Oklahoma’s new charter-school ruling makes the case for parental choice—and for applying religious liberty consistently.
A school-choice program that welcomes independent ideas until somebody brings religious convictions has an obvious question to answer: whose choices is it actually protecting?
Oklahoma now has another opportunity to confront that question. Reuters reported September 24 that U.S. District Judge David Russell issued a preliminary injunction preventing the state from excluding the National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation from its charter program because of its religious character. Oklahoma law requires those taxpayer-funded schools to be nonsectarian. The judge found the exclusion incompatible with the First Amendment's free-exercise protections.
This is an interim ruling, not a nationwide settlement of the issue or proof that a new school has opened. Opponents, including groups representing intervening taxpayers and families, maintain that public schools must remain secular. That objection deserves an answer rather than a caricature.
Parents are more than spectators
The conservative case starts with the family. If government finances education through a system offering different independently managed schools, parents should have a meaningful role in deciding which educational environment serves their children. Religious conviction should not automatically disqualify an otherwise capable provider.
That does not require pretending a charter school is identical to a private school receiving tuition assistance. Public status, oversight and obligations matter. Anyone promising that this case makes every difficult constitutional question disappear is selling something the ruling cannot deliver.
But the opposite shortcut is no better. Calling a program public should not end every discussion about whether its participation rules unfairly exclude religious people. A label cannot do all the work of an argument.
Choice still needs standards
Religious liberty is not a permission slip for weak academics, opaque finances or mistreatment of students. A defensible choice system would demand measurable educational performance, transparent spending and clear information for parents before enrollment. Families should understand the school's religious character, what participation entails and what alternatives remain available.
Those requirements strengthen the case for choice. They move the argument away from institutional turf and toward the people education is supposed to serve. A school should have to demonstrate that it can educate children well, not merely announce that it represents an attractive philosophy.
Nor can religious freedom mean special treatment only for a politically favored faith. The principle worth defending must protect Jewish families as seriously as Christian families. Conservatives who want government to respect their convictions should welcome that consistency.
There is room for an honest disagreement over the boundaries of publicly funded religious education. What should be harder to defend is the assumption that a parent's values become an embarrassment the moment public money enters the conversation.
Oklahoma's case puts that assumption under pressure. The right response is to build a serious argument for accountable parental choice, rather than treating religious conviction as a defect government must screen out.
Naomi Carter is a conservative columnist whose work focuses on women, identity politics, gender, race, media, and the cultural institutions influencing younger Americans. Carter became increasingly skeptical of progressive politics after seeing complex questions of identity reduced to rigid ideological categories. Her writing challenges political orthodoxies on both race and gender while emphasizing individual agency, personal responsibility, free expression, and equal treatment under the law. At The Dispatch Room, Carter frequently examines how political narratives are created, amplified by media and institutions, and ultimately experienced by ordinary people.
Discussion
Loading discussion…