"Thou art the man." He did not say, Thou art the clerk to register in the Gallup Poll. If the foundation of the Constitution were to bow to the wind of whatever popular passion stirs each generation, the entire Bill of Rights would already be a relic of history. We know that there is good reason for such concern regarding this amendment. Such an amendment could not be enacted without numerous violations

of the spirit of the Constitution. There will be attempts to stretch the limits of the law, and prejudicial interpretations on the part of individual teachers, students, and administrators. The amendment will not only give rise to a plethora of court battles on its interpretations, but also sets up an umbrella for countless inevitable abuses that will go unreported. We, in the Jewish community, are particularly sensitive to the ability of public institutions unwittingly to give sanction to prejudicial treatment of the law. In many local communities, it may be unbearably threatening for a lone Jewish family to protest the unfair application of the law.

Furthermore, the desire of some religious groups to foist their sectarian aims on the public will be exacerbated by the passage of this amendment. Giving in to pressure for prayer in public schools will not placate such a constituency. It will, rather, add fuel to their fire. The only proper response to infringements of religious freedom is to check them at their first encroachment on the borders of constitutional values, not at some further point when the issue takes on more "serious" implications.

Let none who support this measure delude themselves that they have rendered religion or liberty a service. In a plural society, it is not and should not be the business of government to aid religion, and if it does assume that role, then, in the very process and precedent it establishes, it does religion a harm and disservice that will far outweigh the intended benevolence. For it will have compromised that free and unfettered exercise of religious liberty without which religious faith cannot for long retain its integrity and independence. Our profound respect for the Congress and the desire of its members to serve the common good leads us to say to you, the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee; your business is not the promotion of religion, it is rather the preservation of a free and just society, for that, and nothing else, offers the surest safeguard for the preservation and strengthening of our religious heritage.

39-015 0-84--35

K Bovas is the poster of the Union of American Hebrew Congreads the puzur scooci students can now pray

Bacol Ever I wold depend on when, whether it was interferLET THELE BICOL KOTIES I DL

Babor Bear I somebody vs the playground, and they wat op to the fence and they decided to say a prayer out loud, I 233 me the body the Union or the CCAR would sojess to that. But one was to stand the middle of math saw and have the class stop so that he could carry out a religious Bence tannik we would find that ocjectionable.

Mr. Bowman 03 That would not be possible during an orga

RADO. KAREN That is correct

Mr BOWMAN CK. How about slent prayer? Could that go on any time during the day

Paon Kars Well somebody s praying silently while some70) a sting, there is no control over that. If an individual de509D%BAt, you do not know whether they are paying attention % what the teacher is lecturing, or just meditating or praying Tree! You cannot control that.

Mr Bowman. Well do you think that your concept here will www in a vitation where student Richard Roe, for instance, is youjity, envy to himself in algebra class, and then the teacher 4 on nm for an answer, and of course, he has not been paying

YAH Yes. And

M. Wowman Can you give me an example of how that would #ve 19 antra to me that in your statement, you are saying they bat pray any time the spirit moves them to do so. provided only bol program is not disrupted thereby. That seems to be mgurly rattad perception.

W VAN Well, I do not think that anybody has in mind that sah tpb yo manage the individual thoughts at all points habang tak bvp of each youngster in the schools. I would think that KICK MEGA &ver entertain such an idea.

1

We predig way to pray-let me give you an example. Let us say yatane in the afternoon in Spanish class, you know that your and rung, heart surgery at that time, and you stop Dad wakaalute, and you are praying that everything will go all Funded imagine that anybody, no matter what side of the szy kogganed to be on, would have any objection to that, not 19.* aurice of the class. If somebody is habitually not paying Sarede maak what they are doing so is detrimental to their grade 4 pounang, Man it might require some discussion with the paridea about is going on If there is a problem, then it should be

bed 1 bad dead what you are proposing, has to do with what is

Mr. BOWMAN. Well, wouldn't you agree that your proviso here pretty much narrowly limits the time in which somebody could voluntarily engage in silent prayer?

Rabbi KAHN. No, I would not. I do not think it enters into mind control at all. I think it simply says that prayer-silent or notthat is sponsored by the school is objectionable. That which an individual is moved to do is not being addressed at all.

Mr. BOWMAN. Thank you, sir.

Mr Scotch. Thank you.

Mr. SCOTCH. The next panel, panel VII, will bring us witnesses from the American Association of School Administrators-is Dr. Ira J. Singer here-the National Association of State Boards of Education-Joanne Goldsmith-and the National Education Association. Why don't we start from left to right this time. Dr. Singer.

STATEMENT OF A PANEL, INCLUDING IRA J. SINGER, ON BEHALF OF AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS; JOANNE GOLDSMITH, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE BOARDS OF EDUCATION, AND NAT DERSHOWITZ, DIRECTOR, COMMISSION ON LAW AND SOCIAL ACTION, AMERICAN JEWISH CONGRESS

Dr. SINGER. Thank you.

I am Dr. Ira J. Singer. I am superintendent of schools of the Herricks Public Schools in New Hyde Park, NY, and if that sounds familiar, it is because Herricks is the site of the landmark Engel Vitale decision in 1962. I am also here representing the American Association of School Administrators, a professional association of local school superintendents and other school administrators.

For the record, I appreciate, really appreciate, your willingness to be here, but resent terribly the fact that not one Senator is present to hear my testimony or that of other witnesses currently present.

To come directly to the point, AASA opposes both Senate Joint Resolution 73 and the alternative proposed by the Constitution Subcommittee of this committee for silent meditation and equal access to school facilities. More specifically, AASA opposes putting such matters in the Constitution where they become law for all citizens throughout the Nation.

The AASA does not favor Senate Joint Resolution 73 because we believe it to be contrary to the principles upon which this country was founded, principles found in the Constitution. In school, we teach the history of our Nation through the beliefs and views of our Founding Fathers, views which are not consonant with either the substance or the intent of Senate Joint Resolution 73. So often, prayer advocates invoke the name of Jefferson in their cause, but what kind of man was Jefferson, and what did he believe?

Thomas Jefferson was a staunch advocate of civil rights, and in the first amendment, fought for the protection of the rights of every man from religion, not for religion. He was terribly concerned about the Government recognizing a one and only righteous way to heaven. He abhorred such talk. He was "sworn against tyranny of the minds of man." That famous quote was uttered about

the tyranny of religion, not patriotism, as is so often taught in our schools.

In Orlando last March, President Reagan stated, "When our Founding Fathers passed the first amendment, they sought to protect churches from Government interference." To the contrary, the first amendment was written to protect the individual citizen, not the church, from religious coercion of any form. This was Jefferson's theme.

In obtaining the Virginia bill for religious liberty, Jefferson and Madison opposed all religious establishment by law on grounds of principle. Jefferson attacked those who would force religious dogma on others, charging them with an "impious presumption to assume domain over the freedom of others depriving them of their liberty. He stated that "our civil rights have no dependence upon our religious beliefs," and that "no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious ministry whatsoever."

In fact, revisionist interpretations of the Constitution have gone so far as to lead one Federal district court judge to proclaim that, in the Engel v. Vitale case, the Supreme Court "erred in its reading of history," and that the constitutional wall of separation between church and state is a "myth." A State senator, in praising this judge's opinion, held that the framers of the Constitution "did not believe in the separation of church and state," and one nationally prominent clergyman has said that school prayer was "in the intent and mind of the first amendment framers." What would Jefferson say to that?

My testimony here is particularly fitting since I do come from the Engel v. Vitale site. The prayer in question was voluntary and nondenominational, to be recited as part of opening day exercises. It was composed by State officials and authorized and recommended by the State Board of Regents. The Supreme Court found it to be unconstitutional.

Justice Black, in writing his majority opinion, stated:

Neither the fact that the prayer may be denominationally neutral nor the fact that its observance on the part of the students is voluntary, served to free it from the limitations of the "establishment" clause.

Since 1962, the Court ruling on voluntary prayer has withstood the test of time, through a variety of assaults and circumventions. Black did not err in his reading of history, but testified for our Founding Fathers in restating basic Jeffersonian principles, and the children of Herricks have not suffered at all.

Aside from the Court's opinion, the practical implications of a constitutional amendment requiring voluntary prayer in the classroom are nightmarish. How is a child excused from class if that child does not wish to participate in this voluntary activity?

Conformity is a powerful force among children of all ages. In some places, a child would have to be truly heroic to ask to leave the room. And the teacher who does not believe in this practice must now police it. Will his or her attitude become more powerful than the compulsion to pray or be excused. How will teacherparent relations be affected when they are in disagreement over the product and the process of the proposed amendment?

The prospects of disruption, litigation, noncompliance and ridicule are, to say the least, disquieting. And many of these same problems relate to the silent prayer amendment.

Resolution 73 also fails to recognize the contemporary reality of the American schoolhouse, where Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Taoists, and other children of disparate religions, as well as those who profess no religious affiliation, coexist in the same classroom. Collective or unison prayer, spoken or silent, voluntary or otherwise, would trample on the beliefs of many students and result in an atmosphere of stress and dissension

As for the formal adoption of a period of silent prayer, AASA is opposed to a constitutional mandate for such practice. The courts, for the most part, have found a period of prayer or meditation thus far to be in violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment. It is true that individual districts can be found where such practice is tolerated. However, in Alabama, New Mexico, and Tennessee, these laws were overturned. In Massachusetts, the legislature was told by its State supreme court that silent meditation would, at least in some instances, lead to oral recitation. In other words, during the moment of silence, individuals would pray aloud and make religious gestures. The teacher must either allow such actions or stop them-an untenable and inappropriate responsibility either way.

I am not so certain as others this morning that the Supreme Court would find a moment of silence constitutional. If a teacher requires a period of silence for reasons other than the high level of noise in the class, the children will ask why. The teacher must answer, to give children who wish to, a chance to pray. The effect would be obvious. Students would be praying in a public school because of a government directive-a clear violation of the first amendment. Students who wish to pray may do so now-at home, alone in school, in church, or the meadow-but not by Government invitation in a publicly tax-supported schoolhouse. An amendment to require silence so that children may pray is unnecessary and, I think, unconstitutional.

Finally, AASA opposes a constitutional amendment requiring public schools to grant equal access to school facilities to religious groups throughout the Nation. This is a comparatively new effort to merge church and school. If the courts reject the concept as constitutionally unacceptable, it would not be out of hostility, but rather, a concern over our heading down a new road of religious establishment.

Aside from the opinion of the Court, the AASA recognizes that various school districts throughout the country have, at their own risk, entered into contractual arrangements with religious groups for the temporary use of school facilities, usually for emergency purposes. A constitutional amendment would complicate such voluntary decisions and require all school boards, whether they wished to or not, to grant access to all groups in a way that would surely interfere with school activities. So-called student study groups would probably give way to more formal church-sponsored programs. Church-related activities following immediately upon student dismissal would be perceived as an integral part of the school's extra- and co-curricular programs. While attendance would