As one of three ACLU litigants in the Covenant bond case (which was decided in favor of Covenant and is now being appealed to the Va. Supreme Court), I found Peyton's op-ed in the Observer to be a rather shallow analysis of the issue. On Tuesday, May 16th I spoke with him at length and expressed my concerns and the reasons behind them. At the top of the list were his characterization of the case as "frivolous," his misinformed statement regarding Covenant's hiring practices (which do openly exclude non-Christians despite his denial of that fact), and his rather simplistic explanation of the industrial bonds as cost-free to the taxpayer.

Peyton respectfully acknowledged my objections and agreed to print a piece presenting the other side. After some discussion of the various options (interview by reporter vs. letter to editor vs. another op-ed) we agreed that an op-ed would be the most effective. I will be e-mailing him a
650-word piece by Friday, and it will appear in the Observer on the 24th.

My op-ed will not deal with Peyton's statements denying the historical evolution of the separation of church and state -- that's a subject that deserves its own volume. However, I was gratified to hear that a letter opposing his views on that angle will appear in today's edition.

Because of Peyton's background, it will be necessary to exercise "eternal vigilance" with the Observer's coverage of First Amendment issues. I'm hoping others will join me in speaking out.

Mary Ellen Sikes (electronic mail, May 17, 2000)