Virginia student takes stand against silence
Inside the First Amendment
By Charles Haynes
Senior scholar, First Amendment Center
11.12.00
Printer-friendly page
When his teacher calls for a moment of silence every morning, Jordan
Kupersmith gets up and leaves the room.
What does Jordan, a high school student in Loudoun County, Va., have
against silence?
This week I had a chance to ask him at a community meeting called to
discuss the controversy.
It's not the silence that bothers him, he explained, but the intent
behind it. He's convinced that when Virginia legislators passed a law mandating
a daily minute of silence in classrooms, their primary purpose was to promote
prayer.
Jordan objects on grounds of conscience to participating in what he
considers a religious activity in a public school.
This summer Jordan and seven other students filed suit challenging the
constitutionality of the "minute of silence." Last week a federal judge upheld
the law, ruling that it had a secular purpose that doesn't advance or inhibit
religion.
Jordan tells me that he and his fellow students will appeal the
decision.
One of the core issues here is the purpose of the law. The legislative
act itself simply requires a minute of silence during which students may
"meditate, pray or engage in any other silent activity." But the law's
opponents claim that legislators intended to encourage prayer. Besides, they
argue, even mentioning prayer in the law is unconstitutional.
The judge dismissed these arguments, saying that "students may think
as they wish – and this thinking can be purely religious in nature or
purely secular in nature. All that is required is that they sit quietly."
If this case eventually goes to the Supreme Court, who wins?
Jordan is counting on a 1984 Supreme Court decision striking down an
Alabama "moment of silence" law on the grounds that the legislative history of
the act proved that Alabama lawmakers clearly wanted to promote prayer in
schools.
This time around, however, it appears doubtful that the court will
strike down the Virginia law. Proving that the legislature intended to
encourage prayer will be a difficult task since the law's sponsors have been
careful to articulate secular purposes for the minute of silence.
Whatever the ultimate outcome of the case, Jordan and his friends will
continue to leave the room during the silence. At first, school officials
weren't sure how to respond to this form of civil disobedience. Jordan even
received detention for leaving the classroom without permission.
But now administrators accommodate the protesters, allowing them to
step out of class during the minute of silence. That's the right thing to do.
In the spirit of the First Amendment, school officials should do what they can
to respect claims of conscience.
You may or may not agree with the students about this law. But it's
hard not to admire their willingness to stand up for their convictions. That's
part of what it means to be a citizen in this extraordinary place we call
America.
Your questions and comments are welcome. Write to:
Charles Haynes
The Freedom Forum First Amendment Center
1101 Wilson Blvd.
Arlington, VA 22209
E-mail: chaynes@freedomforum.org
Related
Divided federal appeals panel upholds Virginia minute-of-silence law
Court majority says statute doesn’t establish religion, but dissenting judge says law erodes church-state separation.
07.25.01
Rehnquist rejects call to halt Virginia's minute-of-silence law
Supreme Court could still decide to hear ACLU’s appeal of 4th Circuit decision.
09.13.01
ACLU asks high court to block Virginia moment-of-silence law
Students shouldn’t ‘be compelled to suffer another year or another day’ under statute that violates church-state separation, opponents argue in emergency filing.
09.04.01
Recent Charles Haynes columns
More Charles Haynes columns
