The Wall of Separation

State and local funds have supported education since colonial times. In the earliest of days, most American children were schooled by a religious or private institution established in the area and financed at local community expense. By the early nineteenth century, however, a growing national concern over how to assimilate the rapidly increasing diversity of immigrants into the American mainstream gave rise to the common school movement. While these new “public” schools were intended to offer a non-sectarian elementary education to all local school-age children regardless of their economic class or religious belief, they certainly were not devoid of religious influences. One of the movement’s primary champions, Horace Mann, envisioned using the Bible as a means to teach moral values in the schools. In a report to the Massachusetts Board of Education in 1848 Mann stated, “Our system earnestly inculcates all Christian morals; it founds its morals on the basis of religion; it welcomes the religion of the Bible…” Naturally, controversy ensued over “whose” Bible would serve as the foundation. As tempers flared over Protestant vs. Catholic versions (essentially a debate over promoting a particular sectarian influence), petitions reached the federal level.

It is here where the Republican leader of the U.S. House of Representatives, James G. Blaine, took up the banner on an initial 1875 proposal before Congress by President Ulysses S. Grant to amend the Constitution thus “…making it the duty of each of the several States to establish and forever maintain free public schools…{and} forbidding the teaching in said schools of religious, atheistic, or pagan tenets.” Over time, Blaine’s efforts were so spirited and unwavering that the proposed language became known as the “Blaine amendment.”

While political scholars generally agree that Blaine was extremely interested in preventing any state from enacting laws respecting the establishment of religion, giving public support to religious organizations, or requiring religious tests for holding state office, they also confirm that his primary concern was to bar public financing for Roman Catholic schools. These flames were fanned even more by the Catholic bishops decree in their 1884 plenary council meeting in Baltimore that each parish congregation should open its own school and that all Catholic faithful were obliged to enroll their children in it.

The general public’s concern grew to fear by the late 1800’s over the increasing immigrant population generating a pall of nativistic protectionism. This, more than anything else, led to the common schools’ mainstream acceptance by local and state governments. Interestingly, at their core remained the teaching of basic community values which, while explicitly Christian, were implicitly Protestant.

Blaine became his own worst enemy, however, as his fervor to achieve these goals was viewed as anti-sectarian (Catholic) bigotry and led to his narrow defeat for the presidency in 1884 and the repeated failure of “his” Constitutional amendment to pass the Senate by the required two-thirds majority.

Not to be deterred, Blaine and others were successful at inserting their desired language into the Enabling Acts for the admission of new states. In order to be admitted into the union, these new states were required to implement a modified version of the provisions. At the same time, following popular sentiment, many existing states amended their charters to include similar wording. In all, over thirty states have some remnant of this political ideology on the books today.

Washington’s territorial delegates to the Republican conventions of the late 1800’s had solidly backed Blaine for the presidential nomination. They also held the majority at the state Constitutional Convention in 1889. After great debates lasting through the summer, Blaine’s supporters successfully carried the day and the “Blaine amendment” survived, crafted in the same form we see today.

Where do we go from here? If we have learned anything in the last thirty years or so, it is clear that any provision drafted to benefit children in this state’s private schools will come under the scrutiny of those who believe it is their mission to defend the common school system at all costs. Rather than seeing the potential of benefiting the student citizens of Washington, the specter of church-state separation is immediately invoked as a default barrier to discussion. With little insight into the historical origins of the language, the “Blaine amendment” is regularly cited as the reason the state cannot fund the WASL tests, provide transportation or textbooks, or even place a state college student teacher in a private religious school.

Arizona’s Supreme Court recently took on the historic undertones of the language in their constitution in upholding a tuition tax credit provision. In the majority opinion they contended, “The Blaine amendment was a clear manifestation of religious bigotry, part of a crusade manufactured… to counter what was perceived as a ‘growing Catholic menace.’” In citing that they could find no reason the original framers of their charter intended there to be a rigid wall restricting benefits from favoring all children in Arizona, they went further by stating, “In any event, we would be hard pressed to divorce the amendment’s language from the insidious discriminatory intent that prompted it.”

Interestingly, some scholars of Washington’s constitution suggest that the answer may be contained in our document’s oft-cited preamble. Where it is the “paramount duty of the state to make ample provisions for the education of all children residing within its borders…” can it be speculated that this text confers a right not solely on public school students? We’ll explore that theme more in a future issue.