Tags: print
Oct. 26, 2002
Student against requiring standing for the pledge
A Blair student will officially complain to principal Phillip Gainous about the school’s policy within the next week about requiring students to stand during the Pledge of Allegiance. This complaint follows a October 24 meeting with Gainous, and an earlier letter written by the student expressing his objections to the school’s policy.
Junior Elliot Wolf will file a “Complaint From the Public" form if Gainous refuses to retract the school’s policy of requiring students to stand for the pledge. Wolf’s complaint states:
“Montgomery Blair High School is unlawfully (description given by numerous court cases and by the chief of legal advisor to the Montgomery County Board of Education, Judith Bresler) forcing students to stand during the pledge of allegiance. This action is in direct violation of Maryland legal precedent, federal legal precedent, precedent established in outside jurisdictions, Maryland state law, and MCPS policy. If students refuse to stand, they are to be sent down to the principal’s office or sometimes publicly chastised by teachers, an action explicitly forbidden by the Maryland Supreme Court. By instituting such a policy, Montgomery Blair High School is subject to possible litigation and is violating the fundamental constitutional rights of students."
The action requested from the principal states:
“I request that the school immediately inform staff and students that students are not required to stand for the pledge of allegiance, and immediately cease punishing students who do refuse. I also request that staff be informed that it is illegal and immoral to chastise or otherwise informally or unofficially punish students who refuse to stand. I also request that the words “please stand for the pledge" be removed from the morning announcements to ensure that students do not feel officially pressured in any way to stand during the pledge."
Wolf recently called all of the schools in Montgomery County to see how many schools concur with Blair’s policy of requiring students to stand for the pledge. The results showed that Blair and Einstein high schools are the only schools that enforce the policy. Seneca Valley and Wootton high schools have the policy, but do not enforce it.
In early November, Wolf talked with George LaRoche, a constitutional lawyer who works in Takoma Park, who said precedence supports Wolf’s position. “He could not remember any case in which MCPS or Blair were involved in which the right of the school to force students to stand was upheld," said Wolf.
LaRoche expressed surprise to Wolf that the “generally progressive" Blair administration was enforcing its pledge policy. “On this issue, they are obviously violating the fundamental rights of the students," said LaRoche, according to Wolf.
Although Wolf has “absolutely no intent of suing the school," Wolf said LaRoche has volunteered a list of at least 10 other constitutional lawyers whose testimony, La Roche said, would ensure that the school system would “most certainly lose." The lawyers, according to Wolf’s conversation with LaRoche, would be willing to write a letter to the MCPS Board of Education expressing the constitutional and legal violations that stem from the school's policy.
Wolf was inspired to begin his crusade, he says, after being "berated" by the teacher in front of the class for being unpatriotic when he refused to stand for the pledge. "I found the whole experience extremely embarrassing," said Wolf.
In response to the embarrassing lecture from his teacher, Wolf wrote a letter to principal Philip Gainous, reprinted below the article, that explains what he believes to be the unconstitutionality of forcing students to stand for the pledge. He expresses his opinions in the letter:
"Since any part of the pledge, including standing, is legally defined as a patriotic act, the school does not have the right to force students to participate. By forcing students to stand and punishing them if they refuse, Blair is contradicting MCPS policy, effectively breaking state & federal law, and violating the civil rights of any student who wishes to dissent."
Montgomery County Public Schools has an unwritten policy requiring students to stand for the pledge. According to Wolf, this policy goes against the Constitution and the historical decisions of the Supreme Court. He says that although the motives behind the schools’ policy might be based on respect for the "pledge ceremony," the perceived motivation for standing is patriotic, and therefore "cannot be forced."
Wolf’s objections to standing for the pledge are not derived from any particular phrase within the pledge, such as "under God." Rather, Wolf’s objections are from the principle that schools should not be allowed to force students to support the schools' political statements. "It is not any particular statement; it is the idea that students must stand up to acknowledge it," Wolf says.
During his meeting with Gainous, he had a "long discussion" with him the reasons and justification for the school’s insistence that students stand during the pledge. Wolf says that Gainous was "very open" to his ideas and the legal arguments, but said that MCPS lawyers see requiring students to stand for the pledge as legal. Wolf plans to contact the MCPS lawyers in the future to hear their opinions.
According to Wolf, the school's position is that standing for the pledge is an act of respect for classmates and teachers. To the school, standing for the pledge is a ceremony rather than a "patriotic exercise." Wolf says the main counter to that argument is the Banks v. Florida Board of Education case that establishes that standing is "no less a gesture of acceptance and respect than is the salute or the utterance of the words of allegiance."
Wolf hopes that, through his letter and meeting, he will be able to make a change in school policy. Although this change has been attempted several other times by students, Wolf feels that he will succeed because his letter does not "editorialize," but simply states what his research has proven is national law.
Wolf does not feel that refusing to stand for the pledge is unpatriotic. "If someone is willing to put up with scorn to protect their freedom then I’d say they’re even more patriotic than someone who silently conforms," he said.
Wolf’s letter to Gainous is reprinted below:
October 10, 2002
Dear Mr. Gainous:
I am writing to express concern over the school policy which provides that all students must stand in acknowledgement of the flag during the Pledge of Allegiance. Despite the fact that students are not required to recite the pledge, the requirement that students stand to acknowledge the flag during the pledge constitutes political censorship and lack of respect for any person who does not wish to participate in the daily recitation of the pledge.
The First Amendment protects the freedom of expression and the right to political dissent. Those who do not hold opinions that parallel those of the government or the average citizen cannot be persecuted or punished for their beliefs. The right of the minority, whether it is a minority of one or of 25 million, must be respected. If a person refuses to stand for the pledge on a basis of principle, they are making a political statement through their inaction, just as those who stand up and recite the pledge are making a political statement through their actions.
Political dissenters founded this country and allowing political dissent works to the benefit of every American. The government requires constant checking on the part of both itself and American citizens in order to ensure that it is not gaining too much power or working against the best interests of the American people. The idea that the people can “petition the government for a redress of grievances" is the mechanism by which the United States can adapt and grow without infringing on the fundamental rights of citizens. MCPS has a similar policy, and I therefore would like to ask you for a redress of grievances.
The issue as to the legality of forcing students to recite the pledge has been brought to court many times since the pledge first began to be widely used in schools. The issue of whether students are required to stand up and acknowledge the flag and their peers has also been debated by many courts across the country.
The main precedent by which students are not forced to recite the pledge is the 1943 Supreme Court ruling in the case of the West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. In the Court's opinion,
“We think the action of the local authorities in compelling the flag salute and pledge transcends constitutional limitations on their power and invades the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official control."
Although the court makes no specific mention of forcing students to stand up, it still limits a school's right to force patriotic acts or political doctrine on students.
From the Federal 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, the 1973 case of Goetz v. Ansell is specific on the issue of whether students are required to stand. It allows non-participating students who do not wish to engage in the flag salute to engage in "a silent, non-disruptive expression of belief by sitting down" and does not require them to leave the classroom.
The Maryland Supreme Court itself also decided that students objecting to the salute of the flag were not required to stand. The 1971 case of the State of Maryland v. Lundquist invalidated a state requirement that students who object to daily patriotic exercises stand while the rest of the class recites the pledge.
The 1970 Florida case of Banks v. Board of Public Instruction also establishes that standing is “no less a gesture of acceptance and respect than is the salute or the utterance of the words of allegiance."
The Goetz v. Ansell case and the Banks v. Board case explicitly establish that standing out of respect for the flag can be construed as a patriotic exercise, and that a student's right to non-participation must be respected as with the act of reciting the pledge itself.
The MCPS Rights and Responsibilities handbook clearly states that:
“[Students] will have the opportunity to participate in and/or watch patriotic exercises in school. [Students] cannot be required to say a pledge, sing an anthem, or take part in a patriotic exercise. No one will be permitted to intentionally embarrass [a student if they] choose not to participate."
Since any part of the pledge, including standing, is legally defined as a patriotic act, the school does not have the right to force students to participate. By forcing students to stand and punishing them if they refuse, Blair is contradicting MCPS policy, effectively breaking state & federal law, and violating the civil rights of any student who wishes to dissent.
Furthering the Goetz v. Ansell decision, the US Court of Appeals also ruled in the 1981 case of Lanner v. Wimmer that “while public schools may conduct patriotic ceremonies such as the pledge of allegiance, they may not compel participation by children who object on free exercise grounds."
Furthermore, the same clause of Maryland code that provides that schools shall hold patriotic exercises every day also provides that “any student or teacher who wishes to be excused from the requirements of [the classroom flag salute and pledge of allegiance] shall be excused." [Maryland code of education: title 7: subsection 1: article 7-105].
The court also added in the Goetz v. Ansell decision, a case that established that “standing is itself part of the pledge," that because a school "cannot compel participation in the pledge, it cannot punish non-participation." Students are regularly sent to the administration for refusal to stand or participate in the Pledge, and are sometimes further punished for continual refusal to stand.
Standing for the pledge of allegiance can also be interpreted as an act of symbolic speech. Symbolic speech, generally defined as an act which conveys a symbolic meaning, is, according to the Supreme Court, "akin to `pure speech,' which, [as has been] repeatedly held, is entitled to comprehensive protection under the First Amendment." The Supreme Court also ruled in the case of Tinker v. Des Moines that "public schools are an appropriate place to exercise symbolic speech as long as normal school functions are not unreasonably disrupted." Furthermore, the court stated that"
"In our system, state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students in school as well as out of school are "persons" under our Constitution. They are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State. In our system, students may not be regarded as closed-circuit recipients of only that which the State chooses to communicate. They may not be confined to the expression of those sentiments that are officially approved. In the absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate their speech, students are entitled to freedom of expression of their views."
It is clear that the requirement that students stand to salute the flag is contradicted by a great deal of legal precedent and constitutional interpretation. The presiding judge over the 1963 case of Pennsylvania v. Schwepp described forcing students to participate in the pledge of allegiance as a “flagrantly unconstitutional act." It is surprising that the school requires that students still stand up, despite the progressive nature of Montgomery County and of Blair in particular.
I therefore respectfully ask that you allow students who object to standing during the Pledge of Allegiance to instead remain seated in a quiet and non-disruptive manner and allow them to respectfully and responsibly express their political opinions. If there is truly to be “liberty and justice for all" in this country, then students must be at liberty to express their views freely without reprisal or guilt.
The opinions of Supreme Court Justices Black and Douglas expressed in the West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnett ruling eloquently express my ultimate view on forcing any part of the Pledge of Allegiance on students:
"Words uttered under coercion are proof of loyalty to nothing but self- interest. Love of country must spring from willing hearts and free minds, inspired by a fair administration of wise laws enacted by the people's elected representatives within the bounds of express constitutional prohibitions. These laws must, to be consistent with the First Amendment, permit the widest toleration of conflicting viewpoints consistent with a society of free men."
Sincerely and respectfully,
Elliott Wolf, Class of 2004
Junior Elliot Wolf will file a “Complaint From the Public" form if Gainous refuses to retract the school’s policy of requiring students to stand for the pledge. Wolf’s complaint states:
“Montgomery Blair High School is unlawfully (description given by numerous court cases and by the chief of legal advisor to the Montgomery County Board of Education, Judith Bresler) forcing students to stand during the pledge of allegiance. This action is in direct violation of Maryland legal precedent, federal legal precedent, precedent established in outside jurisdictions, Maryland state law, and MCPS policy. If students refuse to stand, they are to be sent down to the principal’s office or sometimes publicly chastised by teachers, an action explicitly forbidden by the Maryland Supreme Court. By instituting such a policy, Montgomery Blair High School is subject to possible litigation and is violating the fundamental constitutional rights of students."
The action requested from the principal states:
“I request that the school immediately inform staff and students that students are not required to stand for the pledge of allegiance, and immediately cease punishing students who do refuse. I also request that staff be informed that it is illegal and immoral to chastise or otherwise informally or unofficially punish students who refuse to stand. I also request that the words “please stand for the pledge" be removed from the morning announcements to ensure that students do not feel officially pressured in any way to stand during the pledge."
Wolf recently called all of the schools in Montgomery County to see how many schools concur with Blair’s policy of requiring students to stand for the pledge. The results showed that Blair and Einstein high schools are the only schools that enforce the policy. Seneca Valley and Wootton high schools have the policy, but do not enforce it.
In early November, Wolf talked with George LaRoche, a constitutional lawyer who works in Takoma Park, who said precedence supports Wolf’s position. “He could not remember any case in which MCPS or Blair were involved in which the right of the school to force students to stand was upheld," said Wolf.
LaRoche expressed surprise to Wolf that the “generally progressive" Blair administration was enforcing its pledge policy. “On this issue, they are obviously violating the fundamental rights of the students," said LaRoche, according to Wolf.
Although Wolf has “absolutely no intent of suing the school," Wolf said LaRoche has volunteered a list of at least 10 other constitutional lawyers whose testimony, La Roche said, would ensure that the school system would “most certainly lose." The lawyers, according to Wolf’s conversation with LaRoche, would be willing to write a letter to the MCPS Board of Education expressing the constitutional and legal violations that stem from the school's policy.
Wolf was inspired to begin his crusade, he says, after being "berated" by the teacher in front of the class for being unpatriotic when he refused to stand for the pledge. "I found the whole experience extremely embarrassing," said Wolf.
In response to the embarrassing lecture from his teacher, Wolf wrote a letter to principal Philip Gainous, reprinted below the article, that explains what he believes to be the unconstitutionality of forcing students to stand for the pledge. He expresses his opinions in the letter:
"Since any part of the pledge, including standing, is legally defined as a patriotic act, the school does not have the right to force students to participate. By forcing students to stand and punishing them if they refuse, Blair is contradicting MCPS policy, effectively breaking state & federal law, and violating the civil rights of any student who wishes to dissent."
Montgomery County Public Schools has an unwritten policy requiring students to stand for the pledge. According to Wolf, this policy goes against the Constitution and the historical decisions of the Supreme Court. He says that although the motives behind the schools’ policy might be based on respect for the "pledge ceremony," the perceived motivation for standing is patriotic, and therefore "cannot be forced."
Wolf’s objections to standing for the pledge are not derived from any particular phrase within the pledge, such as "under God." Rather, Wolf’s objections are from the principle that schools should not be allowed to force students to support the schools' political statements. "It is not any particular statement; it is the idea that students must stand up to acknowledge it," Wolf says.
During his meeting with Gainous, he had a "long discussion" with him the reasons and justification for the school’s insistence that students stand during the pledge. Wolf says that Gainous was "very open" to his ideas and the legal arguments, but said that MCPS lawyers see requiring students to stand for the pledge as legal. Wolf plans to contact the MCPS lawyers in the future to hear their opinions.
According to Wolf, the school's position is that standing for the pledge is an act of respect for classmates and teachers. To the school, standing for the pledge is a ceremony rather than a "patriotic exercise." Wolf says the main counter to that argument is the Banks v. Florida Board of Education case that establishes that standing is "no less a gesture of acceptance and respect than is the salute or the utterance of the words of allegiance."
Wolf hopes that, through his letter and meeting, he will be able to make a change in school policy. Although this change has been attempted several other times by students, Wolf feels that he will succeed because his letter does not "editorialize," but simply states what his research has proven is national law.
Wolf does not feel that refusing to stand for the pledge is unpatriotic. "If someone is willing to put up with scorn to protect their freedom then I’d say they’re even more patriotic than someone who silently conforms," he said.
Wolf’s letter to Gainous is reprinted below:
Dear Mr. Gainous:
I am writing to express concern over the school policy which provides that all students must stand in acknowledgement of the flag during the Pledge of Allegiance. Despite the fact that students are not required to recite the pledge, the requirement that students stand to acknowledge the flag during the pledge constitutes political censorship and lack of respect for any person who does not wish to participate in the daily recitation of the pledge.
The First Amendment protects the freedom of expression and the right to political dissent. Those who do not hold opinions that parallel those of the government or the average citizen cannot be persecuted or punished for their beliefs. The right of the minority, whether it is a minority of one or of 25 million, must be respected. If a person refuses to stand for the pledge on a basis of principle, they are making a political statement through their inaction, just as those who stand up and recite the pledge are making a political statement through their actions.
Political dissenters founded this country and allowing political dissent works to the benefit of every American. The government requires constant checking on the part of both itself and American citizens in order to ensure that it is not gaining too much power or working against the best interests of the American people. The idea that the people can “petition the government for a redress of grievances" is the mechanism by which the United States can adapt and grow without infringing on the fundamental rights of citizens. MCPS has a similar policy, and I therefore would like to ask you for a redress of grievances.
The issue as to the legality of forcing students to recite the pledge has been brought to court many times since the pledge first began to be widely used in schools. The issue of whether students are required to stand up and acknowledge the flag and their peers has also been debated by many courts across the country.
The main precedent by which students are not forced to recite the pledge is the 1943 Supreme Court ruling in the case of the
“We think the action of the local authorities in compelling the flag salute and pledge transcends constitutional limitations on their power and invades the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official control."
Although the court makes no specific mention of forcing students to stand up, it still limits a school's right to force patriotic acts or political doctrine on students.
From the Federal 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, the 1973 case of Goetz v. Ansell is specific on the issue of whether students are required to stand. It allows non-participating students who do not wish to engage in the flag salute to engage in "a silent, non-disruptive expression of belief by sitting down" and does not require them to leave the classroom.
The Maryland Supreme Court itself also decided that students objecting to the salute of the flag were not required to stand. The 1971 case of the State of Maryland v. Lundquist invalidated a state requirement that students who object to daily patriotic exercises stand while the rest of the class recites the pledge.
The 1970 Florida case of Banks v. Board of Public Instruction also establishes that standing is “no less a gesture of acceptance and respect than is the salute or the utterance of the words of allegiance."
The Goetz v. Ansell case and the Banks v. Board case explicitly establish that standing out of respect for the flag can be construed as a patriotic exercise, and that a student's right to non-participation must be respected as with the act of reciting the pledge itself.
The MCPS Rights and Responsibilities handbook clearly states that:
“[Students] will have the opportunity to participate in and/or watch patriotic exercises in school. [Students] cannot be required to say a pledge, sing an anthem, or take part in a patriotic exercise. No one will be permitted to intentionally embarrass [a student if they] choose not to participate."
Since any part of the pledge, including standing, is legally defined as a patriotic act, the school does not have the right to force students to participate. By forcing students to stand and punishing them if they refuse, Blair is contradicting MCPS policy, effectively breaking state & federal law, and violating the civil rights of any student who wishes to dissent.
Furthering the Goetz v. Ansell decision, the US Court of Appeals also ruled in the 1981 case of Lanner v. Wimmer that “while public schools may conduct patriotic ceremonies such as the pledge of allegiance, they may not compel participation by children who object on free exercise grounds."
Furthermore, the same clause of Maryland code that provides that schools shall hold patriotic exercises every day also provides that “any student or teacher who wishes to be excused from the requirements of [the classroom flag salute and pledge of allegiance] shall be excused." [Maryland code of education: title 7: subsection 1: article 7-105].
The court also added in the Goetz v. Ansell decision, a case that established that “standing is itself part of the pledge," that because a school "cannot compel participation in the pledge, it cannot punish non-participation." Students are regularly sent to the administration for refusal to stand or participate in the Pledge, and are sometimes further punished for continual refusal to stand.
Standing for the pledge of allegiance can also be interpreted as an act of symbolic speech. Symbolic speech, generally defined as an act which conveys a symbolic meaning, is, according to the Supreme Court, "akin to `pure speech,' which, [as has been] repeatedly held, is entitled to comprehensive protection under the First Amendment." The Supreme Court also ruled in the case of Tinker v. Des Moines that "public schools are an appropriate place to exercise symbolic speech as long as normal school functions are not unreasonably disrupted." Furthermore, the court stated that"
"In our system, state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students in school as well as out of school are "persons" under our Constitution. They are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State. In our system, students may not be regarded as closed-circuit recipients of only that which the State chooses to communicate. They may not be confined to the expression of those sentiments that are officially approved. In the absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate their speech, students are entitled to freedom of expression of their views."
It is clear that the requirement that students stand to salute the flag is contradicted by a great deal of legal precedent and constitutional interpretation. The presiding judge over the 1963 case of Pennsylvania v. Schwepp described forcing students to participate in the pledge of allegiance as a “flagrantly unconstitutional act." It is surprising that the school requires that students still stand up, despite the progressive nature of Montgomery County and of Blair in particular.
I therefore respectfully ask that you allow students who object to standing during the Pledge of Allegiance to instead remain seated in a quiet and non-disruptive manner and allow them to respectfully and responsibly express their political opinions. If there is truly to be “liberty and justice for all" in this country, then students must be at liberty to express their views freely without reprisal or guilt.
The opinions of Supreme Court Justices Black and Douglas expressed in the West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnett ruling eloquently express my ultimate view on forcing any part of the Pledge of Allegiance on students:
"Words uttered under coercion are proof of loyalty to nothing but self- interest. Love of country must spring from willing hearts and free minds, inspired by a fair administration of wise laws enacted by the people's elected representatives within the bounds of express constitutional prohibitions. These laws must, to be consistent with the First Amendment, permit the widest toleration of conflicting viewpoints consistent with a society of free men."
Sincerely and respectfully,
Elliott Wolf, Class of 2004
Tweet
Share on Tumblr
Discuss this Article
Kudos to you, Elliot. If the backing of SCO makes any difference, you've got it.
Thank you, I believe you've just made my point. By forcing someone to symbolically agree with a particular viewpoint, the school is showing fundamental disrespect for their right to self expression and their views.
Also, I never directly expressed my political viewpoints to either Mr. Gainous or to SCO regarding whether the country and students deserve the respect granted by standing up or not. When I originally refused to stand it was mainly because the school was forcing me to, not out of blatant disrespect for my peers or the country. The point is that this is not about my views or anyone else's views on why people *should* stand for the pledge. This is about the constitutional right to free expression that is being violated by the school system, in that those few students who do wish to make such a statement are not permitted to do so.
I do believe that this country does deserve respect, but forcing a sign of respect out of fear of punishment or reprisal goes against everything this country stands for. As Jeremy said, it’s extremely hypocritical to say “This is a free country, salute or suffer the consequences."
I will be glad to email anyone the complete legal evidence that does demonstrate that standing is in fact a salute.
Also, thanks Jeremy for the support.
I'm not against the act of actually standing for the pledge. I'm against being forced to symbolically agree with a political statement and against being censured from making an opposing gesture. But as I said earlier, my views on this issue are irrellevent.
The laws of this country and the constitutional interpretations of the courts regarding this issue are what do matter and as a public school, Blair is obligated to respect them.
I am personally fighting for the rights that are granted to me (and every other american, including students) in the constitution and in law. The philosophies and justifications behind these laws and the constitution do agree with my personal views on government and civil rights, so in a sense, I'm fighing for both my beliefs and what is legal.
My last message was close-minded and thinking only about my personal views, so I apologize, and I have to say I am proud that someone would try to do what you are attempting.
"In our system, state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students in school as well as out of school are "persons" under our Constitution. They are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State. In our system, students may not be regarded as closed-circuit recipients of only that which the State chooses to communicate. They may not be confined to the expression of those sentiments that are officially approved. In the absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate their speech, students are entitled to freedom of expression of their views."
In your letter to Mr. Gainous, you speak of the importance of the checks and balances that have been set forth in our country. I completely agree with you. As such, I must dispute the fact that citizens must blindly agree with the decisions made by the Supreme Court. The framers of the Constitution, realizing that the Judicial branch could make mistakes just as any individual can make mistakes, created two checks on the Judicial branch: 1) The Judicial Branch cannot address any subject it would like. The subject must be initiated by a lawsuit. 2) The Judicial Branch has no way of enforcing the decisions it makes. This responsibility falls upon the Executive Branch of the government. This means that if the citizens find a decision of the Supreme Court to be unlawful or irrational, they have the right to disregard it. The Supreme Court CAN falter. In fact, just this summer, in June, the 9th circuit court of appeals in California displayed this. They ruled that it was unconstitutional for the pledge to be said by ANYONE for ANY reason on school property, as it was political propaganda. The U.S. Senate was outraged. They voted 99-0 to ask the court of appeals to rehear the case (as they have no direct jurisdiction over the 9th circuit court of appeals). U.S. citizens, in order to maintain the checks and balances of the Constitution must take it upon themselves to weigh each court decision on a personal level.
Elliott, your entire argument has been based upon Supreme Court decisions. This is simply not enough. To make it worse, the Court cases cited are not even relevant. Every single case cited had religious overtones. These overtones ranged from finding fault with the "under God" part of the pledge to Jehovah’s Witnesses refusing to salute the flag because they felt it was holding something in higher regard than God. I am sure that no one at Blair would find fault with making concessions for religious reasons.
One other aspect also influenced the Supreme Court judges’ decisions. These court cases started in environments where there were very extreme punishments for refusing to stand, most often expulsion. Perhaps the court judges partially found fault with the school systems because of the "Cruel or Unusual punishment" aspect of the Constitution rather than the freedom of speech aspect.
Finally, I will cite one example for Elliott to consider. When a judge enters his courtroom, everyone in the courtroom is ordered to "stand for the honorable Mr. ________." Anyone who refuses such a demand is thrown in jail for contempt of court. A United States judge is a symbol of the country that he serves, and as such, it is demanded that people show him respect. The flag of the United States of America is the most significant symbol of the country. Why is it not necessary to show the flag this same respect?
Standing for the pledge shows respect to this country and its laws, the same laws you're trying to use to win your case. A political statement is when someone or some group makes its political views clear. Standing for the pledge doesn't do that. It just shows simple respect.
"Also, socialstudiesub – Maybe we’ll get somewhere this time. Maybe the fact that it constantly comes up does demonstrate that there is something fundamentally wrong with the policy that people are objecting to. "
This is very true. MCPS has a fairly large aparatus to prevent massive changes from below, the fact that every few years someone rears up and tries to do some change anyways is remarkable, and telling.
"It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. For example, suppose that a skilled speaker managed to get most people to absolutely love the claim that 1+1=3. It would still not be rational to accept this claim simply because most people approved of it. After all, mere approval is no substitute for a mathematical proof. At one time people approved of claims such as "the world is flat", "humans cannot survive at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour", "the sun revolves around the earth" but all these claims turned out to be false.
This sort of "reasoning" is quite common and can be quite an effective persusasive device. Since most humans tend to conform with the views of the majority, convincing a person that the majority approves of a claim is often an effective way to get him to accept it. [http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html - thanks Ezra for pointing me to it]"
Doing something simply because everyone else does it is not a legitimate reason to act. If there is a minority interest, then it must be respected, not just considered to be 'difficult.' Also, please show us this vast "rest of the school" that you speak of. You're severely overstating the situation to say that everyone else in the school stands to begin with, it's just rarely enforced.
BTW, can you say 'totalitarianism?'
For one thing, it's educational. Now, no one would really want to put it that way, but let's just call it interesting to get involved in such a debate. Elliott is helping every student out by having them think about rights, government, and the like in such a way that it applies to them.
Something else we gain from this is an improved school system. As it stands, they are wrong. This is only a perception of individuals, but as a member of a democratic society, Elliott rightly feels responsibility to fix this flaw in the system. This is motivated by his personal reluctance to stand for the pledge, but extends to other people because of its political ramifications.
One other thing. Rights that don't get used are easily discarded. Quite simply: by exercising the right to protest, Elliott is prolonging political stability.
Elliott's not trying to be difficult. He's helping us all to understand and be able to use the rights that form the basis for a nation of political diversity. Giving it up at this point would be submission to conformity, and would reflect a decline in the ability of the government to do what it was designed for: to examine and improve upon itself.
I am not unpatriotic
Standing and saying the pledge are acts of patriotism and of respect for both the country and for students and teachers who feel the same way. What I'm arguing is that someone cannot be forced to stand. I feel that students should stand for the pledge, but when the school begins to require such acts, it infringes on those fundamental rights which the flag truly represents. The flag does not represent dogmatic rituals designed to honor it, it represents personal freedoms and liberty as outlined in the constitution. The school is doing more disrespect to the flag by forcing people to stand and acknowledge it than anyone who sat down ever did.
I am working to uphold the constitution, the laws of this country, and the individual freedoms of students. Some may see that as me being unpatriotic by encouraging acts of disrespect against the flag. Remember that John Ashcroft calls himself patriotic too (while limiting freedom, directly opposing the constitution, and violating federal law). If that's the definition of patriotism, then I'll gladly say that I?m not patriotic. But if the constitution and furthering the ideals of personal freedom represent patriotism (which they do), then I would say that I'm being patriotic.
Call George Bush unpatriotic. Call John Ashcroft unpatriotic. Call Dick Cheney unpatriotic. They limit freedom and go against the very ideals of this country. But don?t call me unpatriotic.
I would like to call your attention to the case of State [of Maryland] v. Lundquist. Arthur Lundquist was a boy scout, a member of the military, and a civics teacher in the state of Maryland. He sued the state to overturn the pledge requirement because he ?in good conscience, [could] not force patriotism on [his] students.? He said in his statement to the court that ?I cannot teach democracy one minute and dictate a special form of ceremony the next and be true to myself or my students.? He also said that ?I love my country, I respect my flag and other symbols of my country, but I am repulsed by the idea that this should be forced on anyone. I cannot in good conscience do it.?
Once again however, my views are irrellevant
Elliot is not being unpatriotic in the least sense of the word. I hate how people use the word "unpatriotic" to classify anyone who dares to have differing opinions as rebels and anti-American.
Let's look at this logically. Elliot has a constitutional right to a public education free of state-sponsored religion. The school is in fact being more "unpatriotic" than Elliot. They are forcing a religious belief onto students by making them stand and acknowledge "God". This is a blatant violation of every students' constitutional right to a public education free of government-sponsored religion.
Elliot, on the other hand, is simply asking for his constitutional rights to be respected. Elliot is trying to uphold the constitution, while the school system is trying to ignore it. I fail to see how demanding that your constitutionally-given rights be respected should be grounds for being labeled "unpatriotic".
By the way, the founding fathers demanded that their rights be respected by England, and they fought for their rights. Perhaps they, too, were unpatriotic?
This is not about whether or not rights in this country are overblown. This is not about whether or not I am basing my argument on the prospect of a slippery slope fallacy (which I’m not). This is about the laws of the United States and the legal interpretation of the Constitution as given by federal and state courts.
If the school, which is a government institution, begins breaking laws, then that is the true slippery slope fallacy right there. The slippery slope does not apply to asking for the right to stand for the pledge. I am not asking to be able to outright disrupt class during the pledge of allegiance. My entire argument is based on law, and if the school allows students to disrupt the learning environment, then it is not following the law and instituting rules and procedures that allow for normal school operation.
But as I have said time and time again (as have the courts), sitting does not disrupt school activities. Taking 45 seconds out of every day for the pledge ceremony does seem to constitute a disruption, but that is a discussion for a later time.
In terms of the whole “rights [are] overblown” issue, as Edmund Burke said, “eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” To maintain our liberty, people must be willing to act and make sure that not even the slightest right is interfered with. As soon as our basic political rights are worn away because people say they’re “not important,” then the door has opened for the more crucial rights to be taken away. Although this does not quite constitute a slippery slope, it is still the first step towards totalitarianism.
In terms of normal limits on free speech (i.e. yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre), it is perfectly understandable and legal under the constitution to limit speech in that manner. However, simple acts of political defiance cannot be limited. It doesn't matter how much 'respect' they show, or don't show, a person still must have that right.
And as I have said over and over, I have no objection to actually standing for the pledge, I have an objection to being forced to make a political statement that I may or may not agree with, as is everyone else at Blair. In a constitution sense, that right is an absolute, no matter how many toes it may step on.
Socialstudiesub –
The situation that you’re describing is a circular and illogical excuse for schools to use to violate the fundamental rights of students. If this truly is the school’s purpose, then it would be self defeating since ultimately, the students wouldn’t get anywhere. Students would then naturally conclude that as they wouldn’t get anywhere, so why even try?
If the school suddenly decried that black students and female students couldn’t enter the auditorium, I doubt that justifying it as a ‘pedagological stroke of genius,’ would make it any better. The entire legal question that I’m trying to resolve in the eyes of the school is that intent is irrelevant. Whether the school wishes to institute the rule to force patriotism, to force respect, or to start a debate is irrelevant. The school is still violating fundamental student rights and it has to stop. It is still violating federal and state law, and it must stop. What you think or what I think doesn’t matter, it is still illegal and immoral.
Alas Gordon, you do not have absolute freedom of expression. The supreme court noted in Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919) (well specifically Justice Holmes writing for the majority) "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.... The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent".
So far, no one has demonstrated that Elliot's actions are a clear and present danger to any of you. Also Gordon, Elliot's arguement is not hinged on a slippery slope fallacy, your arguement is. You are arguing that giving Elliot the right to sit for the pledge will give him the right to not come to school.
So what does this all mean? That Elliot is hopefully not arguing that rights are absolute. I hope if nothing else everyone realizes on some level Gordon is right, and that we do not have the right to do anything we want. However, never ever let someone take away a right without at least showing there is avlaid cause for it.
Which kind of brings me to my closing thought. Like Elliot said, there is a difference between what is morally allowable, and what is legally allowable. Maybe someone reading this rather long series of point and counter-point believes that laughing at funerals is a way to start the grieving process. I hope that when Gordon is influencing the laws of this country, you will still have the right to laugh. Just like I still have the right to cry that Gordon couldn't even remember arguements from last year.
Oh yeah, somebody get rolling on protesting IDs, this arguement seems a little too easy for some of the pros I've seen posting.
Elliot -
Yes, you cannot be forced to stand, end of story. However, refusing to stand for the pledge IS unpatriotic. Being patriotic is feeling, expressing, or inspired by love for one's country (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition). While you were upholding "the constitution, the laws of this country, and the individual freedoms of students," you attacked the flag and the Pledge of Allegiance, which are symbols of what America stands for. While the definition of patriotism gives your claim to it some validity, the connotation of patriotism is much different from your definition, and the definition in a dictionary.
One reason that your attack on the Pledge of Allegiance and saluting the flag is unpatriotic is that these actions are already considered patriotic. Going against patriotic actions is hardly patriotic. Don't believe me? Go to Google, and type a search on "patriotism". The first five links have a picture of the American flag prominently displayed on their website. The flag is a symbol of our country - going against it is portrayed as going against our country.
Please do not get me wrong, Elliott, the actions that you take are noble and good-hearted, and I urge you to continue your pursuit. However, patriotic does not describe the actions that you are taking.
Gordon -
For one, capitalization helps, and I don't just mean capitalize one whole sentence. Also, although you did add lots of ellipses, do did not include any meaningful punctuation, such as where one thought ends and another begins. Please refrain from rambling and compose your thoughts into posts that people can understand.
Second of all, "yes he might have the right to do it but I feel that rights have become excessively overblown in America"?!?! All Americans have the same rights under the Constitution. Claims to these rights are not only good because everyone deserves to have them, but because they increase other people's awareness of the rights that they have. These claims to rights do not "DETERIOATE are rights," but instead help to strengthen these rights - the more times people exercise this right, the more valid it becomes.
Also, you are misinformed about what our rights are. Nowhere does it say in the Constitution, or in any law, or in even in the Students' Rights and Responsibliities, that students have the "right" not to wear IDs, the "right" to not come to class, or any other "right" that you may have contrived. Students do not have a right to do this, whereas Elliot does have a right to protest agianst standing, because this right is guaranteed in the Constitution and the Supreme Court cases that he provided.
Disagreeing with anything, including Elliott's actions, OK. However, disagreeing with something because you are ignorant of the subject matter is a mistake.
Also, Elliott, please feel free to add to my comment with any additional arguments, either against me or against Gordon.
Refusing to stand for the pledge is NOT unpatriotic. I fail, yet again, to see how standing up for the values and practices of the U.S.A. is an act of disrespect against the U.S.A. I, as well as Elliot, have said many times, in many posts, that he is NOT attacking the flag, in and of itself. He IS attacking the pledge, but he is doing so with good cause and reason. Just because something is patriotic doesn't mean it is infallible. It's patriotic to plaster yourself and your possessions with flags, but that doesn't mean that anyone who doesn't is unpatriotic.
Okay I'm having a hard time expressing my views clearly, it's 1 in the morning, but I'll try and write one sentence as a summary.
Patriotic does describe Elliot's actions. He is expressing devotion to the basic principles that define this country. He is expressing anger that the government has violated those principles, and is taking a stand for those principles.
-- I think that pretty much sums up my feelings on this issue.
America is more than simply a set of symbols and a piece of cloth. Those things themselves mean nothing, but the rights that they represent mean everything.
I would like to quote Mr. Lasco, who recently told me that "I did not spend 2 years in the military fighting for the flag, I spent 2 years in the military fighting for the right to burn it."
Also, after reading John Glenn's deposition to congress on the flag burning ammendments, I believe that they relate very much to the issue at hand:
"The flag is the nation's most powerful and emotional symbol. It is our most sacred symbol. And it is our most revered symbol. But it is a symbol. It symbolizes the freedoms that we have in this country, but it is not the freedoms themselves. That is why this debate is not between those who love the flag on the one hand and those who do not on the other. No matter how often some try to indicate otherwise, everyone on both sides of this debate loves and respects the flag. The question is, how best to honor it and at the same time not take a chance of defiling what it represents.
Those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, who died following that banner, did not give up their lives for a red, white and blue piece of cloth. They died because they went into harm's way, representing this country and because of their allegiance to the values, the rights and principles represented by that flag and to the Republic for which it stands.
Without a doubt, the most important of those values, rights and principles is individual liberty: The liberty to worship, to think, to express ourselves freely, openly and completely, no matter how out of step those views may be with the opinions of the majority. In that first amendment to the Constitution we talk about freedom of speech, of religion, or the press and right to assemble."
Ok...so maybe I shouldn't open this can of worms, but I have a question and I'm gonna ask it. What about the issue of God being mentioned in the pledge? I realize this is somewhat unrelated, but I'm curious. Does Elliot object to this mention of God? I know I do. I don't believe in God. I don't deny God's existance, but I don't believe in it, either. I'm an agnostic. So sue me.
Do you realize that "under God" was added to the pledge fairly recently? I know it wasn't there during world war two. At some point between then and now, those two words were added, for no reason I can see. Funny, maybe it's just me, but I thought America has grown more tolerant of other religions, atheists, and agnostics? Adding God to the pledge would seem to protest otherwise. That's all I have to say...
But thats not my point, i don't want to get into arguing with all the people posting who are blatently ignoring the legal evidence in front of their faces.
Elloit- Good job and good luck, you're right.
Wouldn't the school be imposing on his civil rights to deny him the opportunity to pledge the flag? Shouldn't the teacher be aware of any situation that could intefer with the religious or political beliefs of any child?
Should a parent be notified if their child is choosing to sit during the pledge? How are we to insure that students understand what it means to sit during pledge?
I totally understand the right to obstain from saluting or pledging the flag. In staff development training when these court cases were happening, teachers were taught that students can be expected to stand, but the students were to remain quiet during the pledge. We could not make them look at the flag, but they were to stand.
We stand during the national anthem or presentation of colors for every country. No one sits during a national anthem during the Olympic Games or any international event. If someone were to sit during the pledge, it would be seen by the world as a political statement. Our international students always stand quietly.
I have a total conviction to the rights of every citizen. I do not think that students who are using their rights to create problems in schools should be ignored. How are we to teach the etiquette and recognition of everyone's citizenship?