City School Stories

Notes from the Field

Vouchers Are Not an Economic Bill of Rights for the Disadvantaged

Originally  posted by Frank Murphy on February 10, 2011

Martin Luther King was deep in the midst of organizing the Poor Peoples’ Campaign when he was assassinated in 1968.   The objective of this ambitious endeavor was to press for the passage of an Economic Bill of Rights for the disadvantaged.  King was determined to seek economic freedom for all Americans regardless of race.  He envisioned a great society.  It would be one where all citizens would be fully employed.  In the country he dreamed of, there would be affordable housing and equal educational opportunities for all poor people.   His dream was large and it contained multitudes.

When King and the other leaders of the Southern Leadership Conference committed to organizing the Poor People’s March on Washington, a second phase of the Civil Rights movement was initiated. These famous activists of the fifties and sixties had already succeeded in exposing the injustice and inequality of segregation. By launching this new campaign for economic justice, Dr King and his colleagues intended to broaden the scope of their work and advocacy.  King sought to shine a spotlight on the needs of the poor.  He planned on uniting people of all races in a movement to break the shackles of poverty in order to obtain economic freedom for all Americans.

He explained his work in this manner.  “The dispossessed of this nation—the poor, both white and Black—live in a cruelly unjust society. They must organize a revolution against that injustice, not against the lives of their fellow citizens, but against the structures through which the society is refusing to lift the load of poverty.”

Sadly for all, his untimely death deprived our nation of his leadership.  In his name, others did carry through with this march on Washington.  A small army of poor people pitched their tents in Washington D.C under the leadership of the Reverend Ralph Abernathy.  This encampment became known as ‘Resurrection City”.

During the time this determined group of protestors occupied the land in front of the Lincoln Memorial, the assassination of Robert Kennedy occurred.  This lost of two great leaders in such a short span of time greatly demoralized these crusaders for justice.  Within a few weeks, this poor people’s encampment came to an end. The goals of this new phase of the civil rights movement still remain as an unfulfilled dream.

In the days since the demise of Resurrection City, the number of poor people in our nation has increased and their economic opportunities have grown dire. Yet our national discussion regarding how to deal with the pressing issues of poverty has grown silent.  Talk concerning the poor people among us has been replaced by a national debate concerning how to operate our public schools.  Our nation’s once great War on Poverty has been reduced to a partisan battle over school choice.

Knowing that we still have not won the passage of an Economic Bill of Rights for the disadvantaged, I wonder how anyone can say that school choice is the new civil rights issue of our time?  But this is exactly what leaders across our nation are saying as they pursue questionable school reform plans.

In Pennsylvania, State Senators Anthony Williams and Jeffery Piccola are marketing their school choice bill as an important civil rights act.  There are many who disagree with them.   These opponents would say that there isn’t anything civil about the manner in which this bill is moving forward.  Nor would they agree that there is anything rightabout this proposed legislation.

Piccola and Williams are receiving support from a number of national organizations that advocate for the use of school vouchers.  Other prominent public figures such as former Republican Congressman Dick Armory of Texas have joined with these two senators in proclaiming that winning the right to use public funds in order to provide vouchers to private and religious schools is the civil right issue of our time.

The Senate bill that Piccola and Williams propose will benefit a relatively small group of poor students in our state.  And these students would benefit only after the school to which they apply decides whether or not to admit them.   The money to fund this proposal will be taken from the budgets of local school districts.   To pursue the enactment of a law that will privilege a handful of citizens at the expense of the many is by no means an attempt to fairly assure the civil rights of the people.

In our society, choice is not just about the ability of a person to exercise individual freedom. We are a nation of the people for the people.  In our democracy, choice is a right that should be exercised in a manner that accounts for the good of others and is consistent with the democratic principles upon which our nation was founded.

This is the belief that motivates those who oppose the passage of Pennsylvania Senate Bill 1.  To suggest as Senator Williams does that those who do not support this legislation are segregationists, is despicable. This accusation disrespects the honorable intentions of those who disagree with him.  It also dishonors the work of the giants of the civil rights movement such as Dr. King upon whose shoulders today’s activists stand.