ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Sunday, February 25, 1996 TAG: 9602270144
SECTION: EXTRA PAGE: 1 EDITION: METRO
COLUMN: The Back Pew
SOURCE: CODY LOWE
Virginians of all political stripes undoubtedly are sleeping more securely as a result of the state legislature's interest in enforcing an atmosphere of respect during public-school students' recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Some legislators apparently believe there is a rash of disrespectfulness in the state's public schools that must be nipped in the bud by the full force of the law.
The state seems to be following the lead of the Prince William County School Board, which recently altered its policy to read that "All students, teachers and any visitors in the school will stand respectfully while the Pledge is being said. Individuals, who for religious or other deep personal convictions, do not choose to participate in the Pledge of Allegiance, will stand quietly out of respect for the view of others."
The General Assembly seems content to leave the specific formulation of a similar statewide policy to the board of education and attorney general, but our legislators are eager to jump on the Pledge bandwagon by requiring the formulation of a policy.
The Prince William County rules and, presumably, the proposed state policy would stop short of trying to force people to actually say the pledge or salute the flag - the U.S. Supreme Court nixed that idea a half-century ago in a case brought by Jehovah's Witnesses, whose religious beliefs preclude such obeisance to "visible Earthly powers."
The chairman of the Prince William County School Board defended his board's action as a stand for morality: "Respect is a value" that the county has an interest in teaching, he said.
That's hard to argue with. Respect certainly is one of those values we would like to instill in our children. I just wonder how far the chairman of that school board or any of our state legislators is willing to go to legislate similarly dearly held values.
It's true that we legislate morality all the time. Murder, theft, fraud, assault and a host of other wrongs are specifically prohibited in our legal codes precisely because they are immoral.
But such a vague concept as "respect" seems a little tougher to codify - perhaps because the harm it causes is more difficult to define and because behavior that is "disrespectful" doesn't feel as bad as behavior that is "immoral."
As the spouse of a public-school teacher, I might suggest to our legislators that they enact a law mandating that students stand when my wife enters the room to show their respect for their teacher. It's not so much that students have to respect my wife in particular, you know, but that that they respect the important symbolic position she holds in our state.
Of course, that bill also should include mandatory respect for our embattled school-bus drivers, who take all kinds of abuse at the beginning and end of each school day. Oh, yes, we also mustn't forget cafeteria workers, secretaries, custodians, aides and, last but not least, principals.
We might want to institute a policy of having students stand at attention and execute a crisp bow before deigning to address any school personnel, as well, with proper exceptions for those with "religious or other deep personal convictions."
Respect, properly observed, is a two-way street. So, our proposed legislation also would have to include provisions for school personnel to be respectful to students.
So far, the legislature seems only to be interested in legislating these kinds of values in public schools. But why not expand the morality horizon? A new law might require motorists to address all state troopers as "sir" or "ma'am," as a matter or simple respect. The phrase "love, honor and respect" could be a required and legally enforceable provision of every marriage ceremony.
The list is endless.
My boss, for instance, might like a law requiring that I salute him at the beginning of each day, as a sign of respect for the national institution of capitalism.
But, while I'm a believer in capitalism, he shouldn't hold his breath. |n n| Speaking of disrespect, remember that Monday is the deadline for responding to last week's column about O.J. Simpson and his video sale. How do you feel about his profiting from the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman? What do you think about prosecutor Marcia Clark's big book deal?
Send your responses to The Back Pew, in care of the Roanoke Times, P.O. Box 2491, Roanoke 24010, or e-mail them to cloweroanoke.infi.net
LENGTH: Medium: 84 lines KEYWORDS: GENERAL ASSEMBLY 1996by CNB