Two views of silence law and a waiver request
Monday, Oct 22, 2007 - Posted by Rich Miller
Two very different takes from newspaper editorials about the state’s new “moment of silence” law…
* Bloomington Pantagraph, which appears to have actually read the bill…
You would think teachers and school administrators would relish a moment or two of silence in a building of boisterous children.
But some educators are apparently perplexed by the “brief period of silence” that they are required to have with their students at the start of each school day.
The silence became required after lawmakers overrode the governor’s veto of a bill that changed its observation from optional to mandatory.
In vetoing the bill, Gov. Rod Blagojevich said he and his wife are teaching their children to “pray because they want to pray - not because they are required to.”
But nothing in the bill requires anyone to pray.
The law states, “This period shall not be conducted as a religious exercise but shall be an opportunity for silent prayer or for silent reflection on the anticipated activities of the day.”
* SJ-R, which emphasizes the title…
The First Amendment of the Constitution establishes explicitly that government won’t force any religion on any citizen. And it guarantees the government won’t interfere in any citizen’s practice of his or her religion.
While the First Amendment generally is most closely associated with free speech, the protection it affords both in favor of religious choice for all citizens and against religious meddling by government are no less significant.
Given this country’s long history of carefully demarcating government and religion, the Illinois General Assembly’s decision last week to force a symbolic moment of silence on every public school student in Illinois is genuinely puzzling. It would be infuriating, too, had it not so quickly become a joke to many students and a petty nuisance for school administrators.
After the country’s founders fought a war with England to protect religion from government, lawmakers in Illinois found a way to sneak it in. Sure, the new call calls for a “moment of silence,” not a daily prayer. But the bill also bore the title the Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act. Who are we kidding here?
Not noted in the SJ-R editorial is that the law with that very same title has been on the books for years. The only thing changed was “may” to “shall.”
* Meanwhile, Sen. Schoenberg wants one of his school districts to apply for a waiver from any administrative rules mandating the moment…
State Sen. Jeff Schoenberg, an Evanston Democrat, has written a letter to officials at Evanston/Skokie School District 65 urging them to seek a formal waiver of the new state law requiring that their teachers begin each classroom day with a “brief period of silence.” […]
Schoenberg pledged his support for any effort to petition the Illinois State Board of Education for a waiver of a requirement that his letter calls “onerous…troubling…(and) coercive.” Such requests are somewhat routine — more than 4,000 have been granted since 1995 […]
But if certain schools decide to try to opt out — the District 65 board will take up Schoenberg’s request at the regularly scheduled meeting Nov. 5, according to the schools’ communications manager Pat Markham — will the majority of lawmakers who backed the mandatory silence and overrode Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s veto go the extra step of compelling an unwilling school district to perform this daily ritual?
- VanillaMan - Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 9:10 am:
This is no big deal unless you wish it to be.
I find those who do wish to make it a big deal to be too emotional to make many relevant points pro or con.
This includes a governor who obviously didn’t read the bill either, doesn’t it?
Claiming this bill inject religion into schools is like claiming that a ballplayer cursing a foul ball is injecting religion into a ball game.
The worrywarts who fear religion need to get over themselves.
- Youth indoctrination - Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 9:19 am:
In the words of Metallica: “Free speech, free speech for the dumb.”
- Ghost - Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 9:24 am:
I was opposed to the Bill. That said, now that is has passed the opposition seems more like a tempest in a tea cup. With all the things that need fixed in the State Government at the moment, I would give this low priority. I would also question the use of an elected represenative who is focusing their enregy on such a small priority.
- MsM - Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 9:27 am:
I second VanillaMan’s thoughts. “This is no big deal unless you wish it to be.”
For those school districts, stating they are difficulty understanding what constitutes a moment of silence; please think creatively - I’m sure your students can even come up with a few ideas of what constitutes a moment of silence.
- Bill - Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 9:59 am:
It is funny that most of the same people who so vehemently support a wrongful interpretation of the 2nd ammendment think that violating the 1st ammendment is “no big deal”.
- cermak_rd - Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 10:05 am:
Waivers should be routinely granted. If a school district has other priorities, they are closest to the situation and can best judge the circumstances.
- Lainer - Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 10:14 am:
I believe this law was completely unneccesary, given that schools were already ALLOWED to have a moment of silence if they chose.
If I’m not mistaken, actual prayer in public schools is not “illegal” in the sense that anyone can be fined or go to jail. The only enforcement mechanism is that the school district can be sued (and will probably lose) if a student who doesn’t want to pray, or his/her parents, complain. Likewise, there’s no criminal enforcement mechanism in this law. The only potential penalty for schools that don’t follow the moment of silence law is that some student or parent might sue them for NOT following it… which is probably what it will come down to in the end, in which case the law will probably be ruled unconstitutional and thrown out anyway. Bottom line is: some law firm is going to make a lot of money off this
- Fan of the Game - Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 10:22 am:
There has never been a prhibition on silent student prayer in schools. It happened all the time before the GA overrode this veto.
The issue is whether the General Assembly needed to provide schools with another mandate that not only does not improve student learning but actually takes time away from activities that do.
I’m wondering on the over/under date for the first lawsuit. Which will be the first district taken to court for allowing prayer at school? Which will be the first district sued because a parent feels the “moment” is too short and does not truly give his child the chance to pray or reflect properly?
It’s a silly, inconsequential law that does not improve education and will only cause school districts grief.
- Captain America - Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 10:53 am:
This moment of silence is not soemthing i can get excited about one way or another. I agree with Ghost and Vanilla Man.
- Not too old to remember - Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 11:36 am:
It goes back to the old line, “If you don’t think there’s prayer in school, show up on test day.” This is making a mountain out of a molehill.
- Sango Dem - Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 11:42 am:
Its pretty disingenuous to pretend this has nothing to do with prayer. I’ve never heard anyone justify the benefits of silence in a non-religious context without the most far-fetched rationalizations.
If it has nothing to do with prayer then the moment of silence is just an idiotic waste of time for both the school and the legislature.
- Flip flop - Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 12:04 pm:
Somebody may want to remind Schoenberg that he voted FOR the bill when it first came before the Senate.
- Squideshi - Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 12:07 pm:
The Pantagraph Editorial Board wrote, “You would think teachers and school administrators would relish a moment or two of silence in a building of boisterous children.”
They were free to establish their own routine if they need some quiet time–this bill serves no purpose, other than the obvious–to make it seem to children that they are expected to pray.
The law states, “This period shall not be conducted as a religious exercise but shall be an opportunity for silent prayer or for silent reflection on the anticipated activities of the day.”
What’s next? An “opportunity” for silent communion or the eating of bread and wine? (Of course, not to be conducted as a religious exercise.)
Rich Miller wrote, “Meanwhile, Sen. Schoenberg wants one of his school districts to apply for a waiver from any administrative rules mandating the moment…”
Under what law is the State Board of Elections allowed to grant waivers without violating the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution? Are they actually writing these exceptions into their administrative rules in order to make them law?
VanillaMan wrote, “The worrywarts who fear religion need to get over themselves.”
Religions have a history of trying to take over government and institute religious law. I think that it would be foolish to ignore history.
Bill wrote, “It is funny that most of the same people who so vehemently support a wrongful interpretation of the 2nd ammendment think that violating the 1st ammendment is ‘no big deal’.”
Kudos to Bill on that analysis.
- cermak_rd - Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 12:12 pm:
If the waivers are available to anyone requesting one, I don’t see how it violates equal protection. However, if the waivers are widely available, how then does the new law (must) differ from the old law (should).
- SHHHH - Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 3:57 pm:
The sky is falling…the sky is falling.
- Lotta Liaison - Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 4:46 pm:
Is this law rationally related to a legitimate state purpose?
- the Other Anonymous - Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 5:48 pm:
I keep thinking about how much certain teachers and certain school districts want to inject Christian prayer and proselytizing into their public schools. This law simply provides yet another opportunity and/or justification to use schools as churches — a result that is good for neither.
I think that the SJ-R got it right. If the bill was really intended to create a secular or non-religious moment of silence in schools, it never would have passed in the first place.
Sometimes, you have to go beyond the simple language of a law to determine its effect.
- Arthur Andersen - Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 6:38 pm:
Right on, Bill!