I Might Disturb
"Damn it."
My co-worker was angry. I adore her and wanted to help.
"What's wrong?" I asked.
"I just got an email from our assistant principal and she says I can't write a referral on a student who won't stand for the Pledge of Allegiance."
"Oh."
"Isn't that ridiculous? Every student should stand up and we can't do anything about the kid that just sits there showing disrespect to the flag, our soldiers and everyone else. Can you believe that?"
Ever have one of those moments when you and a friend first disagree? I took a deep breath.
"I never make my students stand up. I encourage them to do so, but if they don't, well, that's okay, too."
She just stared at me.
"You're kidding, right?" she asked.
"Nope," I said, smiling meekly.
"Katie!" she said, half-laughing. "They should stand up. It's a sign of respect!"
"I agree," I said. "But forcing students to stand seems to go against what our flag stands for in the first place. I don't think we should make it compulsory. We're going to give kids detention for this?"
"Our forefathers fought for and soldiers today are dying for our freedom..."
"Right," I said. "The freedom not to stand."
"Okay," she said, trying a different approach. "Standing up, at the very least, is a way to show that you love your country and honor and respect what the flag stands for."
"In a way, I agree. And I ask the kids to get up. However, there are other ways to show patriotism, maybe more effective ways even, than standing up for less than a minute. Especially if they don't want to. How is forcing them to stand encouraging love of country? I'm afraid it might even have the opposite effect. What makes this country great is that we allow for dissent. We don't force people to go along with the majority in cases like this. It makes us stronger than other forms of government. Let the kid be an ass. He'll get over it one day and be thankful he lives in a society that allows him to be himself."
My awesome co-worker jokingly told me to f*ck off.
"You still love me though," I said.
"No!" she laughed. "No I don't!"
"I have your number programmed into my cell phone and your email address at home. You're stuck with me."
She just smiled and shook her head.
"How about this? I'll post our conversation on-line tomorrow and let you see all the hate email I receive over this issue. Will that make you feel better?"
"Little bit," she said.
I blew kisses and went back to class.
Done.
posted by kate @ 3:32 AM
14 comments
14 Comments:
She totally wanted to make out with you.
Kate-Just took the Praxis test for Minnesota licensure and there was a question on this topic. A 5th grader's parents do not want him saying the Pledge of Allegiance, you observe him saying it, do you A. notify the parents immediately, B. talk to the student privately, C. tell the principal D. ignore it.
I support your stand on not making kids stand for the pledge. Sadly, most choose not to for no particular reason. Just once I'd like to teach a real firebrand who is out to change the world and is starting by resisting fascism in the classroom...alas, most are just so involved in some conversation with their peers they don't even realize the pledge has started.
First, I totally agree with Addison and this was simply a sublimated lesbionic moment.
Second, what an interesting topic this close to Thanksgiving.
Third, while I absolutely agree that standing for the pledge, putting your hand over your heart for the pledge or even saying the pledge should be voluntary, Port Tampa hits the nail on the head in that these decisions seem to frequently be based less on political stance and conscience and more on a "I can't be bothered" attitude.
Soldiers do fight and die to protect our freedoms and for our part we must exercise those freedoms consciously and responsibly. If a student or an adult doesn't wish to pledge allegiance because it in some way violates their conscience, that choice must be respected. But simply not wanting to stand because they're busy talking (to use PT's example), or want to get a rise out of authority doesn't seem to be the same thing and I'm not sure it requires the same acceptance.
So, yes, forcing people to stand for the pledge of allegiance is a mistake, but so is allowing the abuse of that freedom. Speaking as a Quaker, matters of conscience are very important to me, that's why each time they are exercised in matters such as these, the rationale behind them must be as above reproach as possible. Without more information, specifically why the student was doing it, then, unfortunately, I tend to doubt that the student was acting on a matter of principle and is then perhaps not entitled to the same sort of protection by principle. That's an uncomfortable statement for me to make and perhaps goes a bit too far, but there must be some difference between an informed stance and laziness or simple agitation.
Still, if she hasn't already, your friend should use this moment as a way to broach several important civics topics, like the meaning of freedom, its price and the exercise of conscience in America. Because, if she can't write the kid up, maybe she can guilt him into it.
Sorry, but you're wrong. Standing for the Pledge has EVERYTHING to do with respect. Not for the flag or for our country, but for the teacher. If the teacher says stand, the student should stand. End of story. He doesn't actually have to say the pledge, that's his right, as you professed. But to not stand is an act of defiance toward the teacher and the school, not toward the flag. Individual acts of disrespect create a widespread culture of disrespect within our schools. This case demonstrates what is so messed up with our public school system. The universe revolves around the student. School administrstors always take the side of the student, never the teacher. Catherine, you should have stood by your co-worker. Otherwise, you should become a principal.
Airborne, bob,
You've got that right. A big misnomer that is often furthered by liberal purist is that Constitutional protections are unfettered by the inverse rights of others or by state intervention. In other words, "The Constitution gives me the 'right', therefore I can do whatever I please."
They tend to forget that the state has the authority, nay, the duty, to protect the "health, safety and welfare" of the citizenry. Every law that is passed infringes on someone's constitutional protections, however, the first question is whether affording that right adversely affects the rights of another individual's protections and, next, whether the state has a compelling interest that outweighs that individual right.
I might conject that I should be able to play music in my neighborhood at 3:00AM as loud as I want because of my constitutional rights, including "freedom of expression." However, my neighbors have an inverse right not to have to listen to that music.
Also, I may opine that I should be able to print top secret information for everyone to peruse in accordance with "freedom of the press". Yet, as an issue of public safety, the state has the responsibility of sanctioning such activity.
That is the balancing act that Courts weigh in studying the constitutuionality of any state action.
The point being is that the argument that, "it is my right" isn't sufficient as the end all be all.
Further, it is true that a public school student has more protections than a private school. By making that choice, the parents of private school students, either actively or passively, have made that choice to abide by whatever legal requirements that school makes of its students.
Nonetheless, the pendulum still swings in favor of the state at the doors of the schoolhouse. Public school students aren't adults out in the real world and they are subject to a host of rules and regulations that might be balked at in everyday society.
One of those requirements is to abide by any legally reasonable request made by an individual in a position of authority. To not do so is not "dissent", rather, it is insubordination. Toleration of insubordination only signals to the remaining student body that insubordination in the guise of dissent is a manner in which one can slowly usurp the authority of the educational hierarchy. In the end, the overall objects of the school system is challenged.
Along with that, the mere act of standing silently does not place the student in a position of concurring with the tenets that are being professed by the rest of the class. Rather, it is an exercise in instilling respect for the traditions and values of others. Being asked and obliging to wear a yamulke at those times when I have attended Temple does not make me Jewish, rather, it displays that I have respect for the traditions and beliefs of others.
Then-Attorney for the NAACP, Thurgood Marshall stated in the landmark desegregation case, "Cooper v. Aaron" that "the main purpose of the public school system is not to teach the three R's, rather is to teach good citizenship and how to get along with one another."
Toleration of such disrespect runs counter to that belief.
In the best case scenario, even if this act of civil disobedience were actual "dissent" for some higher purpose. That, in and of itself, is a conundrum. The pledge might be incorrectly viewed as solely a subscription to a flag or a nation, but that is not the case. It is an expression by citizens that they are committed to securing and protecting the rights and freedoms of one another.
In affect, while others are reciting a pledge that states basically that "we are all in this together" and "we are dedicated to liberty and justice for all", that is, that I can believe as I want and I believe others should be treated as such, what the "dissenter" is doing is saying that, "I believe what I believe and I have no care, concern or obligation to respect the opinions of others."
True, perhaps the words of the pledge are ideals and there are some who don't feel as though they have enjoyed "liberty and justice", yet I get up and say the pledge as a reminder to the fact that those are the things for which we should strive and that, no matter my personal beliefs, I pledge to respect the rights of others to disagree with me.
It might be because of immaturity or misguided aspersion on those who might currently hold the reigns of power. However, I say the pledge no matter who may inhabit the White House, the Congress, the State House or the Court House.
In those instances where one refuses to recite the pledge, I quietly infer it as egocentric, showing that they believe that theirs is the only belief system that should be tolerated or given deference and they disregard the rights of the rest of us, Democrats, Republicans, right, left and center, to believe differently from them.
First of all, Addison, who doesn't want to make out with me? I mean, come on, there are worse ways to spend an afternoon.
For the record, Robert, the conversation to which I am referring took place in an office with just the two of us, some crack and romantic music playing. Just kidding. There was no crack.
If a teacher walked into my classroom and called a kid out for doing something inappropriate that either I didn't catch or didn't care enough to question (we all pick our battles) - I would support the teacher. No question about it. In this case, I would have demanded the student respect the teacher's wishes and would have told him or her to get up. Like good parents, good teachers support each other even if we disagree in private.
I'm not positive, but I believe this student stayed in his seat due to laziness rather than displaying some form of social disobedience. And if teachers want to raise a stink about this issue, most kids would follow along and stand up. However, I just don't feel a need to raise such a stink. Other teachers don't care if kids listen to headphones while working. I raise a stink about that one. Several teachers ignore insults or bullying. ("Kids will be kids.") My students know I run a "cruelty-free classroom". Many teachers let kids drink soda and eat junk food during class. My students aren't allowed to drink anything other than bottled water and only if a kid is snacking on nutritious items do I allow it. We all have our battles to fight.
I'm not going to force my students to get up for the pledge.
That's the way I roll.
Hey- I have the same issue to deal with. I insist that students just stand up as a matter of respect to the other students in the class. I don't care if they don't like our country or whatever their pyschosis is. But it is not too much to ask to have people stand quietly for a few moments each day.
While I agree that it would be great if everyone could learn to "play nice with others", the fact is they can't. Take Rich for example.
Another thought is that this kid is a teenager, and their job is to challenge authority to learn their place in life. I agree that we have to choose our battles with students, children, spouses, friends. And also that, disrespectful or not, we are free to be different and speak our minds because we live in the good 'ol US of A.
Some people will never have social graces (maybe this kid has them and is just being a pisser - who knows). If nothing else, he serves an an example to the other kids of what not to do.
Maybe he gets a rise out of ticking off your friend, and if she ignored him, he'd start to stand up!
First of all, I do not want to make out with Kate. She pissed me off enough not to have any romantic feelings about her. Just kidding! I do love my co-worker even though she lets children make up their own mind on whether or not they choose to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance that day. Maybe I'll get lucky and their friend will be absent so I can get them to stand. It's absurd not to instill patriotism in all children will encounter.
Let me say that I have a multitude of problems with the way teachers are taught to teach, but this sure isn't one of them.
Kate, I not only respect your decision -- I agree with it. Forcing kids to stand for the pledge does not instill patriotism. It instills conformism.
If your co-worker wants to instill patriotism, have the kids watch movies like Miracle (about the 1980 USA hockey team) - or the documentary about the same thing. Or Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Or The Longest Day. Or Patton. Or Saving Private Ryan. Or Yankee Doodle Dandy.
Patriotism is instilled by remembering 9/11. By teaching what the words to the Pledge mean. By talking the Declaration of Independence.
Kate, I respect and support your choice. Stand firm.
Know why he should stand?
For the frigging exercise. It's the closest thing he'll get to P.E. all month.
Oh, and because the teacher said so, godammit.
He's also got to learn that non-conformity is great in theory, but when applied in school settings by prepubescent skulls full of unformed grey matter, it leads to chaos and anarchy and outtakes from "Rock 'n' Roll High School." And not the good parts where the P.J. Soles gets naked. Okay, I made that up. I have no idea if she gets naked. Maybe I was just projecting.
Give the little bastard a reason to break out of the educational straightjacket once he gets to Berkeley. Until then, stand the hell up and pretend.
I can't believe a conservative agrees with me on this one.
And Jeff - I thought PJ Soles *always* got naked. Perhaps I was just projecting as well.
Hey, guys, it is illegal to ask students to stand. So all the arguments about respecting authority when students don't stand as requested are really wrong-headed...and you are risking getting yourself and your school sued. You may not coerce, persuade or question students in any way!
Also, let's be clear here that there is nothing fair or equal about the Pledge as currently practiced in the schools.
Fair would be to let atheist students stand and say "one nation, that does not believe in a God". There is a HUGE difference there. It cannot be stated strongly enough that there is nothing fair or equal about the Pledge practice in schools when the only options are 1) to say the Pledge and thereby air your personal religious views to the rest of the class or 2) to remain seated and have your personal views silenced.
Remove that hypocrisy from the pro-pledge argument, let a-religious kids stand and express their religious beliefs to a captive audience on a daily basis and then who could complain. (Oh, except, those who feel that our schools are no place to execute the culture war by holding ad daily shouting match about religious belief.)
Restoring the Pledge to it's original version by removing "under God" simply brings it back to being neutral - the whole point of the first Amendment and what the Founders, in full conscious spite of their personal religious feelings - intended so as to enable all viewpoints in America to flourish. And returns the intent of the Pledge as originally written to a statement of indivisible national unity
I challenge anyone to tell me why the Pledge of Allegiance should be allowed to function as a bully pulpit for religion to school children. A lot of these arguments about why it should display fundamental ignorance about the history and governmental principles of our country: a nation intended as the pre-eminent pluralistic (i.e., secular) nation in the world, the most liberal of any previously known, a democratic constitutional republic dedicated to civil liberties with the specific mandate to protect and promote minority belief.
Historically, we were founded, not as a Judeo-Christian nation, but as a pluralistic one, which we are increasingly so. We were carefully created to be nation where diverse beliefs can flourish. To what benefit? Well, because of that, America is the most religiously diverse country in the world - with over 3,000 registered religions (which doesn't even count the varieties of secular philosophies). The difference, you see, between the US and other countries where there are state religions (or even widespread religions) is that our country was founded in opposition to the idea that tradition rules the day, or that the majority is entitled to impose their beliefs on others, or that minority views may be steamrollered by the popular opinion of the day.
James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, inserted the religious clause of the First Amendment as a response to the attempt of what he saw in his State of Virginia. By the time of the Revolution, the Anglican Church, formerly the established church of Virginia, had to share space with Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists and other smaller sects. It was in the interest of each group to have religious liberty for their own empowerment, especially that there be no religious tests for public office.
Back in 1954, it was a concerted effort on the part of various overtly sectarian organizations, primarily the Knights of Columbus, to exploit Cold War paranoia and use McCarthyism to get "under God" inserted in the Pledge in order to further push the country in a theocratic direction. A threatened Congress jumped right on board. Ironically, if anyone had indeed been serious about emphasizing what has, from the time of our Founding, made America unique among nations, then Congress would have changed the Pledge to say, "one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all - regardless of belief".
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." When Congress does exactly that, as it did in 1954 with the sectarian bill that added "under God" to the Pledge and the national motto to money, it is nothing more than strict interpretation of the Constitution that says the courts must then declare it void. That is their job description. Nothing activist about it. No personal belief involved. On the contrary, if Congress paid more attention to the Constitution (as should the people who elect the members), judges wouldn't have the nearly workload in rulings over unconstitutional laws and practices.
How about we use some of this patriotic energy of ours to roll the Pledge language back to it's original form so as to enable more patriotic American children to affirm our national unity, which is it's intention.
It is no surprise that adding "under God" to the Pledge makes a joke of the word, "indivisible", by explicitly dividing the country and classroom, visibily, along lines of religious belief. You want to make yourself feel better about that by trying hide the division by making the abstaining kids stand and blend in?
For many Americans, religious promotion seem to be more important than their patriotism. This, even though it is the Constitution which, in protecting religions from government intrusion in the first place, continues to enable the practice of all faiths. There should be no question in any American's mind which must come first.
That any American can believe that the majority is entitled to ride rough shod over the rights of the minority shows the failure of our educational system to teach constitutional government and to teach the history of civil rights in this country. The Founders Fathers considerable experience with religion and government previous to 1787 led them to mistrust and to separate the two. At least, to the extent that you cannot expose children in public school to a declaration of faith, or promote one sect's religion over others on public property.
The only error that failed and tyrannical governments have had in common is not atheism - for surely over 1,000 years of brutal and undemocratic theocracies, throughout the world, today and in the past, stand testament to that - rather it is that these governments have not been Republics dedicated to guard and protect the personal liberties of it's citizens, equally, against the dogma of either the state or of a repressive majority (what the Founders called "mob-ocracy"). That any American can claim to be a friend of religion and not loudly rally behind every every effort to defend the liberal, pluralistic principles upon which our republic was founded is unimaginable.
hifi -
Our Founding Fathers get plenty of exercise turning over in their graves when revisionists, such as yourself, take history, hold it to the light and twist it in order that it satisfies your needs.
To begin with, an argument that religion, for better or worse, did not play a part in the founding of our country is just foolish. No more appropriate description comes to mind. One may attempt to cull out anecdotes in order to make the case, but there is a glaring document called the Declaration of Independence that obliterates that conjecture.
In the introductory passage below note the capital "G" in "God" and the capital "C" in "Creator" -
"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Therefore, your argument on that point has no basis in fact from the outset.
It is true that Madison did write about his concerns regarding an establishment of religion in the Virginia colony. However, his worry was that such an establishment would amount to an exclusion of all but one religion, that religion being, the Anglican Church, as had been the case in England. You take Madison's objection to the establishment of a State religion and put words in his mouth in order that he appear to be a secular puppet so that you can pull his strings to serve your needs.
Again, the argument you attempt to make is wrong. Thomas Jefferson whose beliefs on religion are often self-servingly mischaracterized, wrote the passage regarding the individual possessing certain "unalienable rights" endowed by their Creator and those rights were the basis of many of the tenets of the Bill of Rights. Don't believe me? Ask the ACLU.
I don't care what you believe should be the current interpretation of the Constitution, however, don't rewrite history. You can't further a strict construction view of the Constitution and then remanufacture that construction. Further, should I assume that, although your facts are incorrect, your conviction to strict constructionism also makes you an ardent protector of the 2nd amendment? Or do you have some anecdotal evidence that "they may have said 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed'....but what the Founding Fathers really meant was....."
As for "under God", I would invoke the retort "suck it", however I will provide comment. I am assuming you are speaking for the small percentage of actual athiests that claim that such a term is offensive.
Athiesm and secularism, themselves, are religions and the abdication of any acknowledgement of any higher power(s) or force(s) to appease some quasi-intellect who is no better than the worst fundamentalist and who has come to the conclusion that they have solved all of life's mysteries and that they are "as good as it gets" is establishing a State religion.
The term "under God" covers everyone, the Judeo-Christian, the Pagan, the Muslim, etc., by stating that we are a humble nation that knows that we are mortal, human and fallable and there are those things that are beyond our control. To believe otherwise, would be tanamount to saying that we, as a country, are "as good as it gets" and that there is no more powerful force, natural or unnatural than us. It has different meanings to everyone, but there is one area where there is agreement - we are a small, most times powerless, ragtag group in an otherwise large and expansive universe.
Rewind your "Way Back Machine", Mr. Peabody and remove such ballast of humility and higher purpose and those episodes where we didn't live up to that commitment would have been longer and more painful and I doubt very seriously that this union would have made it past the War of 1812.
As far as whether a teacher can require a student to stand. Again, you are wrong. I'm certain your referring to an opinion/threat rendered by the ACLU. That opinion takes swatches of other Court rulings and sews together a introductory salvo to those they deem are "offending" school." True the courts have ruled you cannot compel a student to recite the pledge and the student must be able to opt-out.
However, in Florida, while our law does give the opt-out to a student from reciting the pledge, F.S. 1003.44, the request must be done in writing and must be done by the requesting student's parents. Further, the law does not require that a teacher be required to allow a student to sit silently in the classroom, therefore, they are within the law to request a student to leave the room. Don't like the law? You'd have to sue the State on the grounds that you feel it is unconsitutional. Of course you would have to have a test case with a student that has standing as an affected party, but you can't sue the school system for abiding by that law. Therefore, don't tell a teacher they can't do something, when the current law provides that they can.
From the story, I saw no indication that the student's parents had made such a formal request so I can only assume that the student just, "didn't feel like it." If that were the case, she can require him to stand until he follows the law which allows him to opt-out.
Post a Comment
<< Home