Church vs State

[Matt]

Originally Posted by SAump

I ask that you remain calm and reasonable and hear my question before you slam "the door" back in my face. I bring this question up before a group of umpires for discussion. I apologize if this encroachment upon your civil liberties causes any personal discomfort.

A wealthy televangelist owns a very large privately funded school. He doesn't believe it is fair that his students compete in the same "league" with much smaller private schools in the local area. They win their division in every sport every year. Sometimes, even the JV squad manages to take 2nd place. There are other large private schools much further away but travel restrictions prevent those schools from competing outside of state competition.

This wealthy minister is suing the state of Texas for equal protection under the law. The state of Texas has always practiced a sort of seperation between church and state {eg. abolish school prayer}. In high school, there has always been a distinct seperation between private and public school systems with two distinct governing bodies set up for high school athletics.

The question is simple. Why shouldn't his school be allowed to play in the "UIL" which controls high school athletics for public school systems? After all, those parents who choose to send their children to private school are also paying taxes to support the same public school system which denies them equal access.

How should the high court decide?

I could probably give you an answer but I need a bit further info; I'm not familiar with Texas interscholastic activities--I assume that UIL is the governing body in the state. Does it have two subordinate groups, with non-religious schools playing in one, and religious schools in the other, or does it simply deny certain schools membership?

FWIW, Minnesota has one league, and almost all schools participate in it. Schools have the option of not being in MSHSL, but since just about every school participates in it, there is little benefit to not being a member.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by Matt

I could probably give you an answer but I need a bit further info; I'm not familiar with Texas interscholastic activities--I assume that UIL is the governing body in the state. Does it have two subordinate groups, with non-religious schools playing in one, and religious schools in the other, or does it simply deny certain schools membership?

FWIW, Minnesota has one league, and almost all schools participate in it. Schools have the option of not being in MSHSL, but since just about every school participates in it, there is little benefit to not being a member.

Texas Association of Private and Parochial Schools (TAPPS) is the other governing body. I have no clue how the groups operate. I know the TEA has legislative authority over private and charter school academic performance. I believe the TEA supports the UIL position in this matter and would believe yes is the answer to your question. The largest TAPPS schools from Houston, Dallas and San Antonio compete in state competition each year. Kinda like taking your sister to homecoming. These schools want a chance to knock off several Texas public high school football juggernauts in the super 5A division.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by SAump

Texas Association of Private and Parochial Schools (TAPPS) is the other governing body. I have no clue how the groups operate. I know the TEA has legislative authority over private and charter school academic performance. I believe the TEA supports the UIL position in this matter and would believe yes is the answer to your question. The largest TAPPS schools from Houston, Dallas and San Antonio compete in state competition each year. Kinda like taking your sister to homecoming. These schools want a chance to knock off several Texas public high school football juggernauts in the super 5A division.

Judging by the name TAPPS (I'm using that as my defense later,) the delineation is not religion per se, but whether a school is public or not. If this is the case, then the minister really doesn't have much shot at a case based on equal protection--funding source does not make one a member of a protected class.

OTOH, if the correlation between a schools being private and schools being religious is close to 1, then the case could be raised that it is de facto delineation based on religion, and he might have a bit higher chance at succeeding. However, I don't see a court stating that access to particular interscholastic opponents is a right or privilege under the 14th Amendment.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Matt

Judging by the name TAPPS (I'm using that as my defense later,) the delineation is not religion per se, but whether a school is public or not. If this is the case, then the minister really doesn't have much shot at a case based on equal protection--funding source does not make one a member of a protected class.

OTOH, if the correlation between a schools being private and schools being religious is close to 1, then the case could be raised that it is de facto delineation based on religion, and he might have a bit higher chance at succeeding. However, I don't see a court stating that access to particular interscholastic opponents is a right or privilege under the 14th Amendment.

If in Texas, as in Washington, the state exercises some influence and control in the business of private schools by accrediting them, the private schools should be able to make some argument that that should extend to school sports via TASO.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Matt

Judging by the name TAPPS (I'm using that as my defense later,) the delineation is not religion per se, but whether a school is public or not. If this is the case, then the minister really doesn't have much shot at a case based on equal protection--funding source does not make one a member of a protected class.

OTOH, if the correlation between a schools being private and schools being religious is close to 1, then the case could be raised that it is de facto delineation based on religion, and he might have a bit higher chance at succeeding. However, I don't see a court stating that access to particular interscholastic opponents is a right or privilege under the 14th Amendment.

If, as in Washington, Texas already exerts some influence and control in the business of private schools by accredting them or their curricula, I would think the private schools could make a case that their sports should be subject to the same kind of oversight via TASO. That however, could be a case of "be careful what you wish for."

[Matt]

Originally Posted by GarthB

If, as in Washington, Texas already exerts some influence and control in the business of private schools by accredting them or their curricula, I would think the privae schools could make a case that their sports should be subject to the same kind of oversight via TASO. That however, could be a case of "be careful what you wish for."

It's possible, but I don't see that happening either--whereas not only is education acredited by the state, it is mandated, and extracurricular activities are not. The difference has been highlighted in several cases where protections afforded the general student body do not carry over to mandates where participants of activities are concerned.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Matt

It's possible, but I don't see that happening either--whereas not only is education acredited by the state, it is mandated, and extracurricular activities are not. The difference has been highlighted in several cases where protections afforded the general student body do not carry over to mandates where participants of activities are concerned.

I'm sure that must vary state to state. In Washington, by statute, school sanctioned activities, including sports, are, in part, defined as an extension of the classroom, and are governed by the state legislature acting through the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by Matt

Judging by the name TAPPS (I'm using that as my defense later,) the delineation is not religion per se, but whether a school is public or not. If this is the case, then the minister really doesn't have much shot at a case based on equal protection--funding source does not make one a member of a protected class.

OTOH, if the correlation between a schools being private and schools being religious is close to 1, then the case could be raised that it is de facto delineation based on religion, and he might have a bit higher chance at succeeding. However, I don't see a court stating that access to particular interscholastic opponents is a right or privilege under the 14th Amendment.

They want access to the playing fields funded by their taxpayers. Nobody cares who the opponent is, just that they show up on time. They want access to $$$ long denied them too. Similar to reverse discrimination challenge filed by white people to end college entrance exam requirements and system of racial quotas based on local demographic data. Support taxation of religious school "parents" without equal representation? Seperate but equal? Yada yada yada.

Many private institutions of higher learning across Texas are fundamentally Judeo-Christian based. Here is a directory, http://dir.yahoo.com/Regional/U_S__S...rsity/Private/. Names listed on these pages support popularity of privately-run religious institutions of higher learning. Many offer baseball scholarships to deserving young students from public schools.

[Andy]

Since nobody has mentioned Arizona yet, I will chime in.

Private Schools can join the Arizona Interscolastic Association, by applying and meeting the requirements. Schools are placed in a classification by enrollment size every two years and are allowed to petition to be moved up or down.

There is one small catholic school in Phoenix that routinely petitions up to the highest classification (5A, division 1) in all sports every time. They have been very successful, winning several state titles in football, basketball, and baseball over the last several years.

The big issue that is going on now is in the 2A class. Most of the private schools in the metro Phoenix and Tucson areas are placed in 2A due to student enrollment. Most of the public schools in this class are from small town, rural areas. A great majority of the state championships in this class have been won by the metro area private schools in the last few years. The public schools are complaining that the metro schoos have more population to draw from, better opportunities for outside training, more athletes being able to "specialize" in a single sport, etc...

The public schools are pushing for seperate state championships for the public and private schools in this class. It will be interesting to see how this plays out....