Brit Hume recently discussed the case with George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley on Special Report with Brit Hume. Here is a small portion of their most interesting conversation:
TURLEY: Well, the court recently has been refashioning its jurisprudence in this area. It has allowed, to a greater extent, for states to fund programs through thing like vouchers. It has made a very significant change in the last 10, 15 years.
This is the flipside. Although those prior cases involved states who said we want to be able, through voucher programs, to give money, even if they go to religious schools, and the Supreme Court said as long as your program is neutral, as long as it leaves it up to the parents to give those vouchers...
HUME: So in other words, is it the school ... or the course of study is chosen by the student and his family and not by the state, it's OK?
TURLEY: That's right. But now this is the flipside. The question is, can a reluctant state or opposed state, a state that says we don't want any money to go to religious programs, whether they can be effectively forced to do so, whether the Constitution requires them to essentially subsidize. So, the case couldn't be more interesting in terms of a collision of different principles.
The only way to refuse a scholarship based upon a field of study would be a scholarship which is specifically limited to those entering a specific field. To offer a very general scholarship yet exclude specific courses of study or institutions is discrimination.
Why is discrimination such an evil thing, except where Christianity is concerned?
