Tags: print
Nov. 22, 2002
School's position on standing for pledge clarified
Principal Phillip Gainous will clarify the school's policy concerning the requirement of students to stand during the Pledge of Allegiance at a teacher meeting December 2.
This announcement follows the protestation of Junior Elliot Wolf, whose meeting with Gainous on November 21 influenced Wolf to decide not to lodge an official complaint against the school's position.
The school's position according to Gainous is and always has been:
Gainous says he now knows officially that persuading students is "crossing the line" and he will refrain from attemption to do so even if the situation presents itself. Several years ago, Gainous admits, he used to coerce students into agreeing to stand for the pledge by threatening to call their parents. He says, however, that he has not done this in the past two years.
Most students who Gainous has talked to in the past, he says, misunderstood the school's policy. The school does not require students to say or believe the pledge; simply to stand in respect for those who wish to participate and to teach students new to the United States the general customs of our country. "Take kindergarten, when students are going to do whatever the teachers tell them to do. We teach that the custom is to stand. Many of the students in our school are like that: they don't know the customs. Is that coercion or is that teaching folk what the custom is in our country? If you go to another country, then you might not know how to operate. This is teaching them how to be polite; we're not trying to convert," said Gainous. "That's what this county is all about: you can do your own thing."
Gainous asks that all students stand in order to not draw unwarranted attention to themselves. If students have a problem standing for the pledge, for religious or other reasons, they should talk to him rather than to their teachers or other administrators. Gainous talks to students himself because he feels that the more decision makers that are involved, the more the treatment is likely to be uneven or unfair. He knows that many students simply forget to stand for the pledge because they are distracted when the announcements in the morning begin. Since Gainous only meets, he says, with six students at the most each year about this issue, he is glad to deal with all of the complaints personally in a "low-key, not threatening way."
Gainous's two concerns about announcing the school's position in the teacher's meeting are that, first, the issue will appear to be a big deal and people will believe that "droves" of students are coming down to talk with him. Gainous is also concerned that students will now use the school's more lenient position as an excuse not to participate. He admits standing for the pledge is the students' choice, but he wants to protect both those standing and not standing from abuse.
Wolf says he plans to begin standing in both his 3rd and 4th period classes after Gainous annouces the pledge policy. "I do believe that it is good to show that sign of respect towards those who are engaging in the ceremony. I will stand out of respect, but not out of a requirement," said Wolf.
Wolf feels that Gainous was very open to his ideas during his numerous meetings and that Gainous gave him an "extraordinary" amount of time to discuss the issue with him. Wolf says he appreciates that Gainous was willing to listen to him and "not summarily dismiss me as so many other people had."
As of now, the formal complaint and the petition that Wolf was planning to circulate are being dropped. Wolf will meet with Gainous again on Monday to discuss whether simply talking to the principal constitutes punishment.
This announcement follows the protestation of Junior Elliot Wolf, whose meeting with Gainous on November 21 influenced Wolf to decide not to lodge an official complaint against the school's position.
The school's position according to Gainous is and always has been:
- It is not legal to punish students for refusing to stand during the Pledge of Allegiance.
- Gainous still requests that students stand during the pledge as a sign of respect for those participating, and so as not to draw unwarranted attention to themselves.
- Gainous requests that students who do not stand be sent to him rather than be reprimanded by the teacher or fellow students.
- The school does not want students to think of the meeting with Gainous as a punishment.
- Students who continue to refuse to stand will not be referred to the office again.
- Individual teachers are not allowed to single-out, harass, embarrass, or otherwise punish students who do not stand. They should simply be sent to Gainous.
Gainous says he now knows officially that persuading students is "crossing the line" and he will refrain from attemption to do so even if the situation presents itself. Several years ago, Gainous admits, he used to coerce students into agreeing to stand for the pledge by threatening to call their parents. He says, however, that he has not done this in the past two years.
Most students who Gainous has talked to in the past, he says, misunderstood the school's policy. The school does not require students to say or believe the pledge; simply to stand in respect for those who wish to participate and to teach students new to the United States the general customs of our country. "Take kindergarten, when students are going to do whatever the teachers tell them to do. We teach that the custom is to stand. Many of the students in our school are like that: they don't know the customs. Is that coercion or is that teaching folk what the custom is in our country? If you go to another country, then you might not know how to operate. This is teaching them how to be polite; we're not trying to convert," said Gainous. "That's what this county is all about: you can do your own thing."
Gainous asks that all students stand in order to not draw unwarranted attention to themselves. If students have a problem standing for the pledge, for religious or other reasons, they should talk to him rather than to their teachers or other administrators. Gainous talks to students himself because he feels that the more decision makers that are involved, the more the treatment is likely to be uneven or unfair. He knows that many students simply forget to stand for the pledge because they are distracted when the announcements in the morning begin. Since Gainous only meets, he says, with six students at the most each year about this issue, he is glad to deal with all of the complaints personally in a "low-key, not threatening way."
Gainous's two concerns about announcing the school's position in the teacher's meeting are that, first, the issue will appear to be a big deal and people will believe that "droves" of students are coming down to talk with him. Gainous is also concerned that students will now use the school's more lenient position as an excuse not to participate. He admits standing for the pledge is the students' choice, but he wants to protect both those standing and not standing from abuse.
Wolf says he plans to begin standing in both his 3rd and 4th period classes after Gainous annouces the pledge policy. "I do believe that it is good to show that sign of respect towards those who are engaging in the ceremony. I will stand out of respect, but not out of a requirement," said Wolf.
Wolf feels that Gainous was very open to his ideas during his numerous meetings and that Gainous gave him an "extraordinary" amount of time to discuss the issue with him. Wolf says he appreciates that Gainous was willing to listen to him and "not summarily dismiss me as so many other people had."
As of now, the formal complaint and the petition that Wolf was planning to circulate are being dropped. Wolf will meet with Gainous again on Monday to discuss whether simply talking to the principal constitutes punishment.
Tweet
Share on Tumblr
Discuss this Article
I don't understand the big deal. If you have strong political or religious beliefs, then more power to you, but arguing something like this for the sake of argument is a waste of time.
-end previous comment-
We've been hearing people say this for months (and years) now. Elliot Wolf isn't doing this to be a pain in the administration's neck. He's doing this because he believes very strongly in the fundamental right of freedom of speech.
I comment Elliot for his professional approach (using legal arguments to show precendent for his complaint), and I commend Mr. Gainous for listening to Elliot and making a decision that I think satisfies everyone. I don't envy the Principal; he has to balance MCPS policy, the desires of teachers and parents, the threats of lawyers, the public reaction to any decision he makes, his own personal beliefs, and the beliefs of others.
Accepted protocol during Pledges and Anthems:
for your own country: stand, salute (for civillians, hand over heart), and recite pledge or sing anthem
for a "friendly" country: stand at attention
for an "unfriendly" country: stand "at ease" with your hands behind your back
Sitting during a pledge is not only refusing to pledge allegience to the country, but refusing to acknowledge the country's sovereignty. It is an unquestionably disrepectful statement, though one that students should be, and are, allowed to make.
While this is a improvement, it is not good enough. The actions of MBHS still are in conflict with the Constitution as interpreted by the federal courts, which have ruled that forcing students to leave the room can be considered punishment, and therefore is prohibited.
These meetings are also troublesome. They have no legiminate purpose. The meeting itself is punishment, even if the purpose of it is not to discuss punishment. Can anyone give another example of a case were a student must have a meeting with the principle in order to be allowed to exercise his or her First Amendment rights?
Orion Peter, the 9th circuit decision was not overruled by Congress for the simple reason that Congress does not have this authority. This decision can only be overruled by the Supreme Court.
John, where are you getting your "accepted protocol" from? I could possibly see sitting be construed as a sign of disrespect for the pledge itself. You are making an completely unsupported logical leap to claiming that someone who sits is refusing to acknowledge the sovereignty of the United States.
It is disrespectiful to not stand for the flag, and while I can understand religion as reason for someone not to stand, the student who gives the fairly lazy excuse of "I don't feel like it" or even better "Its against my rights" should be sent out of the classroom and talked to. There is no punishment in going down to the office and talking to Gainous about this, but if a student is so intent on not standing and respecting the land of the free, then going down to the office *once* to go talk to the man in charge should be no sweat off of anyone's back.
Yes, you have your court cases, and in most instances I do agree, however, in this case, there really isn't a lot of excuse for complaint. If you don't want to stand, don't, but don't complain when everyone else in the room looks at you funny. Now, if you are religious, we understand, but if you are not, then suck it up.
As for the "county" excuse, so gracefully placed in by the author, I believe that to be, well, funny. In Montgomery County we seem to have let our liberalism run away with us. And it is *not* coercion to ask someone to stand and pledge the flag unless we are doing the Japanese method of asking a child to stand in the hallway holding buckets full of water as punishment, or (as they did when we were in Kindergarten) asking a student to recite the pledge in front of everyone alone. Go take the meeting and be proud of this "exercise of rights", but as you do that, remember that this "exercise" is part of the "Privilage" of being an "American" citizen (or resident, depending on how you live), and so with this "privilage" that is so "American", we simply ask that for 30 seconds of your precious "American" time, that you stand, simply *stand* not *pledge* just *stand* for the flag. If you don't want to do that, then stop whining, go to the office, have your meeting and be done. No reason to complain.
How interesting in such a world, we can find reasons *legally* to disrespect a flag that we waved so proudly a year ago.
For the part about another case where a student must meet with an adiminstrator to exercise their fist amendment rights, I would assume that if a student wants to hold any political rally or hand out any "controversal" flyers on school grounds they need to meet with someone about it first.
Sheryl, I bet I'm a lot more patriotic than you are. My dad and my grandfather were both in the army and I hear a lot of war stories. Some of their friends died for the United States. And I know that if I am needed to defend my country, they can count on me. But worshipping some stupid piece of cloth like it's God just seems ridiculous to me.
And you're right, there's always someone who wants to "rock the boat" and "challenge the system". Some notable people who did this were Martin Luther King, Martin Luther, Einstein, Newton, and Harriet Tubman. Would you rather these people didn't stand up against the system? Then there'd still be inequality in America, and we would believe that the other planets orbit about the Earth!!
Change can be good, and to get change, you need someone to rebel against the system. I do believe that in one hundred years we'll look back at these days and say, "How stupid it was that we made these people say a silly phrase every morning, every day."
And quite frankly, I'm lazy. I don't want to have to stand up for the pledge. And I certainly don't want to say it, what with the blatant belief in God it implies. So let me be, you can stand up and say your pledge if you want to, but you have no right to force me to do the same.
Back to things in the pledge that are politically objectionable to many; "I pledge Allegiance" Why? What reason is there to proclaim one's allegiance to a country that may not even be their own. I personally object to pledging what amounts to an unconditional promise of suppport to a government that undertakes many actions that I do not believe in. "...with liberty and justice for all" Sure, in an ideal world, we would have liberty and justice for all - but the harsh reality is that we don't. Look at the figures for poverty and you see mostly minorities living in poverty. Justice? I'm pretty sure that most any young black or hispanic male can give you an earful about what 'justice' they've encountered from our lovely, unbiased, police force.
Rote repitition of these 23 words every day, (over 2300 times throughout your school career) subtly indoctrinates many people. The pledge is a nice ideal in some respects, but in most it is a simple government propaganda tool.
Tim Dooley '01
His crusade has been not specifically aimed at his own desire not to stand, but rather at advancing our rights to dissent and free expression on a larger scale.
may I ask what you meant by that, Orion Peter?
Nick Tucker, we have a right not to stand for the pledge. If we didn't have that right, America would be more like a faschist government: "Do this .... or ELSE."
So then, if you refuse to stand for the pledge, do you not stand for the national anthem either?
No one is forced to say the pledge, but standing is just showing respect, if not for the country, for the other people standing in your classroom. They stand because they are proud to live in this country. No matter how much you may disagree with what our government is or is not doing, that isn't what the pledge is about. Personally, it's about appreciating the life you have here in the United States. Plus, is it that difficult for you to stand facing a piece of cloth for about 30 seconds?
Just as a final thought, the last words of the pledge are "with liberty and justice for all"...so you are expressing your freedoms by not standing and saying a pledge, which says that you have the freedom to do so....an interesting paradox...
The whole reason that we have certain freedoms in this country is that we are able to exercise them. What good would freedoms be if we couldn't actually use them? The entire point of having the freedom to express yourself is so that you *can* express yourself.
Many people have implied that it is hypocritical to not stand for the pledge because you are "abusing" your rights. In reality, it is more hypocritical to say, "You have to stand, because our country is so great and free!" Forcing people to participate in political activities sure doesn't sound like 'freedom' to me...
Kevin: You're right, standing is a sign of respect. That is the exact reason that forcing students to stand is ludicrous, to use Nick's term. You cannot force anyone to respect anything. In fact, forcing someone to stand is even worse, because you are forcing them to be deceitful, by appearing to show respect when they actually do not feel any respect.
I am getting incredibly sick of everyone who uses the argument "...is it that difficult for you to stand facing a piece of cloth for about 30 seconds?"
Yes. It is incredibly difficult for a moral person to force themselves to pretend to agree with something that they don't. The argument that it's not that big of a deal is the most ridiculous point ever. I have seen so many people use it, and so far I have seen no one who has provided any solid logic to back it up. Just because it's a relatively small injustice does not mean that it is not an injustice. What if we instead forced you to sing songs of praise for Saddam Hussein for 20 seconds every morning? That's an even shorter amount of time, so it must be even less of a deal, right?
First, this country was based on freedom, as many people have already stated. However, that freedom CAN be restricted. For example, you can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater just for the heck of it. That's freedom of speech. However, freedom of expression is also just as limited. Again, just because you don't like war with Iraq doesn't mean you can go and shoot Americans who support war. But in the case of standing up [or not] for the Pledge of Allegiance is a different case. The Pledge was in fact created to reaffirm your allegiance to the United States. Of course, if you aren't a US citizen, you aren't required to say the Pledge, but if you are, then you should.
If you are a citizen, then there are two possibilities: 1) you are a naturalized citizen or 2) you are a natural-born citizen.
In the first case, you took an oath that says that you will support the US, take arms for it if required, etc. So, you should say the pledge. In the second case, you can always claim that you never wanted to become a US citizen. If so, you are free to give up your rights and certain responsibilities as a US citizen, such as having to say the Pledge and vote but not (now, this is funny) the responsibility to pay taxes.
Now, this Pledge pledges your allegiance to the FLAG of the US. However, the Flag is a symbol of the US. Of course, we might as well pledge our allegiance to the bald eagle, but as a tradition throughout human history, an emblem of a sovereign state has usually been a flag. That's why we pledge our allegiance to it. It's not just a piece of cloth. It has meaning to it. You can just say, "Oh, the Bible's just a bunch of paper," and Christians will be after you. It's a symbol.
So, I would like to say that it is a sign of respect to the country, and although you don't have to say the pledge, that's just like saying, screw my allegiance to the US. And Americans won't be happy.
Of course, I commend Elliot for his defending his ideas, but I still think that the school ruling is correct.
PS - John, how do you define "friendly" and "unfriendly"???
i actually cannot beleive some of the opinions expressed on this page. probably you will grow up to be horrible people. you respect your country (which is doing terrible things every day) but dont respect your fellow man. thats totally weak.
And, as for those of you who call Elliot a hypocrite for staying in the US without saying the Pledge, I call you hypocrite in return. You live here, you pay mere lip service to the ideals of freedom of thought and speech and expression and then lash out to chastize him for the legitimate employment of his basic rights. Please think twice before speaking in the future.
Daniel Bates, MBHS '01
And not saying the "Pledge" does not mean that in any way, shape or form you are giving up your American rights and responsibilities! As was previously mentioned, the Pledge is little more than an advertising jingle gone crazy. And ever since the 1950's, when Congress added the phrase "under God", it's also been a religious statement. Being a citizen of the U.S. is easy ... if you're already one, that is. If not voting doesn't revoke your citizenship then why should not standing up for a pledge revoke it?!?! You're talking like Hitler. We're no better than the enemy if we force all of our citizens into shallow ceremonies. And you don't even have to pay taxes, as long as you are content to make less than $20K a year, or whatever the cut-off for the lowest tax bracket is. Above that, you have a slim chance of being auditted and jailed. But even though you're in jail, you're still a citizen of the U.S.!
The bottom line is that the pledge is a political statement, and nothing more. Students should have the choice to stand or not to stand. Forcing people to stand or say the pledge is a basic denial of American rights and freedoms.
One might say, "Why shouldn't everyone stand to show respect to those who choose to say it?"
Well, if the majority of the class decides not to stand (as is the case in some of classes, such as Peace Studies), then does the statement, "Why shouldn't everyone not stand to show respect to those who choose not to say it?" make any sense? Classrooms aren't uniform. There are always people of varying opinions and stances on the issues. Let people make their own choices; don't force a unanimous opinion upon them.
Thank you for reading,
G Jackson
So, is it then alright for students to carry on and talk loudly while others are saying the Pledge of Allegiance? Most would say that it's extremely disrespectful, not only to the flag, but to the other students. It appears to be within their rights according what I've read in the debate here, but would forcing students to be quiet during the pledge also be considered infringing upon their rights? I would wonder where the line should be drawn.