Students forced to recite Pledge of Allegiance, VA

[The Alma Mater]

In the state of Virginia, students are required to stand and say the pledge unless they have an exemption from their parents. I am 17 and I not only disagree with the wording in the pledge of allegiance (one nation, under god)

Then use one of the pre-1954 pledges that do not include that phrase. It is a relatively new addition after all.
If you want to upset people you can even emphasise you consider those words treason to everything the USA is supposed to stand for

[Allanea]

It's Virginia. Home to some of America's finest military academies. Thus uniforms.

[Lackadaisical2]

students must either stand and recite the Pledge while facing the flag with their right hands over their hearts or in an appropriate salute if in uniform;

Did the writers of this bill just throw this in to be on the safe side?

How many highschoolers are authorized to wear military uniforms? Do boyscouts render military salutes or something?

JROTC comes to mind.

[The Archregimancy]

Good on you arch, fight the Prussian School of student brainwashing!

I was about 13 years old at the time. Fighting the 'Prussian School of brainwashing' was very far from my list of priorities.

My initial, and contested, decision to sit down was, as noted, entirely innocent, and not intended to project any political agenda. I merely thought that no one would expect a foreign national to stand up for the pledge of allegiance in a public school. The compromise decision to stand silently without placing my hand over my heart was entirely acceptable to all parties.

I merely note that I find it interesting in the context of what happened to me in Maryland some 30 years ago that Virginia students are specifically permitted to sit.

I felt much more strongly about selective service, and in the unlikely event that the draft had been re-instated, I would have left the USA rather than complete my undergraduate education.

[MisanthropicPopulism]

students must either stand and recite the Pledge while facing the flag with their right hands over their hearts or in an appropriate salute if in uniform;

Did the writers of this bill just throw this in to be on the safe side?

How many highschoolers are authorized to wear military uniforms? Do boyscouts render military salutes or something?

JROTC.

Also, I am pretty sure they can't legally compel you to stand or say the pledge.

Of course if it was challenged now, the right-wing court would overturn it, call you un-American, and say it was legal to expel students who didn't stand and say the pledge.

[Strator]

Mathematical logic would be that 3 * 4 + 5 is expressed as 3 * (4 + 5).

That isn't the case though, that is why brackets exist. 3 * 4 + 5 = 17, 3 * (4 + 5) = 27. The OR in that sentence would mean that it applies to any member of the three parties, there is an entire area of math which explicitly states this, so your argument is fundamentally flawed. That bill explicitly says he can choose whether to recite the pledge or not. "ENGLISH M#!43% ^*/&3R DO YOU SPEAK IT?"

Other than that, I personally would not pledge allegiance to anything unless absolutely certain what it would entail, I do not take such vows lightly. The pledge of allegiance can essentially be interpreted (albeit this would be rather tangential) to say that you are promising never to oppose the government in any matter. Even though this is rarely the way it is seen, the pledge is still pretty deep and in light of this I find it completely wrong to have the pledge in schools, even if the students have a choice. Many students would not fully understand what they are promising. Patriotism should only come by choice.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Although many of you have correctly pointed out that (1) the statute cited by the OP does not require him/her to recite the Pledge or even stand during the Pledge and (2) it is contrary to well-established SCOTUS precedent and American values to require any student to recite the pledge, the responses of other posters in this thread are seriously depressing. Let's clarify a few things.

1. The law of Virginia does not require the OP to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Not only does the law cited by the OP not say that, but, as Just Guy pointed out, that isn't the current law. The current Code of Virginia, § 22.1-202 states (emphasis added):

C. Each school board shall require the daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in each classroom of the school division and shall ensure that the flag of the United States is in place in each such classroom. Each school board shall determine the appropriate time during the school day for the recitation of the Pledge. During such Pledge of Allegiance, students shall stand and recite the Pledge while facing the flag with their right hands over their hearts or in an appropriate salute if in uniform; however, no student shall be compelled to recite the Pledge if he, his parent or legal guardian objects on religious, philosophical or other grounds to his participating in this exercise. Students who are thus exempt from reciting the Pledge shall remain quietly standing or sitting at their desks while others recite the Pledge and shall make no display that disrupts or distracts others who are reciting the Pledge. School boards shall provide appropriate accommodations for students who are unable to comply with the procedures described herein due to disability.

Clearly his or her objection alone is sufficient to exempt him or her from any requirement to recite the pledge. In fact, in Myers v. Loudoun County Public Schools, 418 F. 3d 395 (4th Cir. 2005), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld this very law against an Establishment Clause challenge precisely because the exemption clause made the Pledge wholly voluntary.

2. It is contrary to SCOTUS precedent and American values to require a student to recite the Pledge of Allegience. In West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), the majority of the Supreme Court eloquently explained why it was unconstitutional to require students to recite the Pledge of Allegience (emphasis added):

[T]he compulsory flag salute and pledge requires affirmation of a belief and an attitude of mind. It is not clear whether the regulation contemplates that pupils forego any contrary convictions of their own and become unwilling converts to the prescribed ceremony or whether it will be acceptable if they simulate assent by words without belief and by a gesture barren of meaning. It is now a commonplace that censorship or suppression of expression of opinion is tolerated by our Constitution only when the expression presents a clear and present danger of action of a kind the State is empowered to prevent and punish. It would seem that involuntary affirmation could be commanded only on even more immediate and urgent grounds than silence. But here the power of compulsion is invoked without any allegation that remaining passive during a flag salute ritual creates a clear and present danger that would justify an effort even to muffle expression. To sustain the compulsory flag salute we are required to say that a Bill of Rights which guards the individual's right to speak his own mind, left it open to public authorities to compel him to utter what is not in his mind.

Whether the First Amendment to the Constitution will permit officials to order observance of ritual of this nature does not depend upon whether as a voluntary exercise we would think it to be good, bad or merely innocuous. ...

National unity as an end which officials may foster by persuasion and example is not in question. The problem is whether under our Constitution compulsion as here employed is a permissible means for its achievement.

Struggles to coerce uniformity of sentiment in support of some end thought essential to their time and country have been waged by many good as well as by evil men. Nationalism is a relatively recent phenomenon but at other times and places the ends have been racial or territorial security, support of a dynasty or regime, and particular plans for saving souls. As first and moderate methods to attain unity have failed, those bent on its accomplishment must resort to an ever-increasing severity. As governmental pressure toward unity becomes greater, so strife becomes more bitter as to whose unity it shall be. Probably no deeper division of our people could proceed from any provocation than from finding it necessary to choose what doctrine and whose program public educational officials shall compel youth to unite in embracing. Ultimate futility of such attempts to compel coherence is the lesson of every such effort from the Roman drive to stamp out Christianity as a disturber of its pagan unity, the Inquisition, as a means to religious and dynastic unity, the Siberian exiles as a means to Russian unity, down to the fast failing efforts of our present totalitarian enemies. Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.

It seems trite but necessary to say that the First Amendment to our Constitution was designed to avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings. There is no mysticism in the American concept of the State or of the nature or origin of its authority. We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent. Authority here is to be controlled by public opinion, not public opinion by authority.

The case is made difficult not because the principles of its decision are obscure but because the flag involved is our own. Nevertheless, we apply the limitations of the Constitution with no fear that freedom to be intellectually and spiritually diverse or even contrary will disintegrate the social organization. To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds. We can have intellectual individualism and the rich cultural diversities that we owe to exceptional minds only at the price of occasional eccentricity and abnormal attitudes. When they are so harmless to others or to the State as those we deal with here, the price is not too great. But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.

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.

These sentiments are echoed in the concurrence of Justices Black and Douglas (who emphasized the religious objections to the Pledge of Jehovah's Witnesses):

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.

Neither our domestic tranquillity in peace nor our martial effort in war depend on compelling little children to participate in a ceremony which ends in nothing for them but a fear of spiritual condemnation. If, as we think, their fears are groundless, time and reason are the proper antidotes for their errors. The ceremonial, when enforced against conscientious objectors, more likely to defeat than to serve its high purpose, is a handy implement for disguised religious persecution. As such, it is inconsistent with our Constitution's plan and purpose.

3. Copious caselaw holds that a student not only cannot be forced to recite the Pledge, but may not be required to stand during it. See, e.g., Holloman ex rel. Holloman v. Harland, 370 F.3d 1252, 1274, 1278 (11th Cir.2004) (noting that the right to remain seated and silent during the Pledge is clearly established); Walker-Serrano ex rel. Walker v. Leonard, 325 F.3d 412, 417 (3d Cir. 2003) ("For over fifty years, the law has protected elementary students' rights to refrain from reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. Punishing a child for non-disruptively expressing her opposition to recitation of the pledge would seem to be as offensive to the First Amendment as requiring its oration."); Rabideau v. Beckmantown Central School District, 89 F. Supp.2d 263, 267 (N.D. N.Y. 2000.) (“It is well established that a school may not require its students to stand for or recite the Pledge of Allegiance or punish any student for his/her failure to do so.”); Lipp v. Morris, 579 F.2d 834, 836 (3rd Cir. 1978) (standing during the pledge "is an unconstitutional requirement that the student engage in a form of speech"); Goetz v. Ansell, 477 F.2d 636, 638 (2nd Cir. 1973) (standing for the pledge "can no more be required than the pledge itself"); Banks v. Bd. of Public Instr., 314 F.Supp. 285, 296 (S.D. Fla. 1970), vacated by 401 U.S. 988, 91 S.Ct. 1223, 28 L.Ed.2d 526 (1971), reinstated without published opinion by dist. ct. and aff'd, 450 F.2d 1103 (5th Cir. 1971); Frain v. Baron, 307 F.Supp. 27, 33-34 (E.D.N.Y.1969) (school is enjoined from "excluding [students] from their classrooms during the Pledge of Allegiance, or from treating any student who refuses for reasons of conscience to participate in the Pledge in any different way from those who participate."). Further, students not only do not require parental approval not to recite the Pledge, parents should not be notified that students are not reciting the Pledge. See, e.g., Circle School v. Phillips, 270 F.Supp.2d 616 (E.D. Pa., 2003) aff'd, 381 F.3d 172 (3d Cir. 2004) (holding it is impermissible for schools to notify parents of a child’s decision to opt out of the Pledge because it may have a chilling effect on the student’s exercise of his or her First Amendment Rights); In re Matter of Matter of Bustin, 10 Ed. Dept. Rep. 168 (N.Y. 1971) (holding that, because the right to sit quietly during the pledge of allegiance is a personal right of each student, it is not for the parent or the guardian to grant permission to decline to participate).

[Supreme Marshal Petan]

Oh please.

I never said I had any problem with discussing it, just those who bitch about horrible it is. Discussion doesn't bring change, action does. I already know things have been 'very wrong' in this country, there is always a problem in every country. It's the nature of society, duh.

You obviously didn't read my comment, so I won't even bother really replying to yours.

You still have failed to address this:

Listen, junior (I wince at that consider I'm turning 21 this Thursday! YAY!). Obviously this government isn't perfect, and I certainly agree with the legalization of drugs. But I still love my country. I agree that marriage equality should be allowed and isn't, but I still love my country. And the list goes on and on. There are many faults with my country, like there is with any other, but if your belief is that I whine and bitch, shake your head and say "nu-uh," and talk about how horrible this country is, than seriously get the fuck out.

If the best you can do in response to someone posting a cited fact is to call it bitching and whining, then it's obvious you have no argument.

I don't mind people complaining. I complain about the fact that our country seems to favor corporations more than it should, like I said, I find fault with people who just try and demonize our country as being some incurable hell-hole with no chance of hope. And than I find it annoying people don't want to pledge to the flag.

Whether it be immigrants or soldiers, both have sweated for this country, one bled for it, the other escaped their home to come to a great nation. It's imperfect yeah, I don't disagree. And I agree about refraining from saying 'under God' as a personal choice and decriminalizing recreation drug use, but just not pledging period because you find faults with this country and your some little punk whose trying to be cool? Spare me.

[The Alma Mater]

You still have failed to address this:




If the best you can do in response to someone posting a cited fact is to call it bitching and whining, then it's obvious you have no argument.

I don't mind people complaining. I complain about the fact that our country seems to favor corporations more than it should, like I said, I find fault with people who just try and demonize our country as being some incurable hell-hole with no chance of hope. And than I find it annoying people don't want to pledge to the flag.

Whether it be immigrants or soldiers, both have sweated for this country, one bled for it, the other escaped their home to come to a great nation. It's imperfect yeah, I don't disagree. And I agree about refraining from saying 'under God' as a personal choice and decriminalizing recreation drug use, but just not pledging period because you find faults with this country and your some little punk whose trying to be cool? Spare me.

What if they refuse because they consider the whole concept of nationalism bad ? They could still favour ideals, dreams, way of life etc - just not the whole "be proud you live on this piece of land" thing.

[Supreme Marshal Petan]

I don't mind people complaining. I complain about the fact that our country seems to favor corporations more than it should, like I said, I find fault with people who just try and demonize our country as being some incurable hell-hole with no chance of hope. And than I find it annoying people don't want to pledge to the flag.

Whether it be immigrants or soldiers, both have sweated for this country, one bled for it, the other escaped their home to come to a great nation. It's imperfect yeah, I don't disagree. And I agree about refraining from saying 'under God' as a personal choice and decriminalizing recreation drug use, but just not pledging period because you find faults with this country and your some little punk whose trying to be cool? Spare me.

What if they refuse because they consider the whole concept of nationalism bad ? They could still favour ideals, dreams, way of life etc - just not the whole "be proud you live on this piece of land" thing.

Go back to my first post.

[The Alma Mater]

What if they refuse because they consider the whole concept of nationalism bad ? They could still favour ideals, dreams, way of life etc - just not the whole "be proud you live on this piece of land" thing.

Go back to my first post.

What - the "get the fuck out" ? That only strengthens the argument that nationalism is repugnant

[Strykla]

Why couldn't you just get the exemption from your parents?

They refused and said it was disrespectful.

Damn right. Lots of people died to get you your freedom, and you don't even care? Yeah, maybe I don't agree you should be forced to recite the Pledge, (as this is a free country), but I do it anyway because being disrespectful to the people who gave me the freedom we all take for granted is the last thing I want to do. And before you say, "source," just look at the Civil and Revolutionary wars.

[Supreme Marshal Petan]

Go back to my first post.

What - the "get the fuck out" ? That only strengthens the argument that nationalism is repugnant

There is not a problem with being national, that is having an identity to a country (otherwise why are you here? Why use our services? And pay your taxes?). There is a problem when that nationalism is taken to the extreme, stereotyping the ideal American. I am not doing that. I am merely saying get over yourself and say the pledge. But work to change the policies you agree with, not cast yourself as some anti-allegiance dweeb who sounds more self-righteous than anything else.

[Innsmothe]

What - the "get the fuck out" ? That only strengthens the argument that nationalism is repugnant

There is not a problem with being national, that is having an identity to a country (otherwise why are you here? Why use our services? And pay your taxes?). There is a problem when that nationalism is taken to the extreme, stereotyping the ideal American. I am not doing that. I am merely saying get over yourself and say the pledge. But work to change the policies you agree with, not cast yourself as some anti-allegiance dweeb who sounds more self-righteous than anything else.

Why say the pledge if he disagrees with the content? He has the right to say/not say what he likes under the 1st amendment.

[Greed and Death]

Did the writers of this bill just throw this in to be on the safe side?

How many highschoolers are authorized to wear military uniforms? Do boyscouts render military salutes or something?

JROTC comes to mind.

US boy scouts render the three finger salute to the US flag. the UK scouts render full salutes to the flag and members of the military.

[Lithatrius]

Hate to break it to you all, but school rules > national law. i.e. You can smoke at 18. Try smoking outside of your school at the end of the day, and watch how the school hands your arse to ya. You're breaking no laws, but you still get buttraped harder than George Michael.

[Wamitoria]

When will schools just realize that ignoring dumb kids is easier than punishing them and getting it in the news...

[Maurepas]

*shrugs* don't follow it then, I mean, what're they gonna do? Arrest you for not saying the pledge?

[Unhealthy2]

There is not a problem with being national, that is having an identity to a country

It's irrational. There's no good logical reason to tie down your identity by where you live.

(otherwise why are you here? Why use our services? And pay your taxes?).

Do you have to identify yourself by the house you live in in order to live in said house? Do you feel the need to have to label yourself by your car, your skin color, and other arbitrary attributes?

[Dyakovo]

I don't believe in any god, but I still say the part about "one nation, under God". Why? Because it is an accurate statement. Something like ninety percent of USian citizens are Christians.

Umm, it's only an accurate statement if there actually is a god...
Just because a majority of Americans are christian does not mean that their god actually exists.

[Unhealthy2]

*research*

Yup, you're right, more along the lines of 85%. Still a majority.

The majority is also white. Does this make the phrase "One nation, under being white" accurate?

[Dyakovo]

You're with us or you're against us, eh? That sounds so familiar...

It should be.

That's what Jesus said.

Which would be proof that Yeshua is a moronic fuckwad.

Seriously what Yeshua may or may not have said (assuming he even existed) has no bearing on this.

[Dyakovo]

Okay, I'm getting a cold after a month of being in classrooms with the little buggers and I just snorted and it hurt and there's all kinds of snot now, so I hope you're real happy.

You realize I'm serious, right? The phrase originates from the New Testament, not some Nazi hate-fest.

So its from a christian hate-fest instead... So what?

[The Cat-Tribe]

Here is a report of the courts clearing the reciting of the pledge of allegiance

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... n-schools/

go hire a lawyer if you dont agree

Um. Completely inapposite. Wrong jurisdiction, entirely different issue, AND was based on the voluntariness of the Pledge.

That case, Newdow v. Rio Linda Union School District, Nos. 05-17257, 05-17344, and 06-15093 (9th Circuit, March 11, 2010) (193p pdf), involved whether voluntary recital of the Pledge by students in schools (led by officials) violated the Establishment of Religion Clause of the First Amendment. The Ninth Circuit panel held 2-1 that: "In light of the patriotic context in which the phrase “under God” is recited and the historical context in which that phrase has been enacted into law, we hold its voluntary recitation as part of the Pledge by school children, as practiced by the Rio Linda Union School District, does not violate the Establishment Clause." (emphasis added)

[Supreme Marshal Petan]

Do you feel the need to have to label yourself by your car, your skin color, and other arbitrary attributes?

Sort of, yeah sure. Do you identify yourself by science and mathematics?

I mean the total idea of a state is by its borders, its people and culture. Why do people vote? Why do we make art? Write literature? Make laws? Preserve traditions? And so on?

Irrational. Hardly.