The First Parish in Bedford Unitarian Universalist 75 The Great Road, Bedford, Massachusetts 01730 On the Common 781-275-7994

“The Democratic Way”

A Sermon delivered by Ellery Schempp

at The First Parish in Bedford

on February 1, 2004

 

 

Introduction

 

Before children left for their classes, John Gibbons introduced Ellery Schempp to them. John explained that when Ellery was a teenager, he and his family objected to the public school’s practice of compulsory Bible-reading, devotions and prayers. The Schempps’ objections led ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court where, in the landmark Abington v. Schempp (1963), it was ruled that such practice violates the U.S. Constitution. John shared the following excerpt from an email note sent to him by Ellery:

 

“In November, 1956 (long before anybody was born!) I was just 3 months past my 16^th birthday, and that is when I made the protest. But this decision did not come overnight. I learned a lot of things from my parents, my teachers, my friends, and the UU Church. I tried out my ideas by talking to others. And I found that the things they said to me helped me to see my ideas more clearly. The important thing was that my friends were honest with me and spoke their true thoughts and feelings.

 

“I used to walk to school. It was about a mile and took about 15 minutes, 12 if I was late! We didn't have backpacks then, so I carried my books under my arm. I used to love these walks--on cold mornings my wet hair would freeze--I thought this was funny. I loved these walks because I had time to look at the houses and trees and sky, and I had time to think. What would be a good topic for my next English theme? What do I remember from the book I read last night? In good weather I rode my bicycle--it was up a steep hill in the morning, but all downhill in the afternoon. It was not 10-speed, not even 3-speed. It was one-speed! When I was 14, I could not ride up this little mountain and had to walk it up.

 

“It was a little scary when I made this protest. I mean, I knew I wasn't doing anything really bad--I wasn't hurting anybody. But I did not know what would happen when the Principal learned about this. I felt confident that the ideas I had were shared by some of my friends, and quite likely by very neat and thoughtful people, like at the Unitarian Church and the ACLU. I had my thoughts prepared to answer criticisms. And I knew that some people would not agree. But my answer was always, what is fair to everyone? What does the Constitution mean?

 

“I have a younger brother, Roger, and a sister, Donna. I did not think too much at first how what I did would affect them. This came to bother me later; perhaps I was selfish. My parents were also concerned. But ironically it turned out that they were the most important part of the story. This was because they were still in school after I graduated and went to college (at Tufts). The old law still applied to them, and this was important in the Courts. They were very brave.

 

“It is quite amazing that I and my family became a little bit famous from this. One of the things I learned is how wonderful it is to have ideas and to test them out with friends and parents to see which ideas are good and which ones have flaws. And to know how a good idea can win--even over very powerful institutions and forces. I always thank my time in walking to school as one of the best experiences in my life.”

 

 

 

 

 

Reading

 

From The Democratic Way of Life, Eduard C. Lindemann and C.S. Smith, 1949

 

“Democracy is more than a form of government. It is also a way of life, a state of mind, and many-dimensional. The floor under it is food and clothing and shelter…. Yet no men live by comforts and conveniences alone…. Beauty alone redeems duty from the tight-lipped desperation of fanaticism. Ideals are many in form, even if unitary in direction. None are more precious than the trinity of ideals which is associated with our democratic way of life. Covering all ideals with one, we speak of Justice. But delineating Justice, there are Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, and most critical of these is Equality.”

 

“Democracy is a state of mind. It is a state of mind, first, of and toward the majority. It is a state of mind, second, toward and of the minority. It is a state of mind, finally and fundamentally, by and for the individual.

 

“Majority will is a democratic Way. The easiest conception of democracy is political; that of a government in which the majority has its way. This is not only easy, but sound, because no society is possible without government and since a government cannot be of all, it is better for it to be of as many as possible. …The democratic way implies the conviction on the part of both the majority and minority that the majority has the right to rule, but also the acceptance by the majority of the duty to exercise this right circumspectly.”

 

“The Minority Right is a democratic Way. A state of mind toward the minority on the part of the majority is indispensable. Democratic minorities see themselves as useful as well as rightful. They have a duty—to clarify alternative courses of public policy so that people will not become narrow-minded and so shut themselves off from their own good. …The discovery that men do not have to agree on fundamental beliefs in order to cooperate in necessary measures is the final state of mind which ties together the seamless whole known as the democratic way of life.

 

“Fraternity is the great spiritual objective of the democratic way of life; liberty is the indispensable means to a meaningful brotherhood; and equality is but a reminder that if liberty is good for the few, it is also good for all. Thus is fraternity ennobled through liberty, and liberty generalized through equality. Democracy is a state of mind concerning every individual—a state of mind, therefore about Equality.”

 

 

 

Sermon

 

 

Good Morning

 

Well, I am happy to see a nice turnout on a Superbowl Sunday; I guess this means that it is possible to be both UU and a Patriots fan. It was suggested that I speak on separation of church & football. I intend to.

 

In 1956, I was in my junior year at Abington Senior High School in suburban Philadelphia, and John Gibbons has given a nice summary of what I did. I did take a copy of the Qu’ran to school, borrowed from the library of my friend, George Tappert. George later regretted this. I read this one morning in November during the normal Bible-reading devotions—as John said—but nervously, I might add—and I was quickly sent to the principal. He lectured me that this was a matter of respect for school rules. He sent me to the Guidance Counselor, who inquired about my family health. I came home and wrote to the ACLU, two fingers on my Dad’s typewriter. Word processors were not in those days. Do you remember typewriters?

 

I long forgot, but just last year, this was found in the National Archives. The letter I wrote to the ACLU said:

 

“Gentlemen:

As a student in my junior year at Abington Senior High School, I would very greatly appreciate any information that you might send regarding possible Union action and/or aid in testing the constitutionality of Pennsylvania law which arbitrarily (and seemingly unrighteously and unconstitutionally) compels the Bible to be read in our public school system. I thank you for any help you might offer in freeing American youth in Pennsylvania from this gross violation of their religious rights as guaranteed in the first and foremost Amendment in our United States’ Constitution.

Sincerely yours,

Ellory F. Schempp”

 

Well, I am a bit embarrassed that it is rather pretentious—speaking for American youth, indeed! In my defense, I was 16 years old then.

 

There are some interesting details—the ACLU were not enthusiastic about taking the case, because they were very limited in resources and felt the main threat to civil liberties was McCarthyism. But I had enclosed a check for $10. This got their attention…. The ACLU looked for ways to avoid the issue, and twice sent representatives to interview our family. Bernard Wolfman remembers that my parents said, talk to the kids and then they left the room! This was truly extraordinary, as Bernie Wolfman, now a professor at Harvard recalls. Well, after challenging us – “nearly adversarial” as he recalls, and warning about possible hostile reaction from the community/nation, he asked my father when he returned, who said, “If the children agree, we will support them.”

 

I did not know this at the time, but I count it as part of the love I had from my Dad and Mom.

 

This was important for two reasons—one was that it was vital that I had a younger brother Roger and sister Donna, because in another year I would graduate, and then the Bible-reading law would not apply to me…the case would be moot in legal language.

 

The other reason was that this made a deep impression on Bernie in his report to the Board.

 

When he asked about who we pray to, he particularly remembers Donna saying, “You are Jewish, aren’t you? Well, Unitarians are like Jews and they are individualistic.” Bernie said that he decided then and there to recommend that the ACLU take our case, “how could I not after this?”

 

Still the Board was evenly divided; the vote by the Board was 50-50. The Chairman of the Board, Clark Byse (who incidentally is Catholic and believes in Bible-reading as a source of morality) then said, “The members of the Board are not opposed on the merits, but the differences are over resources. If we are agreed on the merits, then I vote in favor.” He then cast the deciding vote to take on the Schempp case.

 

The ACLU then considered different strategies. If they could get 5 families from different religious backgrounds to participate, the case might be stronger. Jewish groups said, we agree but we are afraid of an anti-Semitism backlash; the Catholic hierarchy said, Catholic children belong in parochial school—so what happens to them in public schools is on their own look-out! Unitarians were a little bit Protestant in those days, but the ACLU hoped for a real Christian family. None was found, so just Schempps were left.

 

The Catholic position is quite interesting. In 1844 there were riots in Philadelphia over Bible-reading in the schools. Men were killed and churches were burned. The Protestant idea of Bible-reading conflicted totally with Catholic notions about priests interpreting the Bible for the masses. Many do not know even today that the Catholic Bible—the Douay version—is different from the King James Version, and the Catholic version of the Lord’s Prayer differs.

 

There were consequences also in 1958. My high school principal wrote a letter of disrecommendation to every college I applied to. The admissions director at Tufts told me that after Tufts accepted me, the principal called to demand they rescind the decision! And they would surely regret it! Dean Stearns at Tufts was kind enough to say that Tufts never did.

 

But my brother was roughed up; kids on the school bus would shout as they passed our home “Here is the Commie camp”. Donna, who was 11-12, was mortified, and some of her girlfriends were told not to talk to her. Dad wrote out a note explaining the family’s position for Donna to give to her friends—we were not anti-god, we just wanted to respect the Constitution. As Donna remembers—passing out this note was just as awful—or probably twice as awful.

 

There were thus some emotional discussions around the family dinner table. I think she has forgiven me in the years since. But just barely.

 

But the larger family. My father had failed to tell his mother, my Grandmother, all this. She was a devout Methodist. My Aunt recalls when they turned on the TV one morning and found “Bible-reading Thrown Out—Schempp case Decided.” The poor woman had apoplexy on the spot. I have a lot of cousins named Schempp. Every one had a sudden personal crisis. “There are lots of Schempps—never heard of this one.” “Oh, that’s my crazy uncle.” One went so far as to ask her mother if she could change her name. So the SC decision caused a lot of family stress, as well as national stress.

 

And UU stress. Unitarians-Universalists were not united then, but a great number of Unitarians were embarrassed. And quite a number distinctly opposed. In all, we got about 5000 letters; about 2/3 against us. Our family replied to every one with a return address. I always liked the one that said, “In the name of Christianity, go to hell.” Last Sunday we were reminded about memory—replying to a thousand letters was before the days of Xerox machines. Do any remember carbon paper and when stamps cost 3½ cents?

 

I am glad to be forgiven by most UUs now.

 

The Abington vs. Schempp Supreme Court case—decided in 1963—did become a “landmark,” very much to my surprise. It is usually called a “First Amendment” case, because it is based, in part, on the phrases “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

 

But it is really a 14^th Amendment case.

 

In the original Constitution, the First Amendment provided a clear prohibition upon Congress, but state legislatures were free to do what they pleased according to State constitutions. Indeed, it seems surprising to us now that many states had established churches. Ten (10) of the thirteen (13) original colonies had at one time in their history some type of state-established church. Six (6) colonies had the Church of England as their established church. Three (3) colonies—Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire—had the Congregationalist Church. Massachusetts had this until 1833—and was the last to quit. I think this was when Unitarians took over—this was enough!

 

God forbid that UUs become established!

 

Interestingly, six of the ten colonies with established churches excluded clergy from political office. This is an interesting history—wherefrom did this distrust of clergy arise? This was an early instance of separation of church & state.

 

The 14^th Amendment says:

“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

 

This makes it clear that states cannot thwart the First Amendment. This is important. We are all citizens of the United States, after all, passports are issued for the United States, not from Virginia or California, and our rights do not depend on where we live, if we happen to live in Kentucky, Kansas, Massachusetts, or Oregon. The Everson case in 1947 first fully applied the religion clause of the First Amendment to the states. The Schempp case made it clear that separation of church and state applies in Texas, Pennsylvania, and Idaho. This has upset conservatives, and they call it “judicial activism.” This is nonsense—not many of us live in the state or town where we were born. And there are many impediments to picking up and moving to another state. The principle that the First Amendment applies to the all States an no matter where we live is important.

 

I wanted to share some thoughts this morning from the book by Eduard Lindemann and CS Smith, the Democratic Way of Life. I read this when I was in high school, and it made some of the ideas I formed at the Unitarian Church in Germantown part of my motivation when I was a teenager.

 

Democracy is about liberty, equality, and fraternity. These are really religious ideas. Liberty is about freedom, and freedom of conscience. Personal beliefs are free. Gedanken sind frei. But what is it to be free?... How is freedom reconciled with the rights of others? If freedom is good for some, it is good for all. Thus we have equality. And fraternity reminds us that we have a duty to respect others.

 

A core concept is how the rights of the majority are to be exercised with respect to the minority. We are urged to be part of the majority when we recite the Pledge. But we UUs are a minority. In fact we are all minorities—we are in the minority who like classical music; a smaller minority who like baroque; a minority who care about social justice. Sadly a minority who vote; a minority who live in New England or Texas, a minority who have red cars and sleep on the left side of the bed. A very, very small minority have teens that drive properly! We are all minorities. Public opinion polls show that 78% of Americans favor prayer in the public schools, a clear majority.

 

I have often debated those who favor prayers in public. The Schempp case was actually about Bible-reading as a devotional exercise in the public schools. We were one minority. I objected to this as favoring one sacred scripture over others. I think sacred scriptures are interesting, and they have certainly influenced the cultures of many people on our planet.

 

However, I do not take any of them seriously. I think fairness. Americans always believe in fairness. Sometimes even to minorities. OK, so fairness has Christians who believe in public recognition; Muslims who desire prayer rugs; Hindus who desire shrines. Wicca’s, Shintos, Mandaeans, Coptics, Native Americans, let every prayer tradition flourish. Maybe there will be some time left over for history and math.

 

When I get up in the morning and turn on my computer, I pray earnestly to Microsoft. And to the god of coffee.

 

It is rarely asked what we might pray FOR. Usually the directors of prayer tell us—god’s blessing, whatever that means. When I was 17 I used to pray that the cute girl in the 2^nd row would go out with me. Well, maybe not exactly…. One of the kids I tutor told me that she prayed that her algebra teacher would drop dead before the exam!

 

What do we want to pray FOR? That America is ALWAYS right? This is the problem with public prayer—it presupposes a notion that a god exists, that he/she is willing to intercede if we are fervent or repetitious enough, and that he gets jollies by having people pray to him. And that a god or allah is willing to separate out nefarious prayers from “politically/socially-approved” prayers.

 

The prayer of the 9-11 hijackers is a chilling reminder that prayer does not insure goodness.

 

We remember also that in WWII, Germans and Japanese prayed for victory, fervently and frequently; British, Russians, and Americans prayed equally for victory. It is doubtful that prayer determined the outcome. I favor the U-U perspective—let us pray to whom it may concern. And prayer is much more important in touching our inner selves than in advising god.

 

In this debate, there is a fear. Evangelicals are feeling oppressed. Even so far as to have defined “neutral” out of existence. Their view is that secular humanism is a religion, and therefore in opposition. The idea that there is personal religious faith and that government or schools can be neutral is thus rejected. This is a dangerous view. It reinforces their desire to capture the power of government to support faith-based goals. In fact, there is a neutral, secular position, and we must demand that this is respected.

 

But there is yearning for a sense of shared values. One of the limitations in American culture is community. The idea of fraternity. Public religiosity seems to satisfy some of this yearning.

 

We have many displays of religiosity in public life. Every politician feels it necessary nowadays. For example, the oath of office for presidents in the Constitution does not contain the phrase “so help me god.” This has been added by recent presidents.

 

There are many of our fellow countrymen who believe that public acknowledgement of God is important in their faith. Many Americans believe that invoking God, having prayers at football games, in school establishes a moral underpinning. Many Americans believe that posting the Ten Commandments establishes a moral basis.

 

I do not believe this. But why do so many believe in prayer in public places ? For them public acknowledgment is important. Here is a divergence—are religious views to be a private matter or how do we express our religious convictions? I think believing Christians who want public observance of their convictions are sincere. There are some who hope that mouthing usual stuff will somehow make the world different. I think it’s supremely arrogant for certain Christian leaders, particularly in the US, to daily proclaim they’ve somehow cornered the market on values, ethics and morality. It is curious why the schools are targeted. Bible-reading is not suggested at McDonalds, nor in our workplaces.

 

Separation of church and state cannot be separated from views about morality. Those who favor prayer in schools, posting the Ten Commandments, public “witness” for their religion have concerns. There is a view that values, morality, even our rights as humans derive from a God—usually the God most favored in politics at the time.

 

It is curious why traditional religions spend so much time on sex. A ranking order of “morality concerns” from an evangelical website lists: homosexuality; teenage sex; abortion; pornography; premarital sex; adultery; violence; drugs. And more prayer in school is said to be the answer!

 

This view of morality is based on a notion of sin. An offense to a god. It is not true that ethical values have diminished since Bible-reading as a devotional exercise in the public schools was abolished. Ethical understanding continues to evolve. After all, many Unitarians also supported slavery and segregation 150 years ago; and UUs were not always accepting of Jews.

 

The right of privacy is also related to separation of church & state. In Griswold, the SC said that Boston, Bedford, Billiings “protectors of morality” were not allowed to invade what we do in bed. This is an important separation of sin from public scrutiny.

 

I think we have made quite a number of ethical, liberty, fraternity, equality advances over the last 100 years. Women can now vote; we do not have Ku Klux Klan lynchings; Jews are accepted on equal terms; gays are no longer hiding in terror; clergy sex-abuses are finally revealed; men and women are free to use birth control. These were all church-state issues, because church and government collaboration opposed birth-control; opposed women’s rights; opposed equality for Afro-Americans; and oppose today gay rights. And are sleepless about marriage rights for gay couples.

 

I think there are better commandments: I am less godly, and started off with only 5: but being in a pulpit gives to expand!

 

1. You are a human, and neither Jesus, nor Mohammed, nor Buddha speaks for you. Take courage—you can live without a god.

 

2. Do not injure human beings or any animal; make reasonable exceptions.

 

3. When you see evil, make sure it is not in a mirror. Sometimes the enemy is us. Emotions are part of life. Feelings are good. Angry and fearful feelings are valid, but be circumspect.

 

4. Morality is about how you treat the life that has been given you—before you got asked. Once here, try to do some good and leave us a little better than when you arrived. There is no second chance.

 

5. Ideas are good. Some ideas are better than others. The best way to winnow is to seek evidence that supports an idea in a way that can be tested and evaluated. Covet not ancient ideas that contradict new evidence.

 

6. Love one another. Love is good, but trying. There is no god nor parent nor partner that loves you all the time, unconditionally. Keep not fantasies in your minds. Accept reality. Even when things look dark, there is lots of love around. Tap into it.

 

7. Sex is good. Have fun. Do not hurt another out of selfishness. Do not worry what sex others might have.

 

8. Honor thy parents, but remember they put their pants on one leg at a time.

 

9. There is great beauty in the world—on this Earth, in music, in the life around us. Take note for it and you shall be richly rewarded.

 

My version of commandments seems just as moral; and I yield not to the traditional view. Reconciling different views of morality is not so simple, of course, because in a democracy government is US.

 

Our challenge as UUs is not to be in favor of the SC in 1963, but to understand why so many oppose. Democracy is a frame of mind. A Weltanschauung. This is fundamentally religious—although I pause at the word fundamentally.

 

Separation of church & state, then is really about sorting out separation of religious thoughts from public policy. About where personal religious views motivate us, and how we think of morality. It is about minorities with respect to majorities; it is about liberty, fraternity, and equality.

 

Well, long-winded speakers are not prohibited by the 1^st or 14^th Amendments. This was an oversight by the Founding Fathers. I respect this oversight, and so stop.

 

Thank you.

 

 

Biographical Sketch

Ellery Schempp

 

 

Ellery Schempp was born in Philadelphia and grew up in Roslyn, Pennsylvania, where he attended Roslyn Elementary School, Abington Junior High School, and Abington Senior High School in Abington Township, Montgomery County in suburban Philadelphia. He graduated in 1958 and went on to Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts.

 

At Tufts, he studied physics and geology, as well as Russian and German. As an Honor Roll student, Ellery took advantage that Tufts permitted taking seven courses each semester instead of the usual five, and thus graduated cum laude with 173 credits. In his junior year, he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa and in his senior year to Sigma Xi.

 

In 1956, as a sophomore in high school, Ellery initiated a protest to the practices in Pennsylvania schools called “Morning Devotions”, which included readings from the Bible and recitation of the “Lord’s Prayer”. In subsequent legal action, with the support of his parents and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), this case eventually reached the Supreme Court.

 

After graduating from Tufts, Ellery went to Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, where he pursued doctoral studies in Physics. He received his Ph.D. in 1967 under the direction of Dr. Phillip J. Bray for a thesis entitled “Nuclear Quadrupole Resonance in Nitrogen Heterocycles”. This work was focused on the electron distributions in nitrogen-containing molecules related to those found in DNA and was supported by the National Science Foundation and the National Cancer Institute. Nuclear Quadruple Resonance (NQR) is related to Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR), which has become familiar in medical diagnoses as MRI (magnetic resonance imaging). This work afforded Ellery his first opportunity to visit Europe when he was invited to join a NATO-sponsored conference on NQR and Advanced Methods held in Frascatti, Italy. Following the conference, Ellery did his first mountain climbing in the Alps in Austria.

 

In a 1999 interview, Ellery said: “I have had the good fortune to have worked 400 miles from the North Pole and then 800 miles from the South Pole; I enjoyed these unique places immensely and they were transforming in my life; I later hiked and skied in many beautiful places, with many thanks to my friends and professors at Tufts. I had the good fortune to have the Supreme Court agree with my understanding of the First Amendment, with oodles of help from the ACLU and my parents. I had the good fortune to do a PhD in physics at Brown University, with support from many professors. I am happy to be acknowledged, and I guess I made some contributions, but I think many others are to be recognized.”

 

[In these years, Ellery spelt his name as given him by his parents as “Ellory”. Owing to constant transmutations to “Elroy”, in 1980 he changed the spelling to “Ellery”, which conforms to the historic spelling of such as William Ellery Channing, a famous Unitarian minister in Boston (1780-1842) and Ellery Queen, the mystery writer. William Ellery, a signer of the Declaration of Independence from Rhode Island, died at age 92; I aspire to this.]

 

After another year at Brown as a Post-Doctoral Fellow, Ellery took a position at the Bell Telephone Laboratories, in Murray Hill, New Jersey, as a Member of the Technical Staff. Here he pursued research interests related to fiber optics.

 

In 1970, Ellery moved to the University of Pittsburgh where he was appointed Assistant Professor of Crystallography and Research Assistant Professor in Physics. He pursued research in NQR and NMR and taught graduate and undergraduate courses in physics, as well as directing the research of graduate students who received their PhDs under his direction.

 

In 1977, Ellery accepted a position as Professor Inviteé at the Université de Genève (Invited Professor, University of Geneva) in Switzerland. In the transition, Dr. Schempp joined the Pittsburgh Explorer’s Group Nanga Parbat Expedition (1977), organized to be the first American team to reach the summit of Nanga Parbat, a Himalayan peak in northern Pakistan at 8125 m (26,658 ft), the ninth highest mountain. Unfortunately two of the team were killed in a rockslide, and Ellery broke his ankle in the subsequent search and rescue efforts. He was brought to base camp by Bas Kahn, who traces his lineage to Alexander the Great. Schempp thus arrived in Geneva on crutches.

 

Dr. Schempp also taught courses at the American College of Switzerland in Leysin and at Padworth College, in Reading, England.

 

Returning to the U.S.A. in 1980, Dr. Schempp joined the staff at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, a Department of Energy (DOE) Lab administered by the University of California. Here he carried out research studies related to nuclear waste disposal and energy utilization and efficiency.

 

In 1984, Dr. Schempp accepted a position with GE Medical Systems to work on development of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) systems. In this MRI center, advanced MRIs for bio-medical research were developed and brought to market. Schempp participated in both engineering and marketing activities.

 

Ellery Schempp came to Boston in 1990, where he now resides, near Tufts University, to do consulting and to enjoy climbing in the White Mountains of New Hampshire. He worked as Manager, Business Development, for American Superconductor Corp. until 1996. American Superconductor is involved in developing advanced “high-temperature superconducting (HTS)” materials for practical applications in MRI and energy.

 

Dr. Schempp became a consultant to the Industrial Research Laboratory (IRL) of New Zealand, a government-supported national laboratory facility. With IRL, Dr. Schempp worked to define new applications of HTS and other advanced technologies, including analyses of wind power energy, development of cryogenic power electronics systems, and novel energy storage technologies.

 

Today, Dr. Schempp is a Senior Partner in the Harvard Consulting Group, a firm that specializes in energy storage and cryogenic power electronic systems for commercial and military applications.

 

He is a member of the American Physical Society, Sigma Xi, Phi Beta Kappa, the Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, the Instrument Society of America, the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United, the National Center for Science Education, and the American Humanists Association.

 

Dr. Schempp is the author or co-author of 33 publications in professional refereed journals, including the Journal of Chemical Physics, Physical Review, Acta Crystallographica, Chemical Physics Letters, Journal of Magnetic Resonance, and others. [Publication list available on request.] He is a frequent speaker on church-state issues and in 1996 received the Religious Liberty Award from Americans United for Separation of Church and State. In 2002, he was elected to the Abington High School Hall of Fame for his contributions to science (and, indirectly, his role in Abington vs. Schempp).

 

Ellery Schempp is active in science and social studies education; as a VP of the Middlesex Canal Commission he is working to preserve this historical site. He also tutors middle-school and high-school students.