Supreme Court Asked to Uphold Ban on Salaries to Parochial School Teachers

The American Jewish Congress, the American Civil Liberties Union and six Rhode Island taxpayers asked the United States Supreme Court yesterday to uphold a lower-court rejection of a state law providing public monies to teachers in non-public schools. The Rhode Island federal district court ruled last June 15 that the state’s 1969 law providing $375,000 for 15 percent of the salaries of teachers of secular subjects in private schools was unconstitutional. That ruling was appealed by the state of Rhode Island and by nine parents and teachers of parochial school pupils. Arguing today for Supreme Court affirmation of the ruling, AJCongress special counsel Leo Pfeffer referred to the court’s May, 1970 decision in the Walz case, in which it barred “excessive” governmental action leading to an “impermissible degree of entanglement” in religion. “Every court, state or federal, which since the Walz decision considered a statute similar to the one in issue here has declared it unconstitutional under Walz,” Pfeffer said.

He added that “nonpublic schools, including parochial schools, are playing a substantial though unintended role in the preservation of racial segregation.” Pfeffer dismissed the contention by the appellants’ that an “annual written promise” by parochial school teachers not to introduce religion into their courses would be sufficient protection against violation of the First Amendment and the Walz decision. “What, in effect, appellants are saying,” Pfeffer said, “is that the Establishment Clause’s barrier against continuing surveillance can be disposed of by the simple device of dispensing with surveillance. Measured by that standard, we cannot offhand think of any governmental aid to religion or religious schools–and certainly not outright, unqualified subsidies–which would violate that clause.” Pfeffer charged that the Salary Supplements Act “thrusts the State of Rhode Island directly into the business of operating parochial schools,” and “If this does not constitute excessive entanglement and involvement in religious affairs, we cannot imagine what would.” Pfeffer’s opposing counsel was Edward Bennett Williams of Washington.