Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (March 22, 1985)
Friday, March 22, 1985 Daily Nebraskan oments oj f f the Supreme Court finds government- I sponsored moments of silence In school to be A ccn.stitutior.ol (i.e., net unconstitutionally burdensome on First Amendment guarantees), the question still remains as to whether permiss ible law is nonetheless good policy. However, in sllicant ways, the issues which Ere raised as I silence promote First Jr. . i . 111 dii n Fin an to whether mandated "terieds cf silence" h good policy imagc3 the constitutional issues which the courts hive faced In some senses, le:;s!aturcs m:y see fit to extend the core values cf certain rights contained in the U.S. Constitu tion beyond "the Supreme Court's minimal guarantees. i' r None of the formulations cf oral govcrcmcnt- )rcd prayer in school seem to be wise pel icy. American culture is simply too pluralistic to have forced professions of belief. (Ironically though, the courts have so far hypocritically ignored pervasive violations cf First Amendment core values occurring every day in government school as children arc forced to profess belief in secular thought systems). However, "moment of silence" legation cir cumvents the moral difficulties with verbal prayer and at the same time advances another core value in the First Amendment, namely, permitting the free exercise of religion. The fact that "moment cf silence" legislation strongly promotes First Amendment values may seem to be, at flrct glar.ee, an odd claim. Bat upon reflec tion the truth cf the proposition can be easily acceded to and, ultimately, strong warrant for "moment cf silence" legislation can be located In the claim. . A number of academic commentators have recently ben to recognize that a more acc If j Air. ling of the relationship between first ;.ent values end state policy must be on a scale far beyond that which constitutional framcrs had originally thought possible or expe dient. The argument runs thusly: strict separa tion wa3 possible when state activity was at a bare minimum. But, as one commentator recently noted in a Yale Law Journal article, "(t)he scale and diversity of government activities that char acterize today's welfare state. . . have made contacts between church and state inevitable." Summarizing Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe's argument, the commentator went on to accurately point out that "movement from government cf closely limited powers to affirma tive state required re-evaluation of religion clauses; in an affirmative state, religious toler ance may become 'positive commitment that encourages the flourishing cf conscience' rather than simply 'negative principle.' " Probably nowhere else is the "affirmative" cr . "more than minimal" state evidenced than in attempts by the government to structure social order and consciousness through state schools. Consequently, nowhere else is there a more in order to facilitate the "f.eurLhinj of con science" than precisely in the state eehorl. E;e First Amendment separatism does not advance this weighty goal; it produces simply a barren and homogeneous culture, rather than one where pluralism, and its sibling, the free exer cise of religion, is celebrated. Theistic rJrimlbm is not the gord cf the First Amendment, nor is it the goal of cur society. To allow children an opportunity for silent reflection pious or secular hardly impinges upon the core values articulated in the First Amendment, Indeed, quite the opposite b true. Because cf the nature cf the modern stale, the eld shrouds which served well as First Amendment trappings must be cast aside and a new covering donned. Hie coverings could be a weave of the rich tapestry of a truly pluralistic society which seeks "positive commitment" to a "Nourishing conscience" as facilitated by moment ' cf silence legislation. Or the emperor's new clothes could be the nakedness cf a state developed In li ght of a modern state which exists compelling warrant for "positive commitment" impose practical tolerance. 1 Professor says WRC serves few Hooray for Clark Osborn, Ecss Davidson and the majority cf the ASUN for calling a spade a spade! For three years I have been hearing x:.i female students who have counseling needs but don't dare go near the Women's . Eeso'iree Center because of open les- bian solicitation. Some cf them have sought my advice because cf my well known Christianity.' Those cf us who have thus been taking up the slack for YT.C have been wondering v.hy their funding should continue. We can ill aSbrd t.uch mah;ers:tien in these criti cal times. . The WSC doesn't realty deserve find ing! They serve a distinct and limited clientele, not the vast majority of UNL women. For exactly the game reason, our Christian Studies Society is, and' has to be self-supporting. We can't even get space for a room in the men, ASUN credibility... Eut now to you "ins." To the winners, .the losers, tad all who cm about ' ASUN. You've already read that I admire you (I know you're relieved!). Yon care - enough to give up free time and gratui tous interests-to pursue admirable goals. But please, stop taking your selves so seriously. We are, after- all, talking about E Street, not Pennsylva nia Avenue. Those who malign yon may be worthy of your pity, but not your seem it's just not that big a deal. Besides, maybe they've got a point Twenty-one thousand students did not vote. That is incredible-apathy. Cut through the sarcasm and hear the mes sage. There are issues we only hear about at election time. There is a defi nite feeling that ASUN has very little relevance to student life. If you don't wast to put up with the ridicule again next yc:r, live up to the promises. Do some sigiir.ejr.t, high visibility things. Nothing rcfates cynicism like perfor mance, if the promises are too hard to keep, make less flamboyant premises. But talk and work must be brought into the same universe to gain any credlbii- Policy which is unfdr discrimination because we serve a far greater number cf stu dents thin does the WEC. ' ' Clark and Eoss, please continue the good work. 'Don't be bothered by the traasvestlte sector, all 10 of thorn. They are neither a true minority, nor repre-' sentativs cf INL women. Be assured .11 itv at College years form habits that stty with us for the rest cf our lives. People cn both sides of this issue me too bright to he ruined by the propensity either to criticize cr to promise rather thin la act. ASUN is a fact cfUNL life, and a necessary cne. Let's use it to build chi it. t - c . t C 1 1 I that the vast, overwhelming majority cf UML women approve your action. Jan Deeds s:yd they'll continue to exist on funding from "friends" which is only proper for a limited operation serving a tiny segment cf the university tbody. Nels W. Forde . history professor .4 The Daily Nebraskan welcomes brief letters to the editor from all readers and interested others. Letters will be selected for publica tion on the basis cf clarity, originality, timeliness and space available. The Daily Nebraskan retains the- right to sit edii all material submitted. tesi material as guest opinions. Whether material should run as a letter or guest opinion, or not run, is left to the edi tor's discretion. Letters and guest opinions sent to the newspaper become property cf the Daily Nebraskan and cannot t returned. Anonymous submissions will not b& considered for publication. I I ' IVJi V 'f-K-;; ---4 Pill! fPF l-PA lilPM' i'i:Tn Hit O'-T ' ffl '! 1 iV8 ! 1 And he, r';T '7