Court Opinion

ID: 9680075
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:18:46.57935+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:54.528800
License: Public Domain

SEILER, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
The majority opinion has it both ways: it finds no violation of Art. Ill, Sec. 38(a), which forbids granting public money to any private person, saying that the statutory program has a public purpose and hence the people of the state are the direct beneficiaries of the expenditures. It finds no violation of Art. IX, Sec. 8, which prohibits use of public funds in aid of any religion or sectarian purpose or to help sustain any college controlled by any church or sectarian denomination, on the basis that the aid is to the student, not the school. I do not see how the granting of $900 of public funds to a student can be treated as a grant to the *724people of the state so as to avoid being a grant to a private person and also at the same be treated as a direct grant to the student so as to avoid being an appropriation in aid of any religious creed, church or sectarian purpose of a private college.
In addition, I believe the statute violates the Missouri constitutional provisions calling for strict separation of church and state, which are more explicit and restrictive than those of the First Amendment to the federal constitution. Paster v. Tussey, 512 S.W.2d 97 (Mo. banc 1974). The statutory scheme contains no limitation that the college where the student uses his grant to pay the tuition be not sectarian. There is nothing which insures that the public funds which are made available will not be used, either directly or indirectly, in aid of a denomination of religion or in aid of a sectarian purpose if that happens to be the type of college which the student selects. All the requirements of the present statute can be met and yet the public funds made available can be used for the forbidden purposes.
Our constitution forbids use of public funds in aid of any sectarian purpose or to support or sustain any college controlled by any sectarian denomination whatever, Art. IX, Sec. 8. No public money shall, directly or indirectly, be put to aid any sect, Art. I, Sec. 7. “. . . The constitutional policy of our State has decreed the absolute separation of church and state, not only in governmental matters, but in educational ones as well. Public money, coming from taxpayers of every denomination, may not be used for the help of any religious sect in education or otherwise. . . Harfst et al. v. Hoegen et al. 349 Mo. 808, 163 S.W.2d 609, 614 (banc 1942).
I do not believe the legislature can constitutionally adopt a statute authorizing the granting of public funds to private persons to use for tuition or other school purposes without at the same time incorporating in the statute safeguards against the funds being used, directly or indirectly, to support a sectarian institution. I do not believe the legislature can leave this unprovided for, as has been attempted here.
This is not what was done in Maryland, in its statute providing for grants to private colleges which was upheld in Roemer v. Board of Public Works of Maryland, - U.S. -, 96 S.Ct. 2337, 49 L.Ed.2d 179, decided June 21, 1976 and on which the majority opinion places heavy reliance. In the Maryland statute, it was expressly provided that “None of the moneys payable under this substitute shall be utilized by the institutions for sectarian purposes.” The Maryland Council for Higher Education, which is the counterpart of our Coordinating Board for Higher Education, requires that eligible institutions not put the funds to any sectarian use. The institution must affirmatively declare that the funds will not be used for sectarian purposes and must set forth the specific nonsectarian uses that are planned. At the end of the year the institution must confirm the nonsectarian use of the funds. It must keep the funds in a special account and must retain for verification by the Council sufficient documentation to verify that the funds were not used for sectarian purposes. In the statute which the Supreme Court held in the Roemer case did not violate the federal constitution, the Maryland legislature carefully, even meticulously, saw to it that state funds would not be used for sectarian purposes. There is a glaring absence of any such restrictions in the Missouri statute and that is why it is unconstitutional on its face: as presently drawn, it permits the use of public funds for sectarian purposes, either directly or indirectly.
The statute states its purpose is to enable qualified full-time students to receive nonreligious educational services in a public or private institution of higher education of their choice, Sec. 173.200. But a sectarian institution can and does provide nonreligious educational services, such as courses in mathematics, physics, languages, geography, music, history and the like. It does not follow that because a student receives nonreligious educational services that the col*725lege where he receives them is not a sectarian institution.
The statute also requires that to be considered an “approved private institution”, the college, among other things, must be operated “under the control of an independent board”. Sec. 173.205(2)(a). But this does not mean that the college is not sectarian. It might have a fiercely independent board which nevertheless is determined to and does operate a sectarian institution. In the case at bar, Southwest Baptist College and William Jewell College are examples of colleges whose boards of trustees have firm and independent convictions that their colleges are and will continue to be sectarian. These two institutions, on their own initiative, addressed communications in writing to the trial court, making it known that it was incorrect to refer to them as nonsectarian. Both sides in this case have addressed portions of their briefs to these declarations. Both colleges made it quite plain that they have a mission of Christian education in American higher education — that the Christian commitment is their dominant characteristic. The boards of these two colleges each consist of twenty-four trustees, selected by the Baptist Convention. There is no doubt that these boards are independent, in the sense of voting their own convictions and not being subordinate or subject to the control of others in the operation of the college, but it is equally clear that they are determined to operate a sectarian institution with a commitment to follow the Christian doctrine as seen by the Baptists. It may not take, but in these two colleges, they are not leaving the student “to pick up religion by chance”. There is nothing wrong about this, of course, but it cannot be supported or aided by public funds under our constitution, and yet so far as the statute is concerned these institutions are eligible for approval.
The statute prohibits any grant to a student who is enrolled in a course of study leading to a degree of theology or divinity. Sec. 173.215.1(6). This, however, provides no assurance that the college being helped is not sectarian. It could be sectarian and not offend this part of the statute so long as the student receiving aid to go to the college did not take a course of study leading to a degree in theology.
The statute also provides that an approved institution must meet the standards for accreditation as set by the North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools, that it must operate in compliance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and not discriminate as to students, faculty, staff or administration on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin, and must permit faculty members to select textbooks without influence or pressure from any source. Sec. 173.205(3)(d), (e), and (f). None of these mean that the school is free from sectarianism. It could be in full compliance with the foregoing requirements and still be sectarian in its teachings, character, atmosphere, and operation.
Without undertaking to set forth in lengthy detail the specific examples of sectarianism which are present in their operation as institutions of higher learning, the same goes for fifteen others of the private colleges before us, eight of which have an admittedly close relationship with various Protestant denominations and seven with the Catholic church.
The majority opinion says that if this is true, then the way to get at it is by challenging that the statute is being carried out in an unconstitutional fashion; that this is “purely a statutory question and not one involving resolution of constitutional issues.” But this argument assumes that we have a statute which forbids use of the public funds for sectarian purposes, directly or indirectly. However, as pointed out, we do not. The Board could very well say it finds nothing in the statute prohibiting use for sectarian purposes and that it is no part of its duty to make any such inquiries of the college or the student.
In sum, the tests or guides contained in the statute do not meet the real issue.
Finally, in my opinion, it is not even arguable that giving a grant to a student is not a form of public aid to the college. Beyond question, the student is going to use *726the grant to help pay his college expenses, including tuition. This, in effect, is what the statute says is expected. Tuition is part of the lifeblood of a private college and anything that helps the student pay tuition helps the college to that extent and frees money for the college to use for other purposes. In the case before us, the student is merely the conduit of the grant through whom the state aid is transmitted to the school.
The majority opinion recognizes this indirect aid effect to the school, but quotes from the Roemer decision about its being permissible for a church to be protected by the police and fire departments or to have its public sidewalk kept in repair. But, respectfully submitted, this argument by analogy does not fit the present case. In the first place, the constitutional prohibitions against mingling of church and state contained in the Missouri constitution are much stronger than those contained in the First Amendment, as we have often held, Paster v. Tussey, supra. Our constitution prohibits aid, either “directly or indirectly ”, Art. I, Sec. 7 (emphasis added). There is no such provision in the First Amendment.
Second, as Mr. Justice Jackson wrote in disposing of a similar argument in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 25-26, 67 S.Ct. 504, 516, 91 L.Ed. 711: “. . .A policeman protects a Catholic, of course— but not because he is a Catholic; it is because he is a man and a member of our society. The fireman protects the Church school — but not because it is a Church school; it is because it is property, part of the assets of our society. Neither the fireman nor the policeman has to ask before he renders aid ‘Is this man or building identified with the Catholic Church?’ To consider the converse of the Court’s reasoning will best disclose its fallacy. That there is no parallel between police and fire protection and this plan of reimbursement is apparent from the incongruity of the limitation of this Act if applied to police and fire service. Could we sustain an Act that said the police shall protect pupils on the way to or from public schools and Catholic schools but not while going to and coming from other schools, and firemen shall extinguish a blaze in public or Catholic school buildings but shall not put out a blaze in Protestant Church schools or private schools operated for profit? That is the true analogy to the case we have before us and I should think it pretty plain that such a scheme would not be valid.”
The sidewalk in front of the church is kept in repair, or the fire extinguished, or the call for police protection answered, not because doing so is a form of aid to the church, but because doing so is in each instance a part of providing such protection for the community as a whole. It does not constitute any justification for arguing that indirect aid to sectarian schools by way of grant of public funds to needy students is thereby made constitutional.
In my opinion, Secs. 173.200-235 are unconstitutional on their face as violating Art. I, Sections 6 and 7 and Art. IX, Sec. 8 of the 1945 Constitution, and I therefore respectfully dissent. I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.