good will between the peoples ofthe earth as well as the inhabitants ofour own country. It is a method thatthe public school is uniquely andpeculiarly qualified to cultivate if it canbe persuaded to recognize its true mis-sion in our democracy.

Let us resolve to hold public educa-tion to this distinctive responsibility andnot to deter it therefrom by public sup-port to sectarian education.

Educational Leadership

Copyright © 1947 by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. All rights reserved.