Some Alliance colleagues and I had the opportunity to attend a debate at Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law between Alliance president Clint Bolick and law professor Carl Bender.  Not mentioned in the press release is that Bender is helping argue many of the school choice lawsuits presently active in Arizona. 

One of the things that particularly struck me was the number of concessions Bender made during the exchange.  While remaining openly opposed to many of the programs currently in existence in Arizona, he also admitted that school choice programs in other areas (notably Cleveland) can be constitutionally permissible.  And as witnesses will attest, he also said this: if disabled students can’t get the help they need from the public school into which they’re zoned, they should be allowed to go to a private facility–and their tuition should be paid for with public funds.  Sounds an awful lot like a McKay program to me. 

Conversely, Clint was in agreement about some of the stated deficiencies of the school choice programs, and agreed that some of the loopholes currently present should be shut down.  As he put it, no school choice program is ideal; that doesn’t make it unconstitutional or ineffective, just imperfect. 

But past that, Bender had little new to say, relying mostly on the two principal pillars of school choice opponents: funding losses (school choice programs siphon money from public schools) and church-state separation.  Unfortunately, the debate seemed just a bit too short; just as both Clint and Bender were getting good and ramped up, it came to a close. 

I’ll say this for school choice opponents, though: I really think you’ll wish Clint had stayed out of the courtroom.  He’s been litigating these cases for more than 15 years now, and has the arguments down cold.  I remember the twinkle in his eye as the Alliance filed the administrative action against Compton and Los Angeles last year; after seeing him today, I daresay he’s itching to sue somebody.