Citizens for Educational Freedom (CEF) is a fast-growing political action group that has swung elections on the state level and that is effectively channelling the increasing American desire for fair economic aid to all American children, regardless of the school they attend. Its goal is an equitable distribution of educational taxes that will include every seventh American child, who today is prohibited from receiving such taxes,1 CEF advocates the collecting of taxes without regard to race, color or creed; it advocates the redistribution of them upon the same principle. Today, however, if a parent performs his God-given public duty of educating his child in the fear of the Lord (Prov. 1: 7), he is discriminated against from using even his own taxes for that purpose.

CEF does not question the right of the government to demand that all its citizens be educated,2 But it does question the right of the government to demand either that all children be educated in only one way—the governmental way—or else that parents forfeit their own educational taxes.

The Free World has worked out many and varied solutions to this inequity. Some Canadian provinces allow each taxpayer (whether he has children or not) to designate on his tax return the school to which he wants his educational taxes to be applied. In the Netherlands,3 the local municipalities pay the full building and operational costs of any school that performs the public service of education regardless of the school’s religious convictions. The national government pays the teachers’ salaries. For the United States, CEF advocates governmental aid to the pupil rather than to the institution. Such aid could come in the form of a check to every American student, regardless of race, color or creed. The amount given would be the average state cost for educating one pupil for one year in the governmental schools. The check could be cashed only at the schools that comply with the state educational laws, such as laws for academic quality and number of teaching hours per year.4 This plan is called the Junior G.I. Bill of Rights, being modeled after the G.I. Bill of World War II and the Korean War. Under the G.I. Bill, the nature and control of the schools remained exactly as they were before they received the aid. The only difference was that the pupils were not discriminated against financially if they desired to have a God-centered education. Many object to calling the Jr. G.I. Bill governmental aid, because the term implies that the government is giving to the people something to which they are not entitled. But under the Jr. G.I. Bill, the government would act only as a collecting and distributing agency. The reason it takes this task upon itself is that the government has an obligation to see to it that all its citizens (not only parents) pay a fair share for the benefits that they all receive from the education of all children.

By giving aid to the pupil rather than to the institution, two great advantages are gained. First of all, governmental control over the school is eliminated. The pupil is interposed between the state and the school.

The G.I. Bill is a classic example of how billions of dollars went to students at all kinds of independent universities without the universities being controlled in any way by the government. The massive college scholarship aid of New York State is another example. Tens of thousands of scholarships and non-scholarship awards have been granted each year to students to go to the schools of their own choice, and yet the colleges have not lost an iota of their autonomy.5

A second advantage concerns the principle of separation of church and state. Neither the G.I. Bill nor the great number of state-aid-to-the-college-student programs have ever been ruled as unconstitutional, and yet untold numbers attended Jewish, Calvinistic, Lutheran and Roman Catholic colleges, graduate schools and even theological seminaries. The Jr. G.I. Bill proposes the same principle of awards to the pupil. There should be nothing in the number 13 that makes aid to the student in grades below that number unconstitutional, whereas in grades 13 and above, it is legal.

It must be emphasized that CEF neither advocates nor opposes Federal aid to education. Its position is that if Federal aid comes, aid must be given equitably to all children and not only to some. It is a false dilemma to ask if CEF is liberal or conservative, Republican or Democratic, Roman Catholic or Protestant. It is truly non-partisan and non-sectarian, composed of citizens of the most divergent political and religious beliefs, who are united in this one goal of aiding the education of all American children without regard to their race, color or creed.

REASONS FOR SUPPORTING FREEDOM IN EDUCATION

1. Separation of Family and State

Education is primarily a parental responsibility. The Bible tells parents and not governments: “Train up the child in the way he should go” (Prov. 22:6). The Supreme Court said: “The fundamental theory of liberty…excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right. coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations” (Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 1925). In another case the court stated: “It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder, And it is in recognition of this that these decisions have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter” (Prince v, Massachusetts. 1944). The United Nations’ Declaration of Human Rights says: “Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children” (Art. 26).

Parents always have the prior and primary responsibility in tile education of their children6 . It is their task and not the state’s to form the souls and minds of their children. If parents neglect this high duty, then as a last resort the state may and must step in to provide an education for them”,7 But such state education should be the exception and not the norm. To make it otherwise is to violate the principle of separation of family and state, which is as sacred a principle as that of the separation of church and state, It is tyranny when the state thinks that it has the primary responsibility for forming minds and then exercises great financial c0ercion so that the rising generation will be trained in its brand of orthodoxy—that of secularism8, Such pressure is intolerable in a free society.

The Jr. G.I. Bill would remedy this violation by giving no financial favoritism to state orthodoxy, but by respecting in deed as well as in word the parental choice. Since every child would have an educational check to go to the school of his parent’s choice, he would be under no financial pressure to attend the state’s chosen school.

2. Financial Justice

Under the present system of allocation of taxes, parents who, in the discharge of their sovereign and inalienable duty to form their children’s minds, choose schools that conform to their Jewish, Christian or other convictions are required to pay much more than those who neglect their duties and cause the state to do it.

In Grand Rapids, Michigan, for example, where approximately one out of every three children goes to independent schools, they pay twice as much as those in the state schools. For in addition to paying the full cost of their own children, they pay a third of the cost of the state schools (thus, a total of 133%), whereas those in the state schools pay only 66% of their share.

CEF’s plan would treat all alike, making those who desire a secular education to pay for it themselves just the way everybody else pays for his own.

3. Freedom of Choice

Today, there is legal freedom in America to educate children independently of the government. But for many there is no actual freedom. It is a question of the rich and the poor. If a person is wealthy, he is able to send his children to the school of his own choice at the price of $500 or $1,000 per year9 . But if God has blessed him with five children and he has a modest income, he has no actual freedom, Freedom is slavery when that freedom is conditioned upon first paying for the neighbor’s education. If a $7.00 poll tax is outlawed because it is considered as a restriction of citizens’ actual freedom, consider how an extra tuition tax of $500 or more hampers man’s educational freedom today.

The Jr. G.I. Bill would give a real, actual freedom of choice in education, and it would do it by honoring the principle of separation of family and state and bringing about financial justice.

4. Freedom of Conscience

To understand this fundamental reason, it is necessary to realize that aU education is religious, even that of the government schools. There is no religious neutrality in education, not even in subjects such as mathematics. Historic Christian thinking has even gone on record to the effect that so-called religious “neutrality” is against God. To be silent in regard to God in interpreting literature, history and civics is one of the most subtle and effective attacks against God, declaring in effect that he is not necessary in these areas of life!

A National Educational Association report states it well: “Religion, in this sense, is defined as that which is one’s ‘ultimate concern,’ to use Paul Tillich’s phrase, or, according to Erich Fromm, that which is one’s ‘life orientation.’ The teaching of a religious attitude, from this standpoint, is inescapable in any school. There is no teacher, no school. which can escape the problem of life orientation, and culture must take account, either implicitly or explicitly, of those fundamental commitments which underlie every human action. This is precisely the domain of religion. Democracy, communism, and the various economic systems cannot be analyzed in their most profound dimensions without getting into the questions of ultimate values, This is finally a religious question.

“Thus, we teach religion in the schools, whether we would or not. It would be better if the teaching of ultimate commitments were done intelligently rather than blindly.”10

If all education is religious, as the NEA states, then the present school tax system violates the conscience of many people. For taxpayers are required to subsidize the establishment of secularism, a philosophy of life that is diametrically opposed to the religion of millions of Americans. In the course of life this amounts to thousands of dollars per taxpayer.

Under CEF’s plan, no preferential treatment would be given to the religion or irreligion. Nor would a Protestant be paying for the education of a Catholic, or a Catholic of a Jew, or a Jew of a secularist. Since the number of Protestant, Catholic, Jewish and secularistic school children is proportionate to the number of Protestant, Catholic, Jewish and secularistic taxpayers, each religion would be paying in effect only for its own religious education.

5. Welfare of the Nation

Good education is essential for the defending of our nation, the running of our government, the economic growth of the nation, the mastering of disease, the conquering of space and the conservation of our resources. Obviously, Pennsylvania will suffer if every fourth child. who attends its independent schools, is taught in overcrowded classrooms that have inadequate teaching tools and whose teachers have substandard salaries. According to a committee report for the governor, this is already the case to a certain extent in Pennsylvania, so that the state has been hurt economically.

If CEF’s proposals were passed, one-fourth of the Pennsylvanians would not have to pay for two educations, but would have sufficient money for one good education. The whole state and nation would then benefit because a fourth of its future soldiers, laborers, voters, statesmen, civic leaders and scientists come from the independent schools. In this highly competitive world, the state and nation cannot afford to waste valuable talent by allowing any percentage of its children to be inadequately prepared. Aid to the pupil is aid to the nation.

6. A Solution to the Problem of Religion in the Governmental Schools

Under our present tax system our state schools are in an insoluble religious dilemma. If secularism continues to reign in the schools, the orthodox Protestant, Catholic and Jew are offended. If a Judaistic world-and-life view is taught, the Roman Catholic is displeased, and if a Thomistic world-and-life view is taught the Protestant is unhappy. It is mathematically impossible to superimpose a Single philosophy of life upon a pluralistic nation and satisfy all. It is far better to recognize that we are a pluralistic nation, not to favor financially the philosophy of secularism, and to let each have his own school money to go to the school of his own choice. When that is done, then the state schools can follow the philosophy of secularism and systematically eliminate all meaningful reference to God, and none will be offended. Until then, the problem will never be solved.

7. Academic Freedom

Today in the state schools there is no academic freedom to research and teach according to one’s most fundamental philosophic presuppositions—except for the secularist. A Calvinistic, Barthian, Thomistic or Jewish world-and-life view is forbidden. Regardless of the undoubtedly excellent motives for the existence of state schools, there is in fact only a tedious, monotonous uniformity in the search for both. The superimposed monolithic structure of the state’s humanistic secularism is stifling free thought.

By giving aid to the pupil, many different kinds of thought are encouraged, and this diversity is to the advantage of freedom and the nation.

8. Free World Tradition

Most of the major democracies in the world share to some extent educational taxes with all schools, namely: Australia (most of its states), Belgium, Canada (most provinces), Denmark, England, Finland. France, Germany (West), India, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Northern Ireland. Norway, Scotland, Sweden and Switzerland.11 Are all these democracies out of step, or is Uncle Sam?

We see, therefore, that when a law of God, such as the principle of separation of family and state, is violated, many disadvantages follow: unbearable financial burdens for some, loss of free choice for others, loss of valuable talent for the public, a violation of conscience and a loss of academic freedom. But by following the Biblical norm that education belongs in the hands of the parents and not the state, we will restore harmony in many areas.

Everyone convicted of the above stated principles should unite with CEF for their effectuation. Send $3.00 or more to Citizens For Educational Freedom, Washington Bldg.,Washington, D.C. 20005.

Dr. Edwin H. Palmer, pastor of Grandville Ave. Christian Reformed Church, Grand Rapids, Mich., urges a se1″ious consideration of the cause represented by “Citizens for Educational Freedom.”

1. Fifteen percent of America’s children (or one out of every seven) attend independent elementary and secondary schools.

2. To allow its people to grow up uneducated would be to commit national suicide, and that is forbidden by Scripture.

3. See my article on “Church, State and Education: The Dutch Experience” (12 pp.) reprinted from Catholic Mind (available at fifteen cents from CEF’s national office).

4. Since the state pays for its schools and there is no tuition involved, students attending stale Schools would not be able to cash their checks.

5. By 1965, 170,000 scholarships and awards ($44 million) per year will be granted.

6. For an outstanding presentation of this thesis, along with other principles of educational equity, see Dr. Will Herberg’s speech, Religion and Public Life in America, delivered at the 1964 National Convention of CEF. See also his c11apter “Religion, Democracy and Public Education” in Religion in America, edited by John Cogley (a Meridian Book paperback 1958).

7. See footnote 2.

8. By secularism I mean the theory and practice of human life conceived as self-sufficient and unrelated to God.

9. These are common costs per family in the American Christian School System.

10. NEA, The Scholars Look at the Schools: a report of the Disciplines Seminar, Washington, D.C., Feb., 1962, pp. 17, 18.

11. For an excellent 16-page summary see “International Panorama” by Prof. Daniel McGarry in the June, 1964, issue of Educational Freedom. This is available at CEF’s national headquarters.