Last week, the University Senate voted to remove prayer from the university-wide commencement ceremony. Three days later, university President Dan Mote rejected the senate’s decision. Marvin Breslow, the senate parliamentarian, said that in his 47 years at the university, he can’t remember the last time a president has reversed a senate decision. But Mote’s action shouldn’t signal an end to the collaborative relationship between the administration and the senate. In fact, it provides an opportunity to reach a compromise better than either of the two options debated last week did.
Mote’s decision to preserve prayer at a public institution is supported by a long line of historical precedents. Despite the Constitution’s oft-quoted “wall of separation” between church and state, George Washington promptly thanked God after being sworn in as our country’s first president. More recently, former Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and George H.W. Bush led inaugural prayers. And in public schools, children recite the phrase “under God” every day in the Pledge of Allegiance.
But historical precedent alone can’t justify prayer at commencement. Mass prayer led by a bunch of people in robes at a public institution can just feel too much like state-imposed religion. Prayer makes a lot of people uncomfortable, and not just atheists. David Zuckerman, one the undergraduate student senators leading a charge against Mote’s decision, rightly points out that no prayer can encompass the full gamut of religious beliefs. And canceling prayer entirely won’t make everyone happy – some religious people might see that as an affront to their beliefs. But that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a middle ground.
Last year, when the senate discussed nixing commencement prayer, senators proposed replacing it with a non-denominational moment of silence. Students have argued that even this could be offensive. What if some crowd members bowed or clasped their hands? Someone might pull out a rosary. And what if someone sent a text message on a cell phone? That could offend anybody trying to sanctify four years of hard work and the boundless opportunities lying ahead. But these concerns are overblown. We don’t expect many in the crowd to feel oppressed or persecuted by a pause between speeches.
Political correctness should be a consideration but not the ultimate goal. Administrators should aim to create a ceremony that is meaningful without being alienating. Where a prayer can be exclusive, a moment of silence is flexible: It’s up to the individual to decide whether or not that moment is religious. Either way, it’s a moment for gratitude and reflection, and that’s what commencement should be about. Fewer than half of the state’s residents earn a college degree, and most students are setting out for the first time to make their mark on the world. A moment to recognize that isn’t just appropriate; it’s necessary.
