All right, the AP reported this yesterday:
WASHINGTON - The House voted Thursday to let Head Start centers consider religion when hiring workers, overshadowing its moves to strengthen the preschool program's academics and finances.
The Republican-led House approved a bill that lets churches and other faith-based preschool centers hire only people who share their religion, yet still receive federal tax dollars. Democrats blasted that idea as discriminatory.
Launched in the 1960s, the nearly $7 billion Head Start program provides comprehensive education to more than 900,000 poor children. Though credited for getting kids ready for school, Head Start has drawn scrutiny as cases of financial waste and questions about academic quality have surfaced nationwide.
Overall, the House bill would insert more competition into Head Start grants, require greater disclosure of how money is spent, and try to improve collaboration among educators in different grades. Yet on Thursday, the dispute over religion eroded the bipartisan support for Head Start's renewal.
The House passed the bill 231-184; only 23 Democrats voted for it.
GOP lawmakers, with backing from the White House, contend that preschool centers should not have to give up their religious autonomy in order to receive federal grants.
"This is about our children, and denying them exemplary services just because the organization happens to be a religious one is just cruel," said Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C.
The Republican plan would, for example, let a Catholic church that provides Head Start services employ only Catholic child-care workers.
Democrats and Republicans offered different interpretations of whether the Constitution, federal law and court rulings protected — or prevented — federally aided centers from hiring based on religion.
"Congress should not be in the business of supporting state-sponsored discrimination," said Rep. Alcee Hastings (news, bio, voting record), D-Fla. Said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif.: "The (Republican) majority has decided to choose religious discrimination over what could have been a rare bipartisan agreement."
Rep. John Boehner (news, bio, voting record) of Ohio, the Republican chairman of the House education committee, said former President Clinton signed four bills into law that allowed religiously based hiring. Boehner rejected appeals to withdraw the religion-based amendment. The House passed the amendment 220-196 along near party lines. Ten Democrats voted for it. That vote came before the final vote on the overall bill.
Without a change in law, Boehner said, "Faith-based organizations are forced to relinquish their protected rights to hire individuals who share their beliefs."
On academics, the bill would prod Head Start centers to work with school districts and teach to state academic standards or risk losing their federal money. That strategy of academic coordination helped win bipartisan support for the bill, very different from the last time.
By a single vote in 2003, the House passed a bill that would have let up to eight states apply for control over Head Start, drawing opposition from every Democrat. That experimental shift in power died when Congress didn't pass a Head Start law that year, and the new bill does not include the provision.
The bill would temporarily halt the federal test given to hundreds of thousands of 4-year-old and 5-year-old children in Head Start until a National Academy of Sciences review is completed.
The Government Accountability Office found this year that the test, called the National Reporting System, has numerous flaws. Rep. Ron Kind (news, bio, voting record), D-Wis., asked for the suspension and Boehner agreed, saying the test should not be given until Congress is assured its results are accurate.
The House bill, approved 48-0 by the chamber's education committee in May, would reauthorize the Head Start program through 2011. A similar measure in the Senate is pending.
___
On the Net:
Information on the bill, H.R. 2123, can be found at Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov/
---------------
I THINK this is the amendment in question:
`(a)(1) The Secretary shall not provide financial assistance for any program, project, or activity under this subchapter unless the grant or contract with respect thereto specifically provides that no person with responsibilities in the operation thereof will discriminate with respect to any such program, project, or activity because of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, political affiliation, or beliefs.
`(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a recipient of financial assistance under this subchapter that is a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society, with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution, or society of its activities. Such recipients shall comply with the other requirements contained in this subsection.
`(b) No person in the United States shall on the ground of sex be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, be subjected to discrimination under, or be denied employment in connection with any program or activity receiving assistance under this subchapter. The Secretary shall enforce the provisions of the preceding sentence in accordance with section 602 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Section 603 of such Act shall apply with respect to any action taken by the Secretary to enforce such sentence. This section shall not be construed as affecting any other legal remedy that a person may have if such person is excluded from participation in, denied the benefit of, subjected to discrimination under, or denied employment (except as provided in subsection (a)(2)), in the administration of any program, project, or activity receiving assistance under this subchapter.
`(c) The Secretary shall not provide financial assistance for any program, project, or activity under this subchapter unless the grant or contract relating to the financial assistance specifically provides that no person with responsibilities in the operation of the program, project, or activity will discriminate against any individual because of a handicapping condition in violation of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, except as provided in subsection (a)(2).'.
I'm a little conflicted about this because honest to God, I'd figure something like a Catholic school would skew their hiring towards people of similar faith, and if they ran into trouble staffing every position with someone of like faith, they'd open up a bit. But this actually puts it in writing so now I'm thinking, do you really want to make this concrete?
I guess I was struck by how polarized the issue was. What do you think?
Religious discrimination in Head Start bill?
Religious discrimination in Head Start bill?
"When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war." – Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Neither slave nor tyrant." - Basque motto
"Neither slave nor tyrant." - Basque motto
- Rspaight
- Posts: 4386
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
- Location: The Reality-Based Community
- Contact:
This "faith-based" stuff is about one thing: taking money out of the overworked and underfunded traditional gov't-sponsored social work and public services sector and giving it to churches, who already enjoy huge tax benefits. (This is part of the Norquist "shrink the government until it's small enough to drown in a bathtub" plan, as backed by right-wing ideologues who despise said social work and public service programs as coddling of the idle poor.)
While in theory this doesn't violate the Establishment clause, direct federal sponsorship of discriminatory hiring practices is a big leap down a slippery slope toward a future where the church controls social services and is free to impose its value system on who gets help and in what ways (which is the real goal here, make no mistake).
Ryan
While in theory this doesn't violate the Establishment clause, direct federal sponsorship of discriminatory hiring practices is a big leap down a slippery slope toward a future where the church controls social services and is free to impose its value system on who gets help and in what ways (which is the real goal here, make no mistake).
Ryan
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney
- lukpac
- Top Dog and Sellout
- Posts: 4592
- Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
- Location: Madison, WI
- Contact:
Rspaight wrote:While in theory this doesn't violate the Establishment clause, direct federal sponsorship of discriminatory hiring practices is a big leap down a slippery slope toward a future where the church controls social services and is free to impose its value system on who gets help and in what ways (which is the real goal here, make no mistake).
Knowing what I know (which honestly isn't too much), I'd liken this to the Boy Scouts issue. If churches want to only hire people of their faith, that's fine. But they shouldn't expect federal money to pay for it.
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD
- Rspaight
- Posts: 4386
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
- Location: The Reality-Based Community
- Contact:
I love it when complementary news stories hit at opportune moments...
http://neros-fiddle.blogspot.com/2005/0 ... ation.html
Ryan
http://neros-fiddle.blogspot.com/2005/0 ... ation.html
Ryan
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney
- lukpac
- Top Dog and Sellout
- Posts: 4592
- Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
- Location: Madison, WI
- Contact:
There was a bit of a kerfluffle this past week about allowing organizations that apply religious tests in hiring to get federal Head Start money.
That doesn't seem outrageous at first blush.
It did to me

"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD