The Alabama legislature amended a statute allowing for a moment of silence in schools to specify that the time could be used for prayer. The Jaffree family sued, arguing this promoted religious indoctrination. The Supreme Court found the amendment unconstitutional as its sole purpose was to promote prayer. By specifying prayer as a favored activity, it violated the establishment clause requiring government neutrality toward religion. Educators can respect separation of church and state by maintaining a neutral moment of silence and not forcing or favoring any religion over others.

1. Separation of Church and State
Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985)

2. Facts
• The Alabama legislature changed the 1978 statute allowing a moment of
silence, which was for the purpose of meditation.
• The amendment in 1981 changed the wording to say mediation or prayer.
• According to "First Amendment Center" (n.d.),“The sponsor of the
legislation went on record as stating that the sole purpose of this change
was to bring prayer back into schools” (Facts).
• The Jaffree family then took the school to court to when their children
were being made fun of for not participating in prayer. Further the
complaint stated that the children were being subjected to religious
indoctrination by the teachers having the class say the prayers
altogether each morning.

3. Issue
• The issue at hand was to determine if there was a violation of the
Establishment Clause.
• Basically, whether or not the new law allowing a moment of
silence was in fact unconstitutional, since the purpose was more
for prayer than mediation.

4. What Educators Did
• In this particular case some of the teachers actually lead students
in a specified prayer that was to be done in unison.
• According to "Findlaw For Legal Professionals" (2016), “two other
Alabama statutes – one of which, enacted in 1982 as a sequel to
16-1-20.1, authorized teachers to lead ‘willing students’ in a
prescribed prayer.” (para. 4).

5. The Outcome
• The courts held that the new law of “meditation or voluntary
prayer” was in fact unconstitutional since the main reason was for
the promotion of prayer.
• According to "First Amendment Center" (n.d.),“The addition of ‘or
voluntary prayer’ indicates that the State intended to characterize
prayer as a favored practice. Such an endorsement is not
consistent with the establishment principle that the government
must pursue a course of complete neutrality toward religion”
(Majority)

6. Valuing Religious Diversity
• Educators can balance the concept of separation of church and state by
not forcing or favoring one particular religion.
• By staying with a “moment of silence” for true mediation or
contemplating gives each student the opportunity to use that time for
their own purpose. Whether it be to be still and quiet or to pray silently
to themselves.
• Educators can also show value to the religious diversity in their school
and classroom by allowing children to study various religions in history.
They can also allowing children of different religions to share what they
know in the context of the history lesson. This gives each student a
feeling of purpose and belonging in the classroom.

7. My Reactions
• For me I believe that the ruling was accurate. To try to force someone
to participate in a prayer that is against what they believe in is truly
wrong.
• The First Amendment does say we have freedom of speech however that
freedom should not come at the cost to others personal rights.
• As an educator I believe I would have upheld the original 1978 statute
that called for just a moment of silence. I would not have made
students recite a prayer.
• Further to assure diversity freedoms in the class I also would not have
allowed other students to try to force the prayer on any other students
who choose not to participate.

8. References:
• FindLaw for Legal Professionals. (2016). Retrieved from
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/472/38.html
• First Amendment Center. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/case.aspx?id=4
94