Zelman V. Simmons-Harris Case Analysis

Throughout the course of this country’s history, the Supreme Court has heard many cases in attempt to eliminate discriminatory practices throughout the nation, one of which was Zelman V. Simmons-Harris. This suit was filed by a group of Ohio taxpayers, which included an individual named Doris Simmons-Harris. The group believed a government program put in place to assist the Cleveland City School District contradicted the establishment clause in the First Amendment. A few other parties also filed a similar suit and eventually all similar cases were consolidated to form Zelman V. Simmons-Harris (Zelman v. Simmons-Harris). This case revolved primarily around the idea of separation of Church and State. The Cleveland City School District had a remarkably

Private and public schools were eligible to be in the program if the institution resides in the designated district. If a private school participates, it can be religious or not religious; however, the school “must agree not to discriminate on the basis of race, religion or ethnic background or to advocate/foster unlawful behavior or teach hatred of any person or group on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin or religion” (Supreme Court of the United States). Eligible students who enroll in the program receive two benefits. Firstly, the program will provide tuition aid for students who will attend a private or public school chosen by their parents. Secondly, the program provides tutorial aid for any student who chooses to remain enrolled in a public school. The state government distributes the tuition to families at or below the poverty line, with highest priority given to families with the lowest incomes. Once the family receives the tuition grant, the government allows them to spend the money at an institution of their choosing within the

This ruling implies that those ineligible for this program are unable to be coerced into attending a private school that is affiliated to a religion. Families higher up the socioeconomic ladder would be more capable of educating themselves on religious private schools versus non-religious private schools versus public schools in the Cleveland City School District, thus they could not be coerced. The idea of hierarchy discussed in class applies here as the privileged group has greater access to resources (better schools; more money) and have in the past unintentionally prevented oppressed people from gaining access to the same schools before the program was put in place (Mulder, 2015). Additionally, the ruling’s non-target group does not have to rely on government assistance to make decisions, thus they are privileged because this capability is something of value being denied to lower SES families. Based on class lectures, it is clear that the privileged have access to the best schools. Even if a child resides in a non-Cleveland City School District, a parent has enough money to send them to a school in a different district of their choosing. In regards to the larger American society, this ruling implies that although one’s religion and the government play a large role in the lives of society members, they do so independently. America prides itself on the