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

be voluntary, it would be apparent to all students in the school that religious activity was authorized and, fairly judged or not, established by the board of education.

Schools could easily become magnets for all religious groups, including extremist cults, seeking a new home or additional space. Schools could become school-churches. Equipment, materials and supplies would be in jeopardy, and the smooth flow of instruction from day to day would be disrupted. Given the random nature of the groups who would demand access, security would have to be increased, screening would become a full-time job, and supervision, insurance and liability, major problems.

In effect, the attention, energy and time of students, teachers and school administrators could easily be diverted from their primary mission of public education, impeded by such distractions as multiple religious groups competing for the use of public schoolhouses.

In summary, the AASA feels that prayer is a very personal experience, and religion, an individual matter. Mixing education and religion in the public schools of our diverse society is not wise. Nor is it sound practice to employ the Constitution as a handy remedy to appease those who have been frustrated by court decisions. The Constitution, after all, is the foundation of our national wisdom. The balance of powers provide recourse through the courts to those who feel that their rights have been violated by legislative acts. The interplay of the judicial and legislative branches of government has protected the civil rights of Americans and sustained this Nation's integrity as a democratic society through more than a century of history. That process should be preserved, and the proposed constitutional amendments rejected.

Thank you.

[The following was received for the record:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF IRA J. SINGER

Mr. Chairman. Committee Members. I am here today representing the American Association of School Administrators, the professional association of local school superintendents and other school administrators.

It is my honor and privilege to address Senators of the Congress of the United States and discuss the proposed constitutional amendments on school prayer.

To come directly to the point, AASA opposes both 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 Committee on Federal Policy and Legislation opposes Senate JT Resolution 73 because we believe it to be contrary to the principles upon which this country was founded.

In school we teach the history of our nation through the beliefs and views of our Founding Fathers, views which were not consonant with the substance or intent of Resolution 73 or the subcommittee alternative.

For example, Thomas Jefferson was a staunch advocate of civil rights and, in the 1st Amendment, fought for the protection of the rights of everyman 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 sworn against tyranny of the minds of man." That famous quote was uttered about the tyranny of religion, not patriotism, as it is so often taught

was ...

in our schools. To zealous Calvinists who denounced him as an atheist, Jefferson charged that "... the effect of religous coercion would be to make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites."