Getting a ‘Head Start’ on a new church-state debate

September 23, 2005

The Republicans’ work with Head Start — which focuses on preschool education, but also emphasizes medical care, nutrition, parental counseling, and social interaction for nearly 1 million children — has been a problem for a while now. For example, Dick Cheney, in 1986, was one of only a handful of members of Congress to vote against federal funding for the program.

More recently, the Bush administration has tried to cut Head Start funding and stifle criticism from teachers and parents concerned with the program’s future. In perhaps the most embarrassing Bush-related debacle, the same person the president tapped to head the federal Head Start program also badly mismanaged more than $150,000 in Head Start grants.

As if that weren’t enough, now the GOP has picked a new Head-Start fight: letting the centers discriminate on religious grounds while using federal funds.

The House moved Thursday to shore up Head Start’s academics and finances, but debate about updating the preschool program turned heated over the role religion can play in hiring.

Republicans were ready to amend the Head Start bill so churches and other faith-based Head Start centers could factor religion into their hiring. Democrats called that idea discriminatory.

The debate on the House floor got into some turgid details, but the situation isn’t that complicated: For more than 30 years, Head Start centers that receive tax dollars have not been permitted to discriminate in hiring. This year, Republicans set out to change that.

Reps. John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Charles Boustany (R-La.) pushed a provision in the larger Head Start reauthorization bill that would allow religious groups to house Head Start centers, receive tax dollars, and discriminate against job applicants if they’re part of the “wrong” religion, or if their personal characteristics (gay, single parent, etc.) are offensive to the center’s administrators.

Boehner and Boustany said that religious groups can already receive grants through Head Start, and that’s true. They also said that these same religious groups should be able to hire those who share their faith-based convictions. That might be persuasive, were it not for two factors:

1. If an employer — any employer — wants to discriminate on religious grounds, they shouldn’t accept to be subsidized through the government with our money;

2. Publicly-funded Head Start programs are secular. If employees are going to help children with coloring, reading, and nap time, their religious beliefs shouldn’t make any difference.

Unfortunately, these pesky details didn’t seem to bother nearly enough lawmakers. The House voted 220-196 to allow religious discrimination.

It’s likely that Senate will yank the offending provision, but 220 House members, including 96% of the Republicans on the floor yesterday, voted for this nonsense anyway. Shameful.

A couple of days ago, Digby referenced a list (by Dr. Lawrence Britt) of factors that define facism. #8 was the combining of church & state.
These Repubs would be “good Germans” in the 30s.

  • This whole “church and state” issue and the increased role of evangelicals in the political process brings up a whole different issue in my mind. Please let me sidetrack a bit here.

    The radical Islamists (terrorists) are attacking America not because they “hate freedom” but because there are some imams who are focusing the anger of their followers onto the U.S. and its policies. I say ‘some’ because there are imams that preach peace. You see, unlike the Catholic church, Islam does not have a ‘corporate’ structure or a head of the religion like the Pope. As a result, you get a bunch of guys preaching their own interpretations of the Koran. According to them Islamic law trumps any secular governmental laws. And some see Islam as THE religion and interpret Mohammed’s teachings into “convert or submit (die)”. There is no recognized “head” of the religion and no governing “policy”.

    The same can be said for the Evangelical movement in the United States. There is no “head” or governing body. As a result you get different reads on the Bible from the various “leaders” of the movement. They believe “Gods law” trumps any laws imposed by the US govt. What ultimately results is a few super radical leaders will evntually propose a “convert or submit (die)” policy. Perhaps the Dominionists in our government (and you know who they are) have already adopted this strategy.

    Sorry for the off-topic rant.

  • This is exactly why many faith-based organizations do not want federal funding–because it places limits on what they can do as an entity. If they want to hire only those of a certain set of beliefs, then do not have a Head Start program–that’s the trade-off. One or the other!

  • What I want to know is, in the hypothetical situation where I run a Head Start program that receives federal funds, could I discriminate against people who are religious? Would I be allowed to only hire atheists or agnostics?

  • I don’t know. When I’ve looked into the results from Head Start, statistics are discouraging. After several years there is no academic difference with their peers. The long-term benefits appear to be less likelihood of dropping out of high school, less absenteeism, higher self-esteem (though no higher performance). To me, that sounds like more people who have been brainwashed into being satisfied with their place in the world as something controlled by a giant bureaucracy. My feeling is that Head Start is something that Dems wanted to succeed, and when it didn’t, they recognized that it was still regarded popularly by the people, so they continued to funnel money its way, instead of finding better solutions to the problems of poverty.

    I’d like to see us focus our attention on free daycare availability for everyone. Where mothers needn’t sit at home for a couple years on government checks before they can initiate Head Start and look for a job which could elevate the situation of the whole family. (Meanwhile, perhaps having had other children or having lost that ambitious drive to work and improve oneself, which can be difficult to sustain.)

    And yes, I’m a liberal Democrat. But in my research on our treatment of children, this came to my attention — I’d like to see Dems analyze the data on Head Start objectively and put results above politics.

  • Catherine,

    I know very little about the Head Start program or its effectiveness, and your criticisms of the program in general sound valid and reasonable. However, I think we’d all agree that, if there’s going to be a Head Start program at all, it should be one that does not permit the institutionalization of religious discrimination under the imprimatur of the federal government. This strikes me as an obvious violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, in that it will have the effect of advancing religion, most likely Christianity specifically, and it will result in undue entanglement between church and state. Regardless of whether the Head Start program should be maintained at all, we should resist Republican efforts to further erode the wall of separation between church and state. I have no problem with religious discrimination in faith-based organizations, or for that matter with sectarian preschools in general (not that the Head Start program as I understand it allows for religious indoctrination by faith based organizations), but I don’t want my taxes going to support it.

    • Comments are closed.