September 15, 2003
The House of Representatives approved the nation's first federally funded school voucher program by a single vote, sending the Senate a plan that would provide $10 million in private school tuition grants to at least 1,300 of Washington D.C.’s 68,000 students next year. The five-year pilot program won final passage on a nearly party-line vote of 209 to 208.
In doing so, the 108th Congress forced its will on a people who did not cast a single vote for federal representation. Moreover, many of the 209 representatives that voted for the bill came from states that overwhelmingly defeated school voucher referendums.
A key part of President Bush’s “Leave No Child Behind” education policy, vouchers is the conservative’s educational counterpart to the tax cut, serving as an overly simplistic panacea that radio talk show host Sean Hannity described as, “A key step to reducing poverty, unemployment, drug use, and incarcerations in low income communities.” Who knew it was so easy? But Washington D.C. is the only city where the president’s federal voucher plan passed and it is the only city without voting representation.
In fairness, the five-year pilot program, which is supported by D.C. mayor Anthony Williams and school board president, Peggy Cooper Cafritz, does not come void of need:
* Seventy-six percent of D.C. fourth-graders performed below grade level in math, and only 10 percent read proficiently.
* Seventy-seven percent of eighth-graders performed below grade level in math, and only 12 percent were proficient in reading.
Clearly, something needs to change in the educational culture of the nation’s capitol, but a paternalistic Congress that treats D.C. residence like lab mice is not the answer. In a display of chicanery and arrogance, House Republican leaders scheduled the vote to begin after 8 p.m., coinciding with the debate among Democratic presidential candidates in Baltimore that several House members who oppose vouchers -- including debate participants Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.) and Dennis J. Kucinich (Ohio) -- had planned to attend.
The House tradition has allowed the postponement of votes when a number of the members would not be available; such was the case with a number of Democrats planning to attend the presidential debate that evening. This tradition has been used to delay votes when members were attending key fundraisers; it has also been invoked when a vote conflicted with the Washington Redskins’ kickoff time. I guess the exploits of a football team that continues to trivialize Native American culture for our personal amusement is more important than a presidential debate.
Regardless where one stands on vouchers, Congress’ behavior reminds us that the 500,000 residence of Washington D.C., which 67 percent are African American, have no federal representation. Forgive me for playing the race card, but I find it hard to believe this would be an issue if D.C. were 67 percent white. Since 1990, Oregon, Colorado, Washington, and California have said no to voucher plans by an average margin of 67 percent to 33 percent, but all had members voting to support vouchers for D.C. residents. A Zogby Poll taken less than a year ago found that 76 percent of D.C. voters and 85 percent of African Americans opposed vouchers.
After the House vote, Washington Post columnist Marc Fisher wrote that D.C. resident John Whiteside, opposed to the voucher plan, emailed California Senator, Dianne Feinstein (D) who plans to support D.C. vouchers when it comes to the Senate, but he received an automated reply from Feinstein informing him that California’s senior senator is only able to respond to messages that contain a California postal address.
Because Senator Feinstein’s automated reply is not unlike many members Congress, Mr. Whiteside has very few options when it comes to actualizing one of the fundamental tools of democracy. Why didn’t the senator provide an automated reply explaining the difference between D.C. opposition to vouchers and California’s Proposition 38, which lost 29 percent to 71 percent in 2000? House members sent to represent the interest of the districts that elected them are free to experiment with the lives of those living in D.C. To be denied the fundamental privilege of elected representation, while having a questionable policy rammed down their throats runs against the very ideals this country claims to uphold. The last time this country had a debate about taxation without representation, someone lost a bunch of tea and war soon followed.