Patriotism or Peer
Pressure?
Renewed interest in the Pledge of Allegiance raises free-speech
questions
Since September 11, students
all over the country have been reciting the Pledge of Allegiance with greater
frequency and fervor. The Pledge, which had gone the way of Latin class in many
schools, is now returning as a daily practice in more and more classrooms. This
change was highlighted by the “Pledge Across America” on October
12, during which U.S. Education Secretary Roderick Paige led students from
Hawaii to Maine in a simultaneous recitation of the national oath.
While participation in
that event was voluntary, there has been a recent increase in the number of
states, municipalities, and school boards requiring schools to lead daily
recitations of the Pledge. In the community hardest hit by the September 11
disaster, the New York City Board of Education recently voted for a daily
Pledge in the city’s schools; 24 states and numerous cities and towns
currently have laws outlining similar requirements.
Schools may be bound by
these laws, but individual students and teachers are not. Under a 1943 U.S.
Supreme Court ruling (West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette),
it is unconstitutional for schools to require students or teachers to recite
the Pledge or to punish those who refuse to do so for religious, philosophical,
or other reasons.
Though perhaps somewhat
contradictory, the laws surrounding the Pledge are relatively clear.
What’s less clear is how these laws are actually being applied in
schools. In a school where a daily Pledge is mandated, are students and
teachers aware that they have the right to opt out? If so, will they feel
comfortable or safe declining to participate, given the power dynamics that
define the relationships among students, teachers, and administrators?
The Madison (WI) school
board recently found itself in a quagmire when it attempted to address these
questions under a new state law requiring schools to offer either the Pledge of
Allegiance or “The Star-Spangled Banner” on a daily basis. Citing
some parents’ objections to the law, as well as concerns about the degree
to which such participation was “coercive” in some schools, board
member Bill Keys proposed—and the board approved—a solution that
was already in effect at several Madison schools: schools could play an
instrumental version of the anthem daily and let students choose whether to
sing the anthem, salute the flag, or remain silent.
Compromise and Caveats
The board’s decision
sparked outrage, not only in Madison but across the country. Opponents called
the vote a ban on the Pledge and anthem that deprived children of the
opportunity to express their patriotism and unity at school, a charge that Keys
disputes. “It was a compromise to comply with the law,” he says.
“It had absolutely nothing to do with a ban on the Pledge of Allegiance.
We cannot ban the Pledge—that’s controlling speech.”
Facing intense pressure,
including threats of a board recall, the cutoff of state funding, and thousands
of negative emails and phone calls, the board reversed its decision. However,
the board has required that all recitations of the Pledge or national anthem be
preceded by the following caveat: “We live in a nation of freedom.
Participation in the Pledge or anthem is voluntary. Those who wish to
participate should now stand. Others may remain seated.”
Particularly in a time of
national crisis, students can also face peer pressure to conform to group
standards of patriotism. Shelly Tougas, assistant director of communications
for the Minnesota School Boards Association, which has studied the use of the
Pledge in the state’s schools, says that students who choose not to
recite the Pledge can be targeted for bullying or be called unpatriotic by
their peers. “That’s a big concern of ours,” Tougas says.
“Sometimes the opt-out can create such a distraction that the kid who
wants to opt out can’t.”
Some civil libertarians
don’t object to the Pledge in schools as long as students are aware of
their right to abstain and can do so without being stigmatized. Terri
Schroeder, legislative analyst for the American Civil Liberties Union, praised
Secretary Paige for making the “Pledge Across America” voluntary,
given the event’s focus on “the foundations of our free
society.”
Elliot Mincberg, vice
president and legal director of People for the American Way, says he believes
most school officials recognize students’ right to abstain from the
Pledge, but that this right may not always be communicated “in an
affirmative way.” “I
think it would be a good idea to make [the right to opt out] more clear,”
Mincberg says. He acknowledges, however, that doing so can seem artificial if not
handled correctly: “It’s awkward if teachers have to give the
equivalent of a Miranda warning.”
As an alternative,
Mincberg recommends adding study of the Pledge to lessons on historical
documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution so that
students understand what rights they are afforded as Americans: “We want
to do things that will bring our country together, but will also preserve the
individual liberties that make our country different from a place like
Afghanistan.”