ADL criticizes Assembly’s moment-of-silence bill

Friday, March 22, 2002 | by

ALEZA GOLDSMITH

Anti-Defamation League officials are blasting a proposed Assembly bill that mandates a moment of silence in California public school classrooms.

All four California ADL regional directors, including San Francisco director Jonathan Bernstein, have said Assembly bill 1817, introduced by Assemblyman Tim Leslie (R-Tahoe City), will "almost inevitably be unconstitutional."

In a letter to Virginia Strom-Martin, the Assembly education committee chair, the ADL directors—as well as board members and lay leaders—wrote that the bill's purpose is "invariably to advance religion," interfering with the "educational mission" of public schools.

They urge Strom-Martin to protect the rights of students "to pray voluntarily and privately and not institutionalize what should remain" personal by opposing AB 1817 when it comes before the Assembly in April.

"This is just another way to introduce religion into the schools—although it's a little more sly," said Bernstein, who heads the ADL's Central Pacific Region. "It's harder for people to understand how a moment of silence is endorsing religion, but that will be the ultimate impact."

Brian O'Neel, press secretary for Leslie, disagreed with the ADL, however. He said there is absolutely no religious intention behind AB 1817, which, if it passes, will be implemented at the behest of each individual California school board during the first regularly scheduled class of the day.

He said when the bill was originally introduced in February, the option to pray was included in its wording. That has since been edited out, said O'Neel, because it was "too much of a red flag for those with a progressive mindset who think this is a way of slipping religion into schools."

Rather, he said, the bill's intent is to provide students with a quiet time to reflect—"a necessary component" in providing an effective educational setting. That quiet time could be spent by students doing "whatever they want," including praying, as long as it is done quietly and without disrupting other students.

"The fact is kids today get up to a clock radio, likely—in the Bay Area—in a room that isn't their own; they watch television, listen to music constantly—rap, heavy metal, grunge, whatever. They ride on a noisy school bus, walk through noisy hallways, and rarely is there any time for silence. Silence has many beneficial effects, as the ancient Greeks and others have realized throughout history."

He said other school districts including some in Virginia and Southern California have repeatedly reaped "the beneficial fruits" of a moment of silence, including increased productivity and a reduction in violence.

This moment of silence, he added, could be provided without legislation, but school districts are afraid that a misunderstanding of the intentions behind it would lead to litigation.

Karen Zatz, associate director of ADL in San Francisco, disregarded O'Neel's theory.

Although she said she is sure that praying can do "a host of things for students," it still violates the constitutional separation of church and state when implemented in school, which is why the school districts fear litigation. There are other, more effective ways, she added, to increase productivity and reduce violence in schools without impeding on students' constitutional rights.

"And who's to say they're not going to spend their moment of silence thinking about the violent video game they were just playing?"

As for removing the word "prayer" from the bill, Zatz called this "great, in retrospect," but noted that its original placement evidences the bill's intent. "It's clear to all concerned that this [bill] is about prayer," she said.

"Kids are smart, and they know that it's meant to be used for prayer," she said. "There's something coercive about that."

Bernstein added that, even if the intentions were good, a moment of silence provides increased opportunity for religious proselytizing in the classroom.

If it were to be implemented, Bernstein predicted several dire effects, including a rash of lawsuits. More importantly, it would "exclude people from minority faith backgrounds, emphasize their differences and make them feel excluded and ostracized."

And because the bill itself claims that it is not supposed to be used for religious exercises, he said it would force the school districts to take on the responsibility of monitoring religion in class.

"Do we really want that?" he asked. "School districts are going to have to police themselves. To me that seems inappropriate."