Indiana court upholds broadest school voucher program

By Stephanie Simon

(Reuters) - The Indiana Supreme Court on Tuesday unanimously upheld the nation's broadest school voucher program, which lets poor and middle-class students attend private schools at public expense.

Opponents, including the state teachers union, had sued to block the program on grounds that nearly all the voucher money has been directed to religious schools.

Voucher systems have drawn flak across the United States from critics who say they drain money from public schools and are abused by wealthy families. Supporters say they offer families greater choice on where to educate their children.

In a 5-0 vote, the Indiana justices said that it did not matter that funds had been directed to religious schools, so long as parents - and not the state - decide where to use the tuition vouchers.

"Whether the Indiana program is wise educational or public policy is not a consideration," Chief Justice Brent Dickson wrote. The program is constitutional, he wrote, because the public funds "do not directly benefit religious schools but rather directly benefit lower-income families with school children."

The Supreme Court used similar reasoning in a 2002 ruling upholding a voucher program in Cleveland. Since then, voucher programs have been challenged in state, rather than federal, court. But opponents have found it an uphill climb.

Just last month, a state appeals court in Colorado upheld a voucher program that helped parents in one of the wealthiest counties in the U.S. pay private school tuition. The case is on appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court. Another closely-watched voucher case is pending in the Louisiana Supreme Court; a ruling is expected soon.

The Indiana voucher program is considered among the broadest in the U.S. because it is not limited to low-income students or those attending failing schools -- and because it is available to children statewide. A family of four with a household income of $64,000 a year is eligible for vouchers worth up to $4,500 per child.

This year, more than 9,000 students in Indiana are receiving vouchers; many are using them to pay tuition at parochial schools. Republican Governor Mike Pence has pushed to expand the program by opening eligibility to special-needs students and children in military families if their household income is as high as $85,000 for a family of four.

The Indiana legislature is also considering a bill that would give vouchers to kindergarten students who meet the income guidelines. The program currently requires students to spend a full year in public schools before they are eligible for a voucher.

Nationally, 12 states and Washington, D.C. offer vouchers to some students. An estimated 100,000 students across the country participate.

Teachers have complained that the vouchers divert money from traditional public schools.

"Just because the Indiana Supreme Court said it's OK by our constitution doesn't mean this is a good idea," said Teresa Meredith, vice president of the Indiana State Teachers Association and a plaintiff in the case. "I don't believe it's a wise use of public money. It's still, at the end of the day, funding religious instruction" with tax dollars."

Supporters of the voucher program predicted that the ruling would clear the way for a rapid expansion of vouchers in Indiana and statewide.

"Kids and parents won today," said Robert Enlow, president of the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, which supports voucher programs nationally. "Other states should look at this victory and see that the education establishment's ability to obstruct families' freedom to choose is waning."

(Reporting by Stephanie Simon, editing by Scott Malone and Andrew Hay)

View the original article here

Indiana court upholds broadest school voucher program

By Stephanie Simon

(Reuters) - The Indiana Supreme Court on Tuesday unanimously upheld the nation's broadest school voucher program, which lets poor and middle-class students attend private schools at public expense.

Opponents, including the state teachers union, had sued to block the program on grounds that nearly all the voucher money has been directed to religious schools.

Voucher systems have drawn flak across the United States from critics who say they drain money from public schools and are abused by wealthy families. Supporters say they offer families greater choice on where to educate their children.

In a 5-0 vote, the Indiana justices said that it did not matter that funds had been directed to religious schools, so long as parents - and not the state - decide where to use the tuition vouchers.

"Whether the Indiana program is wise educational or public policy is not a consideration," Chief Justice Brent Dickson wrote. The program is constitutional, he wrote, because the public funds "do not directly benefit religious schools but rather directly benefit lower-income families with school children."

The Supreme Court used similar reasoning in a 2002 ruling upholding a voucher program in Cleveland. Since then, voucher programs have been challenged in state, rather than federal, court. But opponents have found it an uphill climb.

Just last month, a state appeals court in Colorado upheld a voucher program that helped parents in one of the wealthiest counties in the U.S. pay private school tuition. The case is on appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court. Another closely-watched voucher case is pending in the Louisiana Supreme Court; a ruling is expected soon.

The Indiana voucher program is considered among the broadest in the U.S. because it is not limited to low-income students or those attending failing schools -- and because it is available to children statewide. A family of four with a household income of $64,000 a year is eligible for vouchers worth up to $4,500 per child.

This year, more than 9,000 students in Indiana are receiving vouchers; many are using them to pay tuition at parochial schools. Republican Governor Mike Pence has pushed to expand the program by opening eligibility to special-needs students and children in military families if their household income is as high as $85,000 for a family of four.

The Indiana legislature is also considering a bill that would give vouchers to kindergarten students who meet the income guidelines. The program currently requires students to spend a full year in public schools before they are eligible for a voucher.

Nationally, 12 states and Washington, D.C. offer vouchers to some students. An estimated 100,000 students across the country participate.

Teachers have complained that the vouchers divert money from traditional public schools.

"Just because the Indiana Supreme Court said it's OK by our constitution doesn't mean this is a good idea," said Teresa Meredith, vice president of the Indiana State Teachers Association and a plaintiff in the case. "I don't believe it's a wise use of public money. It's still, at the end of the day, funding religious instruction" with tax dollars."

Supporters of the voucher program predicted that the ruling would clear the way for a rapid expansion of vouchers in Indiana and statewide.

"Kids and parents won today," said Robert Enlow, president of the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, which supports voucher programs nationally. "Other states should look at this victory and see that the education establishment's ability to obstruct families' freedom to choose is waning."

(Reporting by Stephanie Simon, editing by Scott Malone and Andrew Hay)

View the original article here

British judge upholds ban on Christian group's "gay cure" ads

By Estelle Shirbon

LONDON (Reuters) - A British judge upheld on Friday a decision to ban a Christian group from placing adverts on London buses that suggested people could be cured of homosexuality.

The group, Core Issues Trust, wanted to place adverts on the side of London's distinctive red double-decker buses that read: "Not gay! Ex-gay, post-gay and proud. Get over it!"

The proposed adverts were a response to a campaign by gay rights group Stonewall, which had run adverts on London buses that read: "Some people are gay. Get over it!"

In a 35-page ruling, High Court judge Beverley Lang dismissed Core Issues Trust's claim for a judicial review into the ban on the adverts imposed by Transport for London (TFL).

"(The advert) was not a contribution to a reasoned debate," she wrote, saying that the group's freedom of expression was counter-balanced by the risk of causing grave offence to gay people and increasing homophobic attacks.

Core Issues Trust said it would appeal, arguing the judgment was "likely to stifle open and free debate" about homosexuality and discriminate against "those who reject a 'gay' identity".

The group says it aims to help "people who voluntarily seek to change from a 'gay' lifestyle to a gender-affirming one".

Stonewall welcomed the judgment, saying the decision to ban what it described as "voodoo 'gay cure' adverts" was correct.

TFL, the public body in charge of the bus network, decided in April 2012 to stop Core Issues Trust from running the adverts on the grounds that they went against its "commitment to a tolerant and inclusive London".

"CENSORSHIP"

The Christian group argued in court that the real reason for the ban was that London Mayor Boris Johnson disagreed with the view expressed and thought the adverts could hinder his re-election campaign. A mayoral election was due three weeks later.

Core Issues Trust based the accusation on a TFL press statement dated April 12, 2012, which said the mayor "was strongly of the view that this ad should not be run".

Judge Lang dismissed the accusation that Johnson had abused his position as TFL chairman to advance his political interests. She said TFL had acted in its own interest to avoid causing offence, an objective shared but not imposed by Johnson.

Stonewall Chief Executive Ben Summerskill said Johnson had been right to express his objections to the proposed adverts.

"In a city where over half of gay young people face bullying at school, and where tens of thousands of gay people are subjected to hate crimes every year just because of the way they were born, it's perfectly proper for a mayor to object to the use of such advertising in an iconic public setting," he said.

However, Lang's judgment contained some criticism of TFL, suggesting that it had not considered whether it was perhaps applying double standards by banning Core Issues Trust's adverts after it had allowed Stonewall's "Get over it!" campaign.

Christian groups supporting Core Issues Trust seized on that part of Lang's judgment, which referred to the Stonewall adverts as "controversial, sensitive and potentially offensive".

"As soon as a Christian group responds to Stonewall's provocation and dares to challenge the reigning political orthodoxy, the message is banned," said Andrea Minichiello Williams, director of a group called the Christian Legal Centre.

"This case demonstrates the huge asymmetry and censorship that characterises public debate at the moment," she said.

(Editing by Pravin Char)

View the original article here

India court upholds conviction of Bollywood actor

NEW DELHI (AP) — India's Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the weapons conviction of Bollywood leading man Sanjay Dutt and ordered him to report to prison within four weeks in a case linked to the deadliest terror attack in Indian history.

Dutt's failed appeal of his conviction was part of a broader ruling by the Supreme Court on cases stemming from the 1993 bombings that killed 257 people in the financial hub of Mumbai. A total of 100 people were convicted of involvement in the blasts.

The court upheld the death sentence given to Yakub Memon, who is a brother of Ibrahim 'Tiger' Memon, an accused mastermind of the bombings who remains at large. However, the court commuted to life in prison the death sentences given to 10 other men convicted of carrying out the blasts. Some of the men have been in prison for nearly two decades.

Dutt originally had been sentenced to serve six years in prison on the charge of possessing an automatic rifle and a pistol that were supplied to him by men subsequently convicted in the bombings. He served 18 months in jail before he was released on bail in November 2007 pending an appeal in the top court.

The court shaved one year off his sentence Thursday and ordered him imprisoned within a month to finish out the remaining 3 1/2 years of his sentence. Dutt had earlier been acquitted of the more serious charges of terrorism and conspiracy.

The actor's case was part of a sprawling Mumbai bombings trial that has dragged on for 18 years. Dutt maintains he knew nothing about the bombing plot and that he asked for the guns to protect his family — his mother was Muslim and his father Hindu — after receiving threats during sectarian riots in Mumbai.

Dutt's lawyer Satish Maneshinde said the 53-year-old actor would take some time before deciding on his next step.

For now, Dutt will "abide by the apex court's order of undergoing the sentence of 3 1/2 years in letter and spirit," Maneshinde said.

"Three-and-a-half years is not a long period," he said.

The 1993 bombings were seen at the time as the world's worst terrorist attack, with 13 bombs exploding over a two-hour period across Mumbai. Powerful explosives were packed into cars and scooters parked near India's main Bombay Stock Exchange and other sites in the city. Apart from the 257 dead, more than 720 people were injured in the attack.

The bombings were believed to have been acts of revenge for the demolition of a 16th-century mosque by Hindu nationalists in northern India in 1992. After the demolition, religious riots erupted, leaving more than 800 people dead, most of them Muslims.

The court's ruling on Dutt comes as a blow for Mumbai's film industry, putting several films he was working on in limbo.

Despite his brush with the law and his stint in jail, Dutt's Bollywood career flourished over the past two decades. He gained enormous popularity for a series of Hindi films in which he played the role of a reformed thug who follows the teachings of nonviolence advocate and Indian independence hero Mohandas Gandhi.

Industry estimates said Dutt was currently involved in projects worth at least $20 million.

View the original article here