Nothing to BOAST about

The following letter was submitted to Maryland Juice by our own Jane Stern, though it hasn't been published yet.  There is a possibility that Gov. O'Malley will be recommending funding for the BOAST voucher program. This program would divert millions of dollars from Maryland's public schools by providing public funds to students wishing to attend private schools. 

The Saturday, October 20 Juice Report #3 (see below) discussed the 2010 firing of April Flores, a Baltimore Catholic School teacher for being “unchaste” and the contrast to the controversy surrounding Angela McCaskill, Gallaudet’s Diversity and Inclusion provost. 

Ever since the Supreme Court ruling in the Hosanna-Tabor case less than a year ago, the Catholic Church, like all other religious institutions has the right to discriminate for any reason whatsoever against employees who fall under the so-called ministerial exception.  In fact, such institutions may legally discriminate against both students and staff on the basis of academic ability, sex, religion, sexual orientation, and disability.  In addition, they may discriminate against staff on the basis of race and personal medical decisions. In light of this case, it is worrisome to find Governor O’Malley supporting an initiative, known as the BOAST Bill.  This legislation would divert millions of dollars in public funds to private religious schools which are now free to discriminate. One wonders why the governor would do this, particularly in light of his past support for Maryland’s anti-discrimination law and the more recent fight for Question 6 and marriage equality. 

Governor O’Malley recently joined the Maryland State Education Association for a Town Hall style meeting with educators which was covered by the Daily Times. Unfortunately, the Times did not report on his response to a request to him to clear up any ambiguity on his position on vouchers and promise no longer to offer his support for the perennially submitted vouchers bill known as BOAST or other voucher-like proposals in the budgeting or legislative process during the remainder of his term.

Some background: BOAST is a tuition tax credit voucher bill that would divert millions of dollars to private schools, most of which would be Catholic schools.   It has been introduced and promoted by the Catholic Conference for the past 10 years and despite the fact that the governor and Senate President Mike Miller support the BOAST bill it has perennially failed, mostly because of strong opposition from Del. Shelia Hixson and Speaker of the House Mike Busch.  (Last year, the version of BOAST put forth in the House managed to garner only one sponsor.) 

In 2006 and 2010, when he was running for governor, Gov. O’Malley stated that he was opposed to the BOAST tax credits and other voucher schemes. That is one reason why many public school supporters voted for him twice. Yet in the last few years, proponents have used a letter from him supporting BOAST.  It has recently been rumored that Gov. O’Malley would include the BOAST tax credit voucher program in his budget in order to get around the legislative process and opposition in the House of Delegates.  If this program is included in his budget it would not receive a proper hearing, and all the details of the program would likely be decided by legislators and staff without public input.  Maryland’s governor has the strongest budget power in the country; the legislature can only cut the budget. As a result of the give and take dynamics between the House and Senate budget committees, it is unlikely the program would be cut. 

In response to the question posed at the town hall, Gov. O’Malley stated that he now supports the BOAST voucher program.  In an attempt to align himself with another Democrat, Gov. O'Malley incorrectly referenced Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell from Pennsylvania as a Democrat who passed a similar program in Pennsylvania. You can watch Gov. O’Malley’s response to the question at 28:30 of the video at the following link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymrTANwgUfE&feature=plcp. 

Gov. O’Malley is incorrect that Rendell initiated the state voucher program in Pennsylvania. Rendell took office in 2003 and Pennsylvania’s BOAST tuition tax credit program was signed in 2001 by Governor Tom Ridge, a Republican. The BOAST bill is extreme model legislation drafted by ALEC, a well-known right wing organization. If Maryland were to create a program, even one as small as $5 million per year, it would mean public funding going to the Catholic schools and other religious schools, many of which worked so hard to defeat Question 6.  Nine of the eleven states with tuition tax credit BOAST-like programs were led by Republican governors and Republican majority legislatures when their respective bills passed. A tenth had a Republican-controlled House and a divided Senate. And in New Hampshire, Democratic Governor John Lynch vetoed the bill only to have his veto overturned by a Republican controlled legislature.  The BOAST bill is completely out of line with Democratic principles.

The private schools that would benefit from this public money have no legal mandate to comply with anti-discrimination laws in place for public schools.  In fact, they may legally discriminate against both students and staff on the basis of academic ability, sex, religion, sexual orientation, and disability.  Public funding from BOAST tax credit vouchers would go to students who attend private schools that are not required to uphold the First Amendment, basic due process rights, and other constitutional and statutory rights and protections of students in public schools. The type of unjust treatment 25-year veteran Catholic school teacher April Flores is now so familiar with would be sanctioned with public funding if Gov. O’Malley is able to go around the House of Delegates and include the program in his budget.

  

BOAST tuition tax credit vouchers are a stark contrast to the commitment to fairness and equality that Maryland voters supported through the passage of Question 6. Gov. O’Malley should be distancing himself from the support he is now showing for such a voucher scheme. The BOAST bill is completely out of line with Democratic principles and is not suitable for Maryland or, indeed, any other state.

The Governor’s motto, that we should move forward, not back, is belied by his wish to return to the customs of the old world by which governments supported their favorite religions – customs from which the founding fathers clearly meant to depart.

JUICE #3: FLASHBACK TO 2010 // VETERAN TEACHER FIRED FROM BALTIMORE CATHOLIC SCHOOL FOR BEING "UNCHASTE" - A Maryland Juice reader has forwarded us an interesting contrast to the current controversy surrounding the suspension of Gallaudet's "diversity and inclusion provost." As you may have heard, the D.C.-based University is weighing the fate of their employee Angela McCaskill, after she signed a petition calling for the marriage rights of same-sex couples to be put to a popular vote. Arguably, McCaskill violated the school's established "credo" of discouraging "behaviors and attitudes that disrespect the diversity of individuals and groups for any reason including ... sexual orientation."

Many have been quick to defend McCaskill, arguing that her private views and behavior should be protected. But when it comes to individual freedom and free association rights, it appears that many on the right are content to err on the side of protecting those who seek to advance discrimination over those who are the victims of said discrimination. As one example, a reader has sent us a story about a veteran teacher at a Baltimore Catholic school who was terminated in 2010 for being "unchaste." When's the last time you heard of a straight person being fired for the same reason? In any case, below see a quick explanation from our reader, followed by a column written by the fired teacher:

ANONYMOUS READER: See the attached copy of the New Ways Ministry newsletter published in Spring 2010. Below you will find a first person story penned by April Flores, describing how she was terminated from her job as a teacher at the Sacred Heart of Mary School after administrators from the Archdiocese of Baltimore discovered that she had wed her female partner in Washington DC in July 2009. She describes a humiliating process of going through a "hearing" to try to keep her job, and includes some of the language that was used in the correspondence that was used to terminate her: “behavior that seriously offends the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Baltimore [and I] failed to uphold the moral values of chastity.”

Seriously, they terminated a 25-year veteran teacher, who apparently was valued by the community she served, because the Archdiocese was "offended", and because she was not chaste. It is not clear how the Archdiocese knew Ms. Flores was unchaste (hard to imagine how they gathered this data), and interesting that we seldom (never ?) hear of heterosexual folks being terminated due to lack of chastity.

Below, read a column by April Flores, a teacher who was fired from Baltimore's Sacred Heart of Mary School in 2010 (via BaltimoreOutLoud.com & New Ways Ministry):

APRIL FLORES: I’m Catholic and I used to proudly celebrate Catholic Schools Week; however, due to a collision of my religion and my personal life, I did not participate in this year’s festivities. I devoted over twenty-five years of my life to Catholic education and was only married to my wife, Jennifer Simmons, for one month before the Archdiocese of Baltimore (AOB) involuntarily terminated my contract.

This past July I was told by Michelly Merrick, director of human resources for the AOB, that the Archdiocese learned of my civil ceremony and that they thought it best for everyone that I resign from Sacred Heart of Mary School. I disagree, which is why I refused to resign. In a second meeting with the AOB, they stated that there are similar cases to mine, but those are not being investigated because names were not given. Other employees are not adhering to Catholic moral standards, yet I am the only person punished. How is that just?

Anyone that truly knows me can attest to the fact that I am a selfless, dedicated, and effective teacher who is loved and respected by students, parents, and colleagues. This is evident by the overwhelming support I received from my Catholic community when they learned of my termination. I received only support until I faced a panel of five archdiocesan administrators at an optional hearing, at which my students and parents protested my dismissal.

According to Dr. Ronald Valenti, the superintendent of the AOB, the panel unanimously decided to uphold the decision of the Archdiocese to terminate my contract. In retrospect, I should have questioned the panel and asked them if they believed that Jesus would prohibit a lesbian from teaching his word or if Jesus would shun me the way the Archdiocese has.

I was terminated because I am guilty of “behavior that seriously offends the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Baltimore [and I] failed to uphold the moral values of chastity.” I understand these claims, but I believe that my termination remains civilly discriminatory, morally wrong, and an enormous disservice to my students.

Catholicism preaches to love everyone despite existing differences; however, I am being castigated for being different. If God loves unconditionally, why can’t we? My termination clearly implies that Catholicism holds that it is sinful to be a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender individual. How can the Archdiocese terminate me, but justify accepting tuition money from parents of lgbt students?

Some Catholics are outraged and are disgusted with the Church’s stance regarding homosexuality. How long will the Church ignore these congregants? People are seeking change, the Church needs to do so as well. What type of message should be sent? One that is loving, forgiving, and accepting of all people or one where it is socially and religiously acceptable for discrimination to exist?

Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” And Gandhi said, “Be the change you wish to see in the world.” There is no Maryland state or federal law that protects lgbt individuals from being discriminated against by religious institutions. I believe that this is an injustice and I am doing my part to be the change I wish to see in the world. I want to see religious institutions waive their rights of discriminating against lgbt individuals; however, this requires people to positively appeal for change.

I encourage everyone, especially Catholics, who are enraged, disappointed, or bothered by this story to appeal for change for our lgbt community. Only then, will I reconsider celebrating Catholic Schools Week.

Maryland Juice again notes that polls consistently show Catholics in America are the most supportive group on marriage equality. But the reality is, that at some point, America will have to have a serious conversation about employment discrimination against LGBT individuals, and to what extent we really do believe that these victims are in a different class of protection than racial minorities, women and other protected groups. The free association and religious freedom arguments are actually more interesting than they seem at first. Is discrimination against LGBT individuals as much a core part of the Catholic Church's mission as hatred of African-Americans is for the Ku Klux Klan? For how long does a group have to argue that they haven't liked LGBT people for it to be considered a core part of their religion or mission. How clearly does it have to be established in their text?

In the meantime, only those who choose to live in the bizarro bubble of rightwing religious extremism seem to have the unbelievable view that it is they who need the greater protection from discrimination. In short, they value not being offended by things as more important than the basic rights of others. It seems to me that they (or rather their leaders) are obsessed with how other people live and maybe they need to stop thinking about it. Remember, there is no right to not be offended in America (unlike in other nations). Has anyone thought about these issues, or are we just pandering to the politics of religion right now? I'm not arguing that we need to trample on religious rights in America, but honestly, the policy justifications for some of these religious arguments are just completely whack.