Religious Discrimination to Become Legal

Sava · June 15, 2003, 10:41

Quote:

Bill allows some Head Start schools to base hiring on religion

WASHINGTON (AP) --Religiously oriented groups that provide federal preschool programs could refuse to hire teachers based on their faith, a House panel voted Thursday in approving a scaled-back overhaul of Head Start.

The bill would give eight states -- not all 50, as the Bush administration wanted -- greater control over how they run the nation's preschool program for the poor.

Overall, the bill aims to expand academic expectations for children, require more teachers to have a college education and improve monitoring to ensure students emerge ready for kindergarten.

But the religion provision, added Thursday by the House Education and Workforce panel on education reform, is the latest to cause a partisan divide over a program that has helped roughly 20 million children develop literacy and social skills.

The bill has an anti-discrimination clause, but it would not apply to groups in hiring people whose religion could affect the organization's work. The idea is backed by a court ruling and intended to keep religious groups from dropping out of the federal program, said Rep. Mike Castle, R-Delaware, the bill's sponsor.

"Faith-based organizations cannot be expected to sustain their religious mission without the ability to employ individuals who ... practice their faith, because it's that faith that motivates them to serve," Castle said.

Democrats failed to get to strip the language.

"To have legislation that would try and convince faith-based institutions and organizations that they ought to discriminate -- I don't understand it. It's amazing to me," said Rep. Danny Davis, D-Illinois.

The bill, approved in a party-line vote, now goes to the full committee. Head Start is up for reauthorization, meaning Congress and the president can rewrite it.

The bill's pilot program would allow eight states to take federal Head Start money and merge it with their own spending to better coordinate preschool services. It would be open only to states that have shown a financial commitment to preschool and that agree not to drop their own spending if chosen. States would also have to prove students show improvement.

Critics fear a declining federal role will drop standards, and that Head Start will lose its comprehensive mission of health, nutrition and parental involvement.

"We appreciate the fact that they have limited it, but we are still opposed to it," said Maureen Thompson, a consultant for the National Head Start Association. "We think it is the first step in dismantling Head Start as it has worked and served children for 38 years."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

It's becoming more and more evident that civil rights have no place in Bush's America. I've always been a critic of faith-based programs due to the "slippery slope" possibility. Believe me, I take no joy in being right.

DinoDoc · June 15, 2003, 10:50

Why shouldn't religious organizations be able to take faith into account in thier hiring practices?

Sava · June 15, 2003, 10:52

Quote:

June 13, 2003
House G.O.P. Drafts Bill to Overhaul Head Start
By DIANA JEAN SCHEMO

ASHINGTON, June 12 — Over the opposition of Democrats, Republican lawmakers drafted legislation today to overhaul Head Start, the national day care program for poor children, ending a 38-year history of bipartisan consensus as old as the program.

In reshaping Head Start, House Republicans on an education subcommittee intend to emphasize the mission to prepare children academically for kindergarten, they said, and to improve coordination between preschool and elementary education.

The redesign is modeled on No Child Left Behind, President Bush's ambitious law that calls for testing children in reading and math annually from the third to the eighth grade and requires schools to progress toward closing the achievement gaps between rich and poor and Latino, black and white children each year.

But in criticism reminiscent of that against No Child Left Behind, advocates of the current Head Start program complain that the bill's high ambitions are not matched with the money to meet them. The advocates and Democratic lawmakers also contend that they had not seen the bill under discussion until Wednesday evening, not leaving enough time for study and debate.

On Wednesday, the National Head Start Association sued the Bush administration, saying it had violated First Amendment rights of Head Start providers. The administration has in recent weeks written to providers to warn them that the Hatch Act bars using federal money to lobby Congress. The Head Start Association accused the administration of trying to muzzle criticism.

Although the bill today backed away from some of the most controversial proposals, it appeared to do that after protracted negotiations among Republican lawmakers rather than in consultation with Democrats. The $6.8 billion bill drops plans to transfer Head Start to the Education Department from the Department of Health and Human Services in what was probably the most visible signal of the new academic emphasis. The measure, however, would still require all Head Start teachers to have four-year college degrees by 2008.
The proposal would also scale back plans to permit states to take control of Head Start. Critics had contended that would lower the quality of Head Start and reduce the money available for children.

The federal administration of Head Start is now paid from a separate allotment. So essentially all the money that Congress appropriates for the program goes to the day care centers.

The bill now says that no more than eight states may take over Head Start in a demonstration project. Those states have to pledge not to reduce the number of children in the federal program and to provide services as extensive as the children now receive.
The bill would also allow religion-based groups that run Head Start programs to consider religion in hiring, exempting them from antidiscrimination clauses in the bill.

In a marathon session of the subcommittee today, Republicans defeated an array of Democratic amendments that would have tripled the Head Start budget, lowered the eligibility requirements and expanded services to migrant children with extra money.

The legislators agreed to a more modest Republican-sponsored amendment to increase Head Start programs for migrant children, using that part of a state's allotment for professional development that was left unspent.

Although Head Start currently has some academic goals for its young graduates, who must, for example, learn 10 letters by the time they leave for kindergarten, its strength has been in the array of services that it offers children in poverty-stricken neighborhoods like medical and dental care, as well as nutritionally balanced meals.

Child welfare advocates, while welcoming moves to raise the quality of Head Start teachers, view the bill with suspicion.

"It's a scam," said Helen Blank, a veteran of the Children's Defense Fund and a senior fellow at the National Women's Law Center.

Amy Wilkins, executive director of the Trust for Early Education, estimates that Head Start would have to increase by $2.2 billion a year to pay its teachers a competitive salary at the higher educational level. But that money is not in the bill. Head Start teachers are not currently required to have bachelor's degrees

another article from http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/13/national/13STAR.html

I love how the hypocritical Republican supporters of this bill state that discrimination based on religion is okay because it will lead to higher standards for hiring. But yet, in the last paragraph, it states that Head Start teachers don't need to have bachelor's degrees. Here's an idea you Republican pudwhacks! How about you require higher academic standards of your teachers rather than discriminate against their religions?!

Sava · June 15, 2003, 10:52

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why shouldn't religious organizations be able to take faith into account in thier hiring practices?

BECAUSE THEY ARE FUNDED BY FEDERAL MONEY! I don't know about you, but I don't want my tax dollars supporting discrimination.

DinoDoc · June 15, 2003, 10:55

You do have a point about the bachelor's degrees though.

Sava · June 15, 2003, 11:00

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
You do have a point about the bachelor's degrees though.

DD GAVE ME A COMPLIMENT!!! +1

Kuciwalker · June 15, 2003, 11:09

Would you rather have the religious organizations refusing to help at all? So what if some people don't get jobs WITH A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION based on religion? I'd say education is more important.

Sava · June 15, 2003, 11:14

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
Would you rather have the religious organizations refusing to help at all?

If they want to retain their "private" rights. They should remain private.

Quote:

So what if some people don't get jobs WITH A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION based on religion? I'd say education is more important.

Education is more important. Please explain to me how discriminating against someone's religion will improve a child's ability to read. I thought America was about the best person getting the job regardless of race, gender, religion, or political beliefs. Silly me. As I pointed out, this stupid bill doesn't even require teachers to have Bachelor's Degrees. It sounds like this bill is more about chipping away at more freedoms and rights rather than improving education. I don't know about you, but I don't want someone who's only qualified to be working at McDonalds to be watching my children (when I have some). To put this in perspective. I am qualified, under these rules, to be teaching children. AND I SHOULDN'T BE IN A POSITION TO INFLUENCE THE YOUTH OF AMERICA!

Kuciwalker · June 15, 2003, 11:16

It would improve a childs ability to read because otherwise the organization wouldn't be there in the first place!

I'm not defending the organizations; I'm defending the law. It is (unfortunately) a necessary compromise.

Sava · June 15, 2003, 11:19

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
I'm not defending the organizations; I'm defending the law. It is (unfortunately) a necessary compromise.

explain how discrimination helps children to read...

Kuciwalker · June 15, 2003, 11:21

For the third time...

It helps them read because ALLOWING it means there will be more places to TEACH children to read!

DinoDoc · June 15, 2003, 11:22

Does anyone know the Court ruling Castle is refering to?

Sava · June 15, 2003, 11:24

Quote:

It helps them read because ALLOWING it means there will be more places to TEACH children to read!

So giving educational institutions less choices by hiring people based on religion and not their competency improves things?

that makes sense

Kuciwalker · June 15, 2003, 11:29

For the fourth time...

IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE THAT OPTION, THEY WOULDN'T BE TEACHING CHILDREN AT ALL! THEY WOULD QUIT!

That is how it helps.

Sava · June 15, 2003, 11:34

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
For the fourth time...

IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE THAT OPTION, THEY WOULDN'T BE TEACHING CHILDREN AT ALL! THEY WOULD QUIT!

That is how it helps.

They should quit. Federal money should go to educational institutions that higher the best teachers, not just the ones with the same religious orientation as their employers.

Apocalypse · June 15, 2003, 11:37

Not all religious institutions hire based on religion. I went to a Catholic high school and half my history teachers were anti-catholic to a small extent, they just didn't say things openly all but a couple times.

MichaeltheGreat · June 15, 2003, 11:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
If they want to retain their "private" rights. They should remain private.

Sure, they can opt out of participating altogether, and make their services available only for a fee, not at all, or only to members.

Quote:

Education is more important. Please explain to me how discriminating against someone's religion will improve a child's ability to read. I thought America was about the best person getting the job regardless of race, gender, religion, or political beliefs. Silly me. As I pointed out, this stupid bill doesn't even require teachers to have Bachelor's Degrees. It sounds like this bill is more about chipping away at more freedoms and rights rather than improving education. I don't know about you, but I don't want someone who's only qualified to be working at McDonalds to be watching my children (when I have some). To put this in perspective. I am qualified, under these rules, to be teaching children. AND I SHOULDN'T BE IN A POSITION TO INFLUENCE THE YOUTH OF AMERICA!

Since you're dealing with preschool kids learning to read, it's not likely they'll be contaminated with anything more ideologically dangerous than, say... Dr. Seuss.

Should the Nation of Islam have to hire avowed athiests or evangelical Christians? Should a mainstream Episcopal church with a preschool program have to hire someone of Fred Phelp's ilk? Since the overall pool of religious people of various beliefs is more or less evenly represented by the pool of religious organizations of those same beliefs, allowing these organizations to maintain their existing hiring privelege (which doesn't affect 501 (c)(3) status for faith-based charities and never has, BTW) isn't going to affect the number of jobs available to any particular group.

Allowing them to maintain their hiring privilege while still being allowed to operate Head Start programs has no net effect on who will be employed where. It simply allows expansion of Head Start to a greater number of service providers, who are still subject to parental choice.

As far as qualifications go, a bachelor's degree might be nice in theory, but preschool education and early child development are still fairly scarcely offered degree programs, especially in proportion to the number needed if you mandate such standards for all preschool teachers and caregivers. Qualification standards and background checks are an entirely different issue, but bachelor's degrees is not a realistic minimum requirement to apply across the board.

Oh - and Sava, in reference to your last post, that's just nonsensical. Nobody is giving "educational institutions" "less choices" - secular organizations are still subject to all applicable civil rights laws, faith based organizations are allowed to continue their existing hiring exemptions that allow them to only hire within their faith. The only difference is that accepting Head Start money won't obligate them to change those hiring practices to accomodate an program requirement fundamentally irrelevant to the program goal.

Kuciwalker · June 15, 2003, 11:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
They should quit. Federal money should go to educational institutions that higher the best teachers, not just the ones with the same religious orientation as their employers.

The thing is, those institutions are putting in their resources to, so the result is a pooling of resources, and ULTIMATELY more education.

MichaeltheGreat · June 15, 2003, 11:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Apocalypse
Not all religious institutions hire based on religion. I went to a Catholic high school and half my history teachers were anti-catholic to a small extent, they just didn't say things openly all but a couple times.

Exactly. However, they have the right to choose to restrict hiring to practicing Catholics if they so wish.

Shi Huangdi · June 15, 2003, 12:51

Excellent News

Urban Ranger · June 15, 2003, 13:03

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Since the overall pool of religious people of various beliefs is more or less evenly represented by the pool of religious organizations of those same beliefs, allowing these organizations to maintain their existing hiring privelege (which doesn't affect 501 (c)(3) status for faith-based charities and never has, BTW) isn't going to affect the number of jobs available to any particular group.

Allowing them to maintain their hiring privilege while still being allowed to operate Head Start programs has no net effect on who will be employed where.

Could you elaborate this a bit? It doesn't make much sense right now.

Dis · June 15, 2003, 13:50

hey you lefties get to brainwash our kiddies for 12 school years, give the religious right 1 preschool year to brainwash please

Inverse Icarus · June 15, 2003, 14:49

we just don't want the jews undermining our catholic preschools, duh!

oedo · June 15, 2003, 15:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi

Excellent News

I oftenly wondered what kind of church did brainwash you.

Nubclear · June 15, 2003, 16:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Uber KruX
we just don't want the jews undermining our catholic preschools, duh!

Exactly! Those filth contaminating innocent children.....

chequita guevara · June 15, 2003, 16:12

Actually, the worst part of this bill isn't really covered in this dicsussion. They're reducing the amount of money for Head Start. So much for "no child left behind."