AS PUBLIC schools all over Virginia began another rousing academic year on Tuesday, students were asked to observe a moment of silence before they began their day. Some were surprised at the announcement, others content, many still asleep. The new rule was in compliance with a state law passed earlier this year which mandates that all students at public schools observe a 60 second moment of silence.
Conservatives have hailed the law as a promising attempt to instill values in young people and perhaps prevent another potential Columbine incident. Liberals argue that the law is a clear breach of the separation of church and state. The problem, however, lies in the fact that neither side is correct.
With no potential for positive outcome, the law is a hotbed for controversy in a place where one would hope for teachers and counselors, not lawyers and politicians.
In addition to its obvious potential for controversy, the law undeniably is futile in fulfilling the goals expressed by conservative politicians. The ineffectiveness of it stems from the fact that the constitution does not give the state the jurisdiction to mandate that all students pray. In fact, the state cannot even encourage prayer. It merely grants students the opportunity to pray for those who wish to, and allow the rest to use the time for other quiet activity.
As such, students who have always been taught to pray will do so, students with little concern for prayer will sleep or do their homework, and the occasional class clown will try to distract everyone by throwing spitballs. The moment of silence will not put any more "dignity into the classroom," as Virginia Gov. James S. Gilmore III claims it would.
Many lawmakers view the potential for further controversy and lawsuits as a necessary cost of curbing school violence. Their belief lies in the illogical assumption that at the end of the day, a 60-second moment of silence will produce better people.
In other words, if the students responsible for the shootings at Columbine had been asked to keep quiet for a minute, their years of repressed anger, hatred and prejudice would have subsided into beautiful serenity and they would have frolicked outside like all the other happy students. Unfortunately, it's not that easy.
Supporters of such laws need to realize that active communication, rather than mandating that students keep quiet, is the answer to the problems behind school violence.
Rather than spending hours bickering over the wording of the already ambiguous law, representatives should spend time figuring out ways to hire more counselors and decrease classroom size so as to give each student more attention. Lawmakers should focus more on providing better avenues of support for students rather than brushing the issue with silence.
The new law also will fuel the growing problem of cliques and exclusivity in public schools by creating the stage for religious division between students. For example, certain religions strictly require more than 60 seconds for praying and those students will obviously feel excluded from the opportunity to pray.
The law has already sparked a lawsuit as eight students, backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, have filed against the state on the basis that the implementation of the new law violates the separation of church and state.
Strictly in terms of the constitution, the wording does not breach the First Amendment since it does not encourage or discourage students from prayer, but simply offers suggestions for what they might do with the 60 seconds. The word "prayer" is listed in the context of several other activities that the students may pursue as long as they're quiet and seated. Some students may choose to pray for a better life, others may plan their date for the weekend.
This argument does not, however, prevent many students and parents from being outraged. Several schools have reported students walking out of classrooms as a means of protest. Students with different religious beliefs or no religion at all inevitably will feel the pressure of being in the minority. Teachers will have the added pressure of implementing the new law in a very sensitive manner, so as not to emphasize the option of praying.
While politicians continue to debate the validity of this law, teachers will have a little bit more to worry about as they reluctantly introduce a sensitive issue every morning. Some students will justifiably protest, but eventually will be disciplined for the offense. Lawyers will find public schools as yet another place from which to squeeze that extra paycheck. However, the real problems that have sparked tragic bouts of violence in our public schools will not have been remedied.
(Faraz Rana's column appears Fridays inThe Cavalier Daily.)
Read More
ONIBUDO AND SAWAYA: Police, not students, were agents of chaos
By Naima Sawaya and Nathan Onibudo | 12 hours agoSaturday, the state, not students nor protesters, brought violence to this campus.
IYER: Sports stadiums should sport more benefit to Virginia residents
By Arjun Iyer | 2 days agoPast stadiums in other states show that Virginia has the potential to succeed at such a construction project, provided that proper measures are undertaken.
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | April 29, 2024The implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
