More on the Texas student suspended for not standing for the Pledge

posted at 5:31 pm on May 10, 2014 by Jazz Shaw

In this week’s edition of why you should never hire Jazz as your personal attorney, we follow up on what Erika had to say about this story yesterday and find a different take on the case, brought to us from Outside the Beltway. It involved a student in Texas who received an in-school suspension (ISS) for refusing to participate in the saying of the Pledge of Allegiance at school.

A short refresher:

Mason Michalec says he loves his country but just not the government.

“I’m really tired of our government taking advantage of us,” said Michalec. “I don’t agree with the NSA spying on us. And I don’t agree with any of those Internet laws.”

That’s why he’s taken a pledge of sorts to not say the Pledge of Allegiance with classmates.

“I’ve basically said it from the time I was in kindergarten to earlier this year and that’s when I decided I was done saying it.”

For the most this year, his silent protest has gone unnoticed. But on Wednesday, when a different teacher observed it for the very first time, the Needville High School sophomore ran into trouble.

“And she told me this is my classroom,” said Michalec. “This is the principal’s request. You’re going to stand. And I still didn’t stand and she said she was going to write me up.”

Michalec says the principal sentenced him to two days of in school suspension, and warned that he could face more ISS if his protest continued.

It’s a consequence the 15-year-old seems prepared to face.

In his usual lawyerly fashion, Doug Maticonis explains why this is an open and shut case, and the student is within his rights.

The legal issues here couldn’t possibly be more clear, as a matter of fact, and stretch back 71 years to a Supreme Court decision that has served as the basis for most modern First Amendment law. In that case, West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, the Supreme Court dealt with sisters who were expelled from school for refusing to comply with a state law that required all students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance each day. In a 6-3 opinion, the Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional and that no student could be forced to recite the Pledge:

Before we get to the particulars of Doug’s response, I’d like to pause for a moment for a private word with young Mason Michalec. Look, Mason, there’s a lot of things I don’t care for which go on on the country myself. Of course, there’s a lot more that I treasure. The things I don’t like, I work to change as best I can within the confines of the law. But through it all, I don’t lose sight of the fact that this is our country, and for all of its warts and blemishes, it’s still the best one on the planet. Try to keep hold of that, son, no matter what your parents are pushing this week.

Now, moving on to the business at hand, I suppose I’ll pause for a moment here to give a nod to Doug’s legal acumen. I have zero doubt that he’s correct about the conclusions which have been drawn by a gaggle of lawyers and a cohort of old men in robes. But this is yet another case where I have to look at the US judicial system, scratch my head, and ask.. why?

We limit the constitutional rights of children all the time, and judging by other cases which Doug and I have argued in the past, I believe he knows that as well. We don’t let children vote to elect our representatives. We limit their access to potentially dangerous substances and activities. They generally can’t even get a tattoo or have an aspirin issued to them in school without an adult’s supervision and consent. Why?

Because they are children.

While they are still in their formative years we have a communal responsibility to at least try to instill some good values in them before we send them out into the crazy, cold, cruel world. This should ideally be done at home, but in many cases that ship has long since sailed. If prevailing community standards dictate, however, that they say the Pledge and be reminded of their obligation to the nation which provides them all of this freedom while still in school, that’s hardly a case of crushing their liberty. Doug himself cites a case where the courts allowed that schools could squash their freedom of the press in a school paper. That sounds like a pretty big freedom to be taking away if you ask me. But we do it because children need all the guidance they can get before setting out on the stormy seas of life.

Once you become an adult, you have all the freedom to trash the country that you like. Join a commune. Burn the flag. Vote for Bernie Sanders. Hook up with the Occupy movement and defecate on a police car. Have a party. We’ll have to put up with it… within reason. But during your formative years, at least give us a chance to set you on a path that could lead to something productive. The courts also recognize the overarching responsibility and need for the society to protect its own future, first and foremost with molding the minds of those who are still too young to take on such responsibilities.

I think an exception could be made in the courts for allowing mandatory recital of the Pledge. But apparently I’m a relic of history.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Wrong. They are not coerced to go to public school. They can attend a private school and/or homeschool. You are not a victim if you send your kid to public school. You’ve made a choice. Deal with it.

You made this argument last night and I’ll just rebuke it here. Yes, legally you have choices as a parent where to send your kid (for now, see the various challenges to home schooling). Yet, it will cost you extra if you go any other route than the monopolistic government run “public” schools. Which are usually funded by property taxes (which means no one really owns land where that occurs). So yes, you are coerced to fund those schools and since many do not have the cash to send their kids to private schools on top of paying those property taxes, they send their kids to public school. They’ve made a choice after having the force of the state putting a literal gun to their heads (local swat teams available on request of local/state treasury depts.) via taxes, taxes for a service they don’t want and/or need.

Sounds a lot like the current healthcare debate with “affordable” Obamacare.

oryguncon on May 11, 2014 at 12:33 PM

Bah, didn’t get the time stamp, previous post was a response to one of xNavigator’s posts.

oryguncon on May 11, 2014 at 12:34 PM

The pledge is to the Republic. Even if you assume the Republic is completely dead and has been replaced by the monster parasite (the federal bureaucracy) that grew upon it, that does not mean the pledge transfers to that parasite.

fadetogray on May 11, 2014 at 11:52 AM

I might add, based on this short history of the Pledge of Alligeance here is Francis Bellamy’s (a Christian socialist) commentary:

The Pledge of Allegiance A Short History

The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the ‘republic for which it stands.’ …And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation – the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. And its future?

The idea of “One Nation” is the basis to consolidate all political power into the Federal government. “One Nation” is the antithesis of what the Founders intended. “One Nation” means that we (Southerners) are stuck in a political union with people from California, New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Vermont, Western Washington, whom we share very little with, who imposes their big government programs, socialism, Obamacare (soon to be single payer) against our will.

antifederalist on May 11, 2014 at 12:42 PM

In the first day a college class after looking at the roster, the professor announced, “I all of your social security numbers.”

To which I replied, “Who doesn’t?”

davidk on May 11, 2014 at 12:26 PM

Yeah, when I worked in the Student Loan dept of a bank back in the day I could access all sorts of personal info if I were of a mind to. With the internet privacy has really gone out the window. Even if folks don’t do the online thing at all you can still get their info for free or little cost from the info brokers. Sites like this one -

http://www.advancedbackgroundchecks.com

have POed a lot of people, mostly women who have to deal with abusive ex’s and/or stalkers who have dug up their addresses & phone numbers (even unlisted ones).

whatcat on May 11, 2014 at 12:58 PM

I might add, based on this short history of the Pledge of Alligeance here is Francis Bellamy’s (a Christian socialist) commentary: ………………

antifederalist on May 11, 2014 at 12:42 PM

Socialist? I wouldn’t take their drivel seriously.

However, I recognize the internal problems with the part of the pledge after “and to the Republic for which it stands.” That’s why I don’t say it.

BTW, I agree with you completely that the nation is too big and that it should be split up. The original reason for the states and regions becoming one nation is long past, and we are just too damned big and diverse to maintain it as a democratic republic.

It is much too easy for demagogues to divide us. We have fallen into an open struggle for spoils.

fadetogray on May 11, 2014 at 1:04 PM

“But through it all, I don’t lose sight of the fact that this is our country, and for all of its warts and blemishes, it’s still the best one on the planet. Try to keep hold of that, son, no matter what your parents are pushing this week.”

So, how’s the weather, back there in 1964? You gonna vote for Goldwater? Last chance!

Cation on May 11, 2014 at 1:12 PM

With the internet privacy has really gone out the window.

whatcat on May 11, 2014 at 12:58 PM

No kidding. A patient looked up my home phone on the Internet and called me at home over the weekend because she had a question. I informed her in a nice way that it was not appropriate when the office was closed (we do have a separate emergency number). Her defense was, “Well, then, don’t put your information out there on the Internet.” Sigh… I think it was wasted on her that she could have used the same Internet to answer her very basic question.

Back on topic: While I sympathize with his sentiments, I think this student should stand and not recite or leave the classroom. He will still be making a statement either way. In the working world, you don’t get to keep your job long if you’re deliberately disruptive. Part of growing up is learning that we don’t always get to say what we want or do what we want, even when it’s important to us. You have to pick your battles.

inmypajamas on May 11, 2014 at 1:28 PM

The rights that you expressed above are your God given liberties. Neither “America” or the US government gave you those rights. Therefore, the only pledges of allegiance you should state should be to God and not “America.”
antifederalist on May 11, 2014 at 10:10 AM

What makes the USA unique in this regard is that it was the first country to exist that formally (and correctly) recognized the source of those rights.

anuts on May 11, 2014 at 1:45 PM

What makes the USA unique in this regard is that it was the first country to exist that formally (and correctly) recognized the source of those rights.
anuts on May 11, 2014 at 1:45 PM

That may have been the case a century ago but not today. The government no longer recognizes our rights. The only “right” we have today is to Submit and Obey

antifederalist on May 11, 2014 at 1:56 PM

If you think sitting down during the Pledge, and disrupting the classroom environment for the purposes of an attention-seeking protest, is “doing something,” you have a very LOW bar for action in life.

xNavigator on May 11, 2014 at 9:46 AM

(In my best Ronald Reagan voice) Well, there you go again.

He wasn’t disrupting and you are the one making it into an attention-seeking protest, as are those who are singling him out and making an issue of it. He was respectful and quietly minding his own business.

As for his “action” being low bar. It beats what YOU’RE doing about the problem, isn’t it?

Cleombrotus on May 11, 2014 at 2:01 PM

moar Jazz fascism trolling. Damn I really gotta start checking the bylines on this site before I start reading the post…

thirtyandseven on May 11, 2014 at 2:05 PM

what a delicious bit of conservative talking point imbroglio.

in the Red Corner, we have:

- liberty and freedom!
- public schools are bastions of lefty propoganda!
- protesting against tyranny is laudable!
- american gov’t is corrupt and not deserving of loyalty!

and in the Red Corner, we have:

- patriotism and duty!
- kids today are ingrates that need discipline!
- protesting is liberal showboating!
- loyalty to the constitution is the highest ideal!

WHICH TALKING POINTS WILL WIN OUT IN THE END!?!?!

WILL CONSERVATIVES MINDS ALL EXPLODE SIMULTANEOUSLY!?!!?

STAY TUNED!

everdiso on May 11, 2014 at 2:07 PM

This is unbelievably morally bankrupt thinking by Jazz.

What we have here is far from trying to teach an impressionable and naughty child “thou shalt not steal.” Instead it is asking for a highly specific recitation of an internal conviction, one which this student cannot claim and indeed disavows for specific reasons which he clearly elucidates.

As an atheist I admit I find the whole concept of a “pledge” somewhat absurd, but putting myself in the shoes of someone who cares about these things I think I would find compulsory “pledge-saying” as undermining of the whole concept.

Putting a gun to the head of a 15 year old and forcing him to repeat a State Approved Mantra is repugnantly anti-liberal (in the classical sense of the word).

jordan on May 11, 2014 at 2:36 PM

I guess Rosa shouldn’t have sat down.

She would have been more respectful and less disruptive had she remained standing.

davidk on May 11, 2014 at 2:57 PM

If somebody wants to do that, they can. I’m not sure why you interpreted my comment as an endorsement for all people to act a certain way. I’m simply saying this kid has a right not to stand during the pledge. And the government has no right to force him to stand and recite a loyalty oath. It’s not like the kid is plotting treason. Relax.

I’ve leave to others to decide was “conservatism” is for them. For me, not blindly trusting the government is pretty high on my list.

hamiltmc on May 11, 2014 at 9:07 AM

No, I do get what you’re saying. I just don’t agree. Maybe it’s the slippery slope thing?

I’m betting that those people from our embassy who were finally released by the Iranian government, servicemen returning from years in foreign POW camps, and those from long service in Vietnam, and the Pacific, and Europe and so on were damn glad to see that Flag flying over American territory once again. I bet it never looked so bright and colorful to them.

They sacrificed much of their time and their very being for us, and that flag represents that to a large extent. And I don’t think a snot-nosed brat should be able to basically spit on that flag because he has some kind of axe to grind.

As far as I’m concerned, as long as this young man is enrolled in school, he needs to ask “how high?” when asked to jump. At that point where he is legally an adult and doesn’t want to be “pushed around” anymore, he’s free to walk and choose his own course in life.

And what makes anyone think that in the real world there aren’t repercussions for one’s actions? How well is it going to go for this Super Patriot when he refuses to stand when the judge enters the courtroom, or he tells a police officer to F off, or he tells his boss or his sergeant or petty officer what he will and won’t do?

We had a saying during military training: “Cooperate and graduate”. Keep your mouth shut and do what you’re told. When you’re done with your service you can grow your hair long, have a beard, whatever…but for X amount of time your a– is theirs.

I don’t “blindly trust” the government…I blindly believe in America’s founding principles and that the Flag represents what is best about our Republic. I can distinguish between the two, but I’m not so sure this kid (and it would seem many adults) can.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 11, 2014 at 2:58 PM

He wasn’t disrupting…

Cleombrotus on May 11, 2014 at 2:01 PM

Not in my class he wouldn’t be! He would be outside of my classroom, enjoying the wide open spaces of [somewhere else] during his brave, conscientious ‘stance’ while sitting, lol.

Try again!

WHICH TALKING POINTS WILL WIN OUT IN THE END!?!?!

everdiso on May 11, 2014 at 2:07 PM

That’s what I’m wondering with Boko Haram and the unbelievably pathetic image of the WIFE OF THE PRESIDENT pouting over a sign begging for the return of the kidnapped girls, as if she had no access to the one man with the power to actually do something about it! Pathetic.

Which way will liberals go? Do you continue to favor the ‘victimized’ (the progressive view of terrorists) kidnappers, who are card-carrying members of your most-favored-religious-victims’-group, or the girls they’ve kidnapped and sold into slavery? Will you actually DO SOMETHING other than POUT on camera in a pathetic social media campaign, as if armed thugs will respond to idiotic Twitter-speak?

Bunch of pathetic losers, you progressives are! LOL at Obama’s emasculated foreign policy. If the biggest problem conservatives have is arguing over free speech, while we watch progressives do nothing while the world goes to hell on their watch, then I’ll take the conservative ‘controversy’ any day.

Buffoon.

xNavigator on May 11, 2014 at 3:01 PM

you know that the US has already sent a team over to help Nigeria find the girls, right?

everdiso on May 11, 2014 at 3:02 PM

you know that the US has already sent a team over to help Nigeria find the girls, right?

everdiso on May 11, 2014 at 3:02 PM

I’m sure Michelle’s pouting hashtag buffoonery was a big part of that! /s

Get back when Obama’s got something concrete to show for this grand effort, and when you guys have figured out which war you’re more concerned about…the war on classically liberal values waged by militant fascistic Islam, or the war on women who have to pay a few bucks for contraceptives over the counter.

:rolling eyes:

xNavigator on May 11, 2014 at 3:14 PM

Do you think the first lady should say nothing then?

That nobody should talk about it at all?

or are only conservatives allowed to mention it?

everdiso on May 11, 2014 at 3:17 PM

In 1969 the issue was the length of a boy’s hair.

“That g*n punk wouldn’t be in my classroom. That f@g would be outside where he wouldn’t disrupt my classroom. If he was my kid, I’d personally shave his g*n head!”

And that’s the way it was.

davidk on May 11, 2014 at 3:19 PM

I don’t think Jazz understands the pledge.

That – or he’ll be pretty flippant about breaking it when he finally realizes he lives in a police state.

“It’s the best nation on the planet” … Oh well then – when the US is gone and CHINA is the best on the planet – I suppose that will be a good excuse to pledge undying loyalty to the hammer and sickle?

The pledge assumes that the US government will be perpetually good. This is naive and … OF COURSE … it will have to be overthrown one day.

So why the pledge?

You want a pledge – pledge to IDEALS … not a piece of cloth and government.

HondaV65 on May 11, 2014 at 3:28 PM

Do you think the first lady should say nothing then?

That nobody should talk about it at all?

or are only conservatives allowed to mention it?

everdiso on May 11, 2014 at 3:17 PM

:facefullofpalm:

Talk, talk, talk. That’s all this president and progressives want to do. TALK TALK TALK. Shut up and do something useful. The First Lady is MARRIED TO THE PRESIDENT. Those girls in Nigeria don’t need an ever-loving hashtag campaign of impotence, they need help, and the U.S. is one of a small group of nations capable of providing it. She is MARRIED TO THE PRESIDENT. We don’t need her public expression of lame-arse sorrow over the kidnapping of those kids. She should get up in Obama’s ear and let him have it to DO SOMETHING. Pouting on camera is so pathetic it barely deserves notice.

Of course, action would be too difficult for progressives, who are torn between their desire to be seen as empathetic (talk, talk, talk) and their desire to DO NOTHING, between the terrible war on Islam (those poor Boko Haram members are victims of the terrible West!) that the West is waging and the war on Women that conservatives are waging (oh noz, you may need to buy your own pill for a few bucks a month!).

Give us all a break. They’re pathetic. You’re pathetic.

xNavigator on May 11, 2014 at 3:33 PM

I guess Rosa shouldn’t have sat down.

She would have been more respectful and less disruptive had she remained standing.

davidk on May 11, 2014 at 2:57 PM

Yes, because the indignity of having to say the Pledge and a lifetime of discrimination though segregation laws are so much on the same par.

Good grief.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 11, 2014 at 3:35 PM

Oh well then –

when

the US is gone and CHINA is the best on the planet – I suppose that will be a good excuse to pledge undying loyalty to the hammer and sickle?

The pledge assumes that the US government will be perpetually good. This is naive and … OF COURSE … it will have to be overthrown one day.

So why the pledge?

You want a pledge – pledge to IDEALS … not a piece of cloth and government.

HondaV65 on May 11, 2014 at 3:28 PM

The key word here is “when.” The/these USoA is still the best country in the world.

If you would like I’ll buy you a one-way ticket to Chine and you can be there for the grand opening for when it becomes the greatest nation in the world.

But get a clue. It won’t happen in your lifetime.

The Pledge of Allegiance assume nothing odf the sort. That is why we have the 2bd Amendment.

You are so dense that you cannot seer that the flag represents those ideals. Ideals which you openly scorn.

davidk on May 11, 2014 at 3:36 PM

I don’t think Jazz understands the pledge.

That – or he’ll be pretty flippant about breaking it when he finally realizes he lives in a police state.

“It’s the best nation on the planet” … Oh well then – when the US is gone and CHINA is the best on the planet – I suppose that will be a good excuse to pledge undying loyalty to the hammer and sickle?

The pledge assumes that the US government will be perpetually good. This is naive and … OF COURSE … it will have to be overthrown one day.

So why the pledge?

You want a pledge – pledge to IDEALS … not a piece of cloth and government.

HondaV65 on May 11, 2014 at 3:28 PM

The pledge is a pledge to IDEALs…a pledge that as a Citizen we will do our best to uphold the values put forth by our Founding Fathers, and that “piece of cloth” is a symbol of those ideals as realized in our Republic…don’t confuse “government” with those ideals please.

Man, this is starting to sound like a communion transubstantiation argument between Protestants and Catholics! LOL

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 11, 2014 at 3:39 PM

Yes, because the indignity of having to say the Pledge and a lifetime of discrimination though segregation laws are so much on the same par.

Good grief.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 11, 2014 at 3:35 PM

I would expected someone to come up with the false equivalency charge, but I didn’t think it would be you.

The Flag of the United States of America represents all those values we hold dear.

Those of you who cannot see that are missing the point big time.

“Oh, say, does that Star Spangled Banner yet wave;
O’er the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave?”

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Saying the Pledge of Allegiance is more than a trite cliche.

Many have paid the ultimate price for our freedoms. And that includes the freedom to protest those very freedoms.

davidk on May 11, 2014 at 3:44 PM

The right to refuse to say, not to stand, was bought with blood.

davidk on May 11, 2014 at 3:46 PM

not to say

davidk on May 11, 2014 at 3:46 PM

If school administrators and/or faculty were obligated to provide venue for all, each, and every children to air their grievances how much work do you suppose would get done?

anuts on May 11, 2014 at 3:50 PM

:facefullofpalm:

Talk, talk, talk. That’s all this president and progressives want to do. TALK TALK TALK. Shut up and do something useful. The First Lady is MARRIED TO THE PRESIDENT. Those girls in Nigeria don’t need an ever-loving hashtag campaign of impotence, they need help, and the U.S. is one of a small group of nations capable of providing it. She is MARRIED TO THE PRESIDENT. We don’t need her public expression of lame-arse sorrow over the kidnapping of those kids. She should get up in Obama’s ear and let him have it to DO SOMETHING. Pouting on camera is so pathetic it barely deserves notice.

Of course, action would be too difficult for progressives, who are torn between their desire to be seen as empathetic (talk, talk, talk) and their desire to DO NOTHING, between the terrible war on Islam (those poor Boko Haram members are victims of the terrible West!) that the West is waging and the war on Women that conservatives are waging (oh noz, you may need to buy your own pill for a few bucks a month!).

Give us all a break. They’re pathetic. You’re pathetic.

xNavigator on May 11, 2014 at 3:33 PM

Her husband immediately requested permission and sent a team to help Nigeria find the girls, Michelle immediately took to raising awareness on the internet.

what exactly is the problem here?

everdiso on May 11, 2014 at 3:51 PM

davidk on May 11, 2014 at 3:44 PM

No, I don’t believe it’s false equivalency. In one case we’re talking about an adult woman facing unfair treatment at the hands of a state government (and a Federal government not willing to do anything about it) and a teenager in a public school. They’re just not in the same league.

I agree with everything else you’re saying, but believe that until you have achieved the independence and responsibilities of adulthood, there are certain things that you have to go along with. I don’t think that’s beyond the pale.

If Rosa didn’t want to say the Pledge, and she laid out her reasons why, then I could accept that, and probably wouldn’t blame her.

I fail to see how this kid in a high school is somehow being oppressed by being required to say the Pledge of Allegiance.

Guess much of it comes down to how much freedom we think we should have in this society-but the age thing certainly muddles that argument. At what age do you acquire certain rights but not have others? There is no hard and fast rule on that.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 11, 2014 at 3:53 PM

If school administrators and/or faculty were obligated to provide venue for all, each, and every children to air their grievances how much work do you suppose would get done?
anuts on May 11, 2014 at 3:50 PM

Addendum:

And how much abuse would children take advantage of this “venue” just to get out of boring lessons and such?

Do we prefer schools to be education centers or “grievance podiums”?

anuts on May 11, 2014 at 3:56 PM

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 11, 2014 at 3:53 PM

No, it isn’t a black person who was/is facing years of oppression.

It’s just a kid. Who the hell cares. It’s just his First Amendment Rights, unalienable rights given by God.

Next week they will be telling him what to eat. Oh, wait.

Like I posted earlier, in 1969 it was the length of a boy’s hair. The man for whom I was working said, “A thirteen year old boy is not old enough to decide how to wear his hair.” It wasn’t the parents; it was the school.

Teachers are taking away students’ Bibles, telling them they can’t read them during the free reading period.

Schools are telling kids they can’t pray before their meals.

Where do we draw the line? From all i can discern the kid was quietly sitting, not saying anything. Sounds like the teacher and the school are the disruptive ones.

“All in all, you’re just another brick in the wall.”

This is just one brick. Then another. Then another.

The child has a right not to stand and not to say the Pledge.

davidk on May 11, 2014 at 4:07 PM

anuts on May 11, 2014 at 3:56 PM

He did not seek out a special venue.

He sat quietly in the classroom while others recited the Pledge.

davidk on May 11, 2014 at 4:11 PM

WHICH TALKING POINTS WILL WIN OUT IN THE END!?!?!

WILL CONSERVATIVES MINDS ALL EXPLODE SIMULTANEOUSLY!?!!?

STAY TUNED!

everdiso on May 11, 2014 at 2:07 PM

It’s called diversity of thought.

I can only guess that in your book we’re all wrong, because there shouldn’t be a United States of America in the first place, but for the time being there is, so you’ll just have to deal with that.

Also, we aren’t given talking points. Unfortunately, we outside of the Leftist sphere have to come up with our own as individuals. Again, I suspect you don’t like that, but please just bear with us.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 11, 2014 at 4:11 PM

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 11, 2014 at 4:11 PM

His kind can’t understand that two people can take polar positions and still be on the same side.

davidk on May 11, 2014 at 4:14 PM

The child has a right not to stand and not to say the Pledge.
davidk on May 11, 2014 at 4:07 PM

And his rights weren’t violated under Amendment I. He was not arrested, fined, or jailed. There is no state or federal law mandating him recite any pledge.

anuts on May 11, 2014 at 4:15 PM

He sat quietly in the classroom while others recited the Pledge.
davidk on May 11, 2014 at 4:11 PM

Yes he did. And the faculty and administrator(s) felt his sitting down was disruptive.

anuts on May 11, 2014 at 4:17 PM

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 11, 2014 at 4:11 PM

Good call. It seems the only heads that will explode are those that cannot escape from group think.

anuts on May 11, 2014 at 4:20 PM

At 15, you’re old enough to decide if you want to stand for a pro forma prayer to the state.

I support the student’s right to sit this one out.

GEAH on May 11, 2014 at 4:20 PM

…They sacrificed much of their time and their very being for us, and that flag represents that to a large extent. And I don’t think a snot-nosed brat should be able to basically spit on that flag because he has some kind of axe to grind.

As far as I’m concerned, as long as this young man is enrolled in school, he needs to ask “how high?” when asked to jump. At that point where he is legally an adult and doesn’t want to be “pushed around” anymore, he’s free to walk and choose his own course in life…

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 11, 2014

Well, a public school is not the military and this young man is free to not respect the flag right now, if that is what he chooses.

I doubt he sees his action as disrespecting the sacrifices of those who have served this country. That’s because the flag is a symbol, and to him, it’s apparently a symbol of tyranny that he does not wish to endorse.

Most likely, this is a typical know-it-all kid flattering himself as some sort of rebel. But regardless, his action is protected by the First Amendment.

You cannot be compelled to give a loyalty oath to the country as a condition of attending a public school any more than you can be compelled to participate in prayer. That might not be the America you want to live in, but it’s the America you do live in.

I don’t approve of this kid’s behavior, but I approve even less of giving a government school the power to compel compliance. These are the same schools with teachers teaching grade schoolers songs praising Obama, suspending kids for wearing NRA t-shirts and working in all sorts of left-wing propaganda into the lesson plan across the USA. I’m not real comfortable giving these government employees further power over children in situations that do not involve actual disciplinary issues regarding safety and learning in the classroom.

hamiltmc on May 11, 2014 at 4:20 PM

Her husband immediately requested permission and sent a team to help Nigeria find the girls

everdiso on May 11, 2014 at 3:51 PM

I’m sure he’s doing all that can be TALKED about, like a good progressive. Talk, talk, talk.

That’s the problem. Take a look around the world, if you can spare your head from your porthole for a while. The U.S. is in retreat all around the globe, under your fella’s TALK, allowing chaos to move into the vacuum.

I’m sure he’ll be remembered fondly by history for his teleprompter and hashtag campaigns, however.

xNavigator on May 11, 2014 at 4:31 PM

I don’t approve of this kid’s behavior, but I approve even less of giving a government school the power to compel compliance.

hamiltmc on May 11, 2014 at 4:20 PM

Newsflash: When you send your kid(s) into the care of other adults, you give those adults authority over your kid(s) (whether it’s child care, private school, public school, summer camp, etc.). If you’re uncomfortable with allowing your local teacher the authority to require your kid to sit or stand in class, I shudder at what you might think of a homework assignment requiring reading or writing.

That this is a complex issue for some is hilariously sad.

xNavigator on May 11, 2014 at 4:34 PM

davidk on May 11, 2014 at 4:07 PM

OK, but as you pointed out, Rosa Parks “quietly sitting” was disruptive on an international scale…so a kid “quietly sitting” during the pledge cannot be disruptive? I don’t think that’s logical. You can’t have it both ways, that is, civil disobedience is disruptive for good, but is not disruptive for good, but in a different setting…?

As for the Bible issues, I agree that those are ridiculous. But let’s look at that for a moment.

What if a kid was reading a Play-oy magazine and wasn’t bothering anyone…should that be allowed? Or watching porn on his or her smart phone? Some would say that argument is allowable because there is pornography in the Bible, that is, sexual references. We’ve seen books being banned because of their content in school systems, and teachers getting in trouble for what they require their students to read or watch on video…some parents have no problem, others do.

There is no winning in these arguments. There is no Ultimate Compromise or Solution handed down to us from King Solomon.

If we no longer believe in our country then I’m sure that there are others out there who are only too happy to remake it in their image. And I doubt they’re the kinds who will tolerate any dissension whatsoever.

The Pledge isn’t an oath of fealty to some feudal lord, oligarchy, Fuhrer or whatever, but a reaffirmation of our beliefs concerning the very meaning of the founding of our Republic.

Of course, if the Republic is indeed decaying (as I think it is…and no, not just because of Obama) then I suppose this argument is rather meaningless…but it passes the time.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 11, 2014 at 4:45 PM

Newsflash: When you send your kid(s) into the care of other adults, you give those adults authority over your kid(s) (whether it’s child care, private school, public school, summer camp, etc.). If you’re uncomfortable with allowing your local teacher the authority to require your kid to sit or stand in class, I shudder at what you might think of a homework assignment requiring reading or writing.

That this is a complex issue for some is hilariously sad.

xNavigator on May 11, 2014 at 4:34 PM

OK, but be careful what you ask for

Judge orders ‘gay’ agenda taught to Christian children

So be sure to never complain about public schools being liberal indoctrination centers. Because, as you said, when you send your kids into the care of other adults, you give those adults authority over your kids.

antifederalist on May 11, 2014 at 4:50 PM

hamiltmc on May 11, 2014 at 4:20 PM

Oh, so as adults we can be compelled to do many things, but kids shouldn’t be compelled to do anything? I guess there is a point there-that the youth of America have more rights and freedoms than we adults. Hope they enjoy it while they can…and from what I’ve seen, they do, and they expect the party to continue for the rest of their lives.

Somehow I don’t think this young man would get as much support around here if this were, say, 1985 and Ronald Regan was president, or if he did this on September 12th, 2001.

If we had the “right” kind of government I don’t think you all would be taking this kid’s side on this issue.

But, again, it’s not about the government, it’s about our principles as a nation. You can’t take part in tearing down the very ideals that protect your freedom to do so in the first place, and still expect those same freedoms to be there when you’re done destroying that very same system.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 11, 2014 at 5:01 PM

So be sure to never complain about public schools being liberal indoctrination centers. Because, as you said, when you send your kids into the care of other adults, you give those adults authority over your kids.

antifederalist on May 11, 2014 at 4:50 PM

Good point. But would “conservative indoctrination centers” be any better? Guess we here would think so, because conservatism is based upon common sense and what works in the real world, rather than theory. However, the Leftists aren’t going away, and they would think that to be unfair, oppressive indoctrination of their progeny at the hands of the State.

The best form of subversive indoctrination is merely to require nothing of our youth. We get that from both the Right and the Left. If kids can’t read, don’t know their times tables, don’t know basic history and geography, etc., they are more easily controlled. The Right’s hand in this has been due to their overwhelming rejection of formal education and real learning…learning a trade, making money and so on is more important than being a truly educated, culturally-enriched person. “They don’t need to know that!” “That isn’t practical!” “Why know something you can look up in a book?”

The Left feels that rote memorization is evil, that the solutions to math problems are relative, and how you feel about things are more important. “Being socially aware and having an opinion about things are important.” “Why know something you can look up in a book?”

Both sides have felt that “they’re just kids” and we really shouldn’t expect too much of them. Garbage in, garbage out.

Ultimately this system has completely and utterly failed…most of us just haven’t fully admitted that to ourselves yet.

Our Constitutional system of checks and balances have failed. Our free enterprise system has failed. There is too much division, greed (not the good kind where you believe in working harder, smarter and beating the competition) and ignorance for this country to keep working much longer. It will be replaced by Socialism, then good luck having these arguments in the light of day. And you WILL do what the State dictates…or else.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 11, 2014 at 5:23 PM

So be sure to never complain about public schools being liberal indoctrination centers.

If you do not approve of your local public school’s curriculum, and I certainly would not in either Massachusetts, California, or a bunch of other blue states, you have a responsibility as a parent to find another venue for your child. If you don’t, you do indeed become complicit in the agenda you turn them over to. It is your responsibility as a parent. If you’re truly a conservative, you see your children as your responsibility, not the state’s, so complaining that the state’s provision for your kids isn’t to your liking is, shall we say, hypocritical. Go elsewhere (my wife and I did!).

This is not a problem in most public schools in my area, as I live in an area which is very conservative and right-to-work. The biggest problem in my local school, frankly, isn’t the curriculum or the staff, it’s the percentage of the student population who are just useless future criminals. Any school will have a slice of the demographic pie with those in it. You can’t get rid of them until after they’ve done their damage. Public schools take all comers, for good or ill.

Because, as you said, when you send your kids into the care of other adults, you give those adults authority over your kids.

antifederalist on May 11, 2014 at 4:50 PM

That’s reality. There are other options, so choose wisely. My wife and I did for our kids. Are you upset that the state won’t take care of your kids in the way you want them to? Your kids are yours and your responsibility, not the state’s, right?

xNavigator on May 11, 2014 at 5:39 PM

Newsflash: When you send your kid(s) into the care of other adults, you give those adults authority over your kid(s) (whether it’s child care, private school, public school, summer camp, etc.). If you’re uncomfortable with allowing your local teacher the authority to require your kid to sit or stand in class, I shudder at what you might think of a homework assignment requiring reading or writing.

That this is a complex issue for some is hilariously sad.

It seems to be a complex issue for you since the kid had a legal right not to pledge allegiance and you can’t seem to accept that fact.

And as another matter of fact, when your kid goes to a public school (mine won’t) you do not hand them over carte blanche to government authority to punish them for failing to do things they are not legally required to do – at least not yet.

hamiltmc on May 11, 2014 at 6:01 PM

Blind allegiance to anything: country, god, or whathave you is not helpful.

This country does not GIVE people rights. People own those rights. Take that kid to a VA and show him how we treat our vets. .. are you sure that’s a good idea right now?

Of all the things to dampen patriotism, showing him our criminal VA facilities is not one of them.

antisense on May 11, 2014 at 6:01 PM

It seems to be a complex issue for you since the kid had a legal right not to pledge allegiance and you can’t seem to accept that fact.

Ahem…reading is fundamental. He has a legal right not to speak the words of the Pledge. He has NO RIGHT, per SCOTUS, to disrupt in any way the conduct of the classroom. I have no problem with silence on his part. I do have a problem with his turning the classroom into a platform for his public display of protest. That’s not protected speech. You have no right to use the classroom as your protest platform. Period.

Try again. Harder.

And as another matter of fact, when your kid goes to a public school (mine won’t) you do not hand them over carte blanche to government authority to punish them for failing to do things they are not legally required to do – at least not yet.

hamiltmc on May 11, 2014 at 6:01 PM

Carte blanche? No. Guess what schools get to decide, however, among many other things:

* When you can leave the classroom.
* Which classroom you should be in.
* Where you are supposed to be at all times during the school day.
* The content of your curriculum (be involved in your local school board meetings and elections!).
* To a great degree during class, what you’re allowed to say (you can’t cuss out your peers or anyone else for that matter).

If you have a progressive public school, you should look elsewhere. Frankly, for conservatives to complain about the public school is hypocritical. You’re not supposed to be demanding that the state educate your child to your liking, because you should recognize that your child is not the state’s, he/she is YOUR responsibility.

Now, with my public school, and our conservative faculty, you’re in pretty good shape. But if you wonder why we have so many young people whose views and values are so anathema to conservative and religious values, and so different from their parents, look no further than the fact that too many turn their children over to Hollywood to entertain, to blue-state public schools, and to hostile university systems which hate their most cherished beliefs. STOP DOING THAT. Move to a friendlier locale, homeschool, or go private. Stop expecting the state to do your job for you. After all, Horace Mann and the original ‘common’ (public) school proponents were all about removing parental influence as much as possible. One parent should be present in your child’s life, not absent twelve hours a day.

If you send him/her to my class, I can guarantee you they won’t sit for the Pledge. Been there, done that, see ya later!

xNavigator on May 11, 2014 at 6:25 PM

Now, with my public school, and our conservative faculty, you’re in pretty good shape. But if you wonder why we have so many young people whose views and values are so anathema to conservative and religious values, and so different from their parents, look no further than the fact that too many turn their children over to Hollywood to entertain, to blue-state public schools, and to hostile university systems which hate their most cherished beliefs. STOP DOING THAT. Move to a friendlier locale, homeschool, or go private. Stop expecting the state to do your job for you. After all, Horace Mann and the original ‘common’ (public) school proponents were all about removing parental influence as much as possible. One parent should be present in your child’s life, not absent twelve hours a day.

If you send him/her to my class, I can guarantee you they won’t sit for the Pledge. Been there, done that, see ya later!

xNavigator on May 11, 2014 at 6:25 PM

Yes, the prevailing meme among most Conservatives is that all teachers are Libs. That’s like saying all counties are blue and always vote for Dems.

Neither are true.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 11, 2014 at 6:40 PM

Mason Michalec says he loves his country but just not the government.

“I’m really tired of our government taking advantage of us,” said Michalec. “I don’t agree with the NSA spying on us. And I don’t agree with any of those Internet laws.”

That’s why he’s taken a pledge of sorts to not say the Pledge of Allegiance with classmates.

“I’ve basically said it from the time I was in kindergarten to earlier this year and that’s when I decided I was done saying it.”

For the most this year, his silent protest has gone unnoticed. But on Wednesday, when a different teacher observed it for the very first time, the Needville High School sophomore ran into trouble.

“And she told me this is my classroom,” said Michalec. “This is the principal’s request. You’re going to stand. And I still didn’t stand and she said she was going to write me up.”

Michalec says the principal sentenced him to two days of in school suspension, and warned that he could face more ISS if his protest continued.

It’s a consequence the 15-year-old seems prepared to face.

Reporting on this story, HotAir authors Jazz Shaw and Erika Johnsen came down on opposite sides of the debate as to whether the school was within its rights to level the suspension against the young man.

Johnsen pointed out that the issue was settled by the Supreme Court over 70 years ago, and that the school clearly infringed on the Michalec’s constitutional right not to be coerced into saying the Pledge of Alliegance.

Although I understand — on an emotional level — what prompted the school to suspend Michalec, the punishment seems to be indefensible from a constitutional law standpoint. Moreover, even from a practical standpoint, suspending Michalec will hardly cause him to “see the light.” Forced allegiance is no allegiance at all.

Meaningful allegiance comes not from coercion, but the freedom to arrive at that allegiance on one’s own. Michalec sounds frustrated with the way things are going in this country right now. While I personally disagree with Michalec’s decision, as an American citizen protected by the Constitution, he is allowed to express that frustration by choosing to not stand for, or say, the Pledge of Allegiance.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/05/texas-high-school-student-suspended-for-not-reciting-the-pledge-of-allegiance/

davidk on May 11, 2014 at 6:53 PM

Ahem…reading is fundamental. He has a legal right not to speak the words of the Pledge. He has NO RIGHT, per SCOTUS, to disrupt in any way the conduct of the classroom. I have no problem with silence on his part. I do have a problem with his turning the classroom into a platform for his public display of protest. That’s not protected speech. You have no right to use the classroom as your protest platform. Period.

Try again. Harder.

Maybe you can find me the Supreme Court opinion where not standing during the pledge is “disruptive.” Otherwise, you are citing to imaginary authority. I’d be willing to bet the current Supreme Court would find the school’s decision to punish this could for not standing to be unconstitutional and it would be 6-3, if not 7-2.

The difference between us on this is that while we both disapprove of the student’s conduct, you want to compel him to behave in the manner you like. That is fine and reasonable people can disagree. But your assertions about what is and is not protected speech on this issue seems to treat speech as something people are only permitted to exercise when granted leave by the government. That’s not how the First Amendment works.

hamiltmc on May 11, 2014 at 7:53 PM

so as adults we can be compelled to do many things, but kids shouldn’t be compelled to do anything? I guess there is a point there-that the youth of America have more rights and freedoms than we adults. Hope they enjoy it while they can…and from what I’ve seen, they do, and they expect the party to continue for the rest of their lives.

Somehow I don’t think this young man would get as much support around here if this were, say, 1985 and Ronald Regan was president, or if he did this on September 12th, 2001.

If we had the “right” kind of government I don’t think you all would be taking this kid’s side on this issue.

But, again, it’s not about the government, it’s about our principles as a nation. You can’t take part in tearing down the very ideals that protect your freedom to do so in the first place, and still expect those same freedoms to be there when you’re done destroying that very same system.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 11, 2014 at 5:01 PM

The First Amendment is one of those freedoms, doc. If this country can survive flag burning being legal, then it can survive a random kid sitting during the pledge as he works out his adolescent immaturity issues.

Reagan’s dead and the electorate that put him into office is gone. We are now living with an electorate that by and large could care less that the black flag of Al Qaeda flew over our consulate on the anniversary of 9-11 and our President lied about the assassination of a US ambassador during the home stretch of an election campaign.

Can’t speak for others, but I could care less who the President is with regard to this issue. After 9-11, I thought it was absurd that Bill Maher was run off his tv show for saying the terrorists were brave (which they clearly were). Just as I think it is absurd that public figures on the wrong side of gay marriage can now be run out of a job. But at least those situations have not yet involved government action.

The government should not be compelling loyalty oaths from teenagers as a condition of receiving a tax-payer funded education. You seem to see this issue through a patriotism lense and I can respect that, but I see it through a different lense regarding the proper scope of government authority over its citizens.

hamiltmc on May 11, 2014 at 8:05 PM

That’s reality. There are other options, so choose wisely. My wife and I did for our kids. Are you upset that the state won’t take care of your kids in the way you want them to? Your kids are yours and your responsibility, not the state’s, right?

xNavigator on May 11, 2014 at 5:39 PM

Yep, you are right. But then there is that issue regarding all of the taxes I pay for those indoctrination centers that I could use to pay for my child’s education. Any advise as to how I can get it back?

antifederalist on May 11, 2014 at 8:24 PM

In our homeschooling Texas home, we don’t say the Pledge of Allegiance, ever. My children know it and the Texas pledge, but they recite our national anthem far more often. Instead, we stand together and say the Regina Coeli.

Now, should any one of my children ever refuse my command tostand and recite a prayer, a Latin grammar form, a poem, or anything else that I want to hear, that child will be punished for willful disobedience, not for disagreeing with the content of the recitation. Children ought to obey their parents and all lawful authority in all things but sin. Being told to stand and say the pledge is most certainly not sinful, so the youth in the story has the duty to do as his teacher says. If mom ‘n’ daddy disagree, then they can stop forcing me to subsidize their state-run babysitting service and either school him at home or enroll him in a private school that is willing to put up with him.

TXJenny on May 11, 2014 at 9:22 PM

TXJenny, if it goes against his conscience, then it’s a sin for him to do it.

io on May 11, 2014 at 9:44 PM

Maybe you can find me the Supreme Court opinion where not standing during the pledge is “disruptive.”

hamiltmc on May 11, 2014 at 7:53 PM

I’ve already linked to it. Tinker. Your free speech rights, as per SCOTUS/Tinker, are pretty broad at school between classes, at break, at lunch, and before and after school. During class? Bzzzzt. Nope. If you do anything to disrupt the good order of the classroom educational environment, the school has every right to send you out.

That concept shocked the heck out of my one students (I use that term loosely, as he was far from a student of anything but attitude!) who said “I HAVE A RIGHT TO BE HERE” while refusing day after day to even take out a pencil. After five days? Bye bye, not to return.

…all of the taxes I pay for those indoctrination centers that I could use to pay for my child’s education. Any advise as to how I can get it back?

antifederalist on May 11, 2014 at 8:24 PM

Move to the lowest-tax area you can (I am in one, myself). Absent that, leave the country? I don’t know of anywhere you can go in the U.S. where you can completely avoid taxes that go toward schools. That goes for taxes that support a whole bunch of things I disagree with myself, so…join the club.

You made this argument last night and I’ll just rebuke it here. Yes, legally you have choices as a parent where to send your kid (for now, see the various challenges to home schooling). Yet, it will cost you extra…

oryguncon on May 11, 2014 at 12:33 PM

Missed this earlier. Usually, when you rebuke someone’s point, you don’t agree with it. Costs extra? Tough. I have six kids. I buy all of their school materials myself. We homeschool. I love the people I work with. I’m not thrilled with the kids. Youth culture is a cesspool. I don’t like my kids swimming in it. So, they don’t. My wife and I take that responsibility (to rear our own children, not leave it to the state) seriously. It’s cost us ten years of her forgoing a salary, and ten more to come. It’s worth it.

#Dealwithit

xNavigator on May 11, 2014 at 10:57 PM

No wonder the younger generations are creating a renaissance of alternative schooling for their kids. Who wants to send their children to these indoctrination prisons, even if you can’t get that tax money back from the thieves who took it?

Too bad nothing can get rid of these ridiculous school boards. Maybe it’s time to rethink centralized school altogether.

Another Libertarian on May 11, 2014 at 11:42 PM

“…then it can survive a random kid sitting during the pledge as he works out his adolescent immaturity issues.”

The kid knows what he is talking about. Anyone who thinks questioning so-called authority is “immature” is just another subject of the king. Worshiping authority makes a person subhuman.

Another Libertarian on May 11, 2014 at 11:43 PM

I’ve already linked to it. Tinker. Your free speech rights, as per SCOTUS/Tinker, are pretty broad at school between classes, at break, at lunch, and before and after school. During class? Bzzzzt. Nope. If you do anything to disrupt the good order of the classroom educational environment, the school has every right to send you out.

I must have missed this case you keep talking about. Feel free to repost it, if that is not too much work for you. By the way, as you may recall from your own schooling, the pledge does not occur during a regular class. It occurs during morning announcements or in a high school what is commonly referred to as “home room.”

So your attempt to read “disruption” into some sort of learning environment here is questionable, in my view. Post your case. If it says what you claim, I’ll admit it.

hamiltmc on May 12, 2014 at 12:05 AM

Clearly, I’m no ace with quoting. But Xnavigator, just post your case for me to review. If it says what you say, I’ll admit I’m wrong. I still think you are citing to imaginary authority.

hamiltmc on May 12, 2014 at 12:07 AM

Maybe I’m missing it, but I can’t tell whether the school is asking the lad to recite the Pledge, or merely stand along with the class.

In my high school, the Pledge is recited by a student over the Public Address system every morning. We all stand. I place my hand over my heart (as per the PA instructions) and recite the Pledge in unison with the PA voice; most of my high schoolers recite the Pledge along with me, but a very small minority (1 or 2 kids) just stand quietly.

I think almost all of my students recite the Pledge because they see me take it seriously.

If the boy were to merely stand along with the class, would the school be satisfied? Seems a little coersive to force the words from his throat at high school age, you know, with a developing sense of self, and principles, and all.

Even the Jehovah’s Witness kid didn’t have a problem standing every morning.

JCoulter on May 12, 2014 at 12:28 AM

Forcing someone to stand is forcing them to take positive action, which is forcing their speech for purposes of the First Amendment. In this case it is like forcing someone to acknowledge or accept something which which they disagree. I agree that standing is what a normal person would do. But to this kid, for whatever reason, it is an issue. If he were yelling or filibustering or attempting some sort of heckler’s veto, I could see his behavior as requiring discipline. But simply refusing to stand during the pledge makes him a douchebag, not some sort of quasi-criminal in need of formal discipline by the state.

What’s next? Throwing people out of baseball games for sipping beer during the national anthem? At least that would not be state sanctioned discipline.

hamiltmc on May 12, 2014 at 12:44 AM

While I sympathize with his sentiments, I think this student should stand and not recite or leave the classroom. He will still be making a statement either way. In the working world, you don’t get to keep your job long if you’re deliberately disruptive. Part of growing up is learning that we don’t always get to say what we want or do what we want, even when it’s important to us. You have to pick your battles.

inmypajamas on May 11, 2014 at 1:28 PM

If the state can force him to stand during the pledge or leave the room during the pledge, how do they not have the power to make him recite the pledge? How is forcing him to stand or leave the room LESS disruptive?

This kid simply refused to pledge allegience to a flag. The constitution guarantees him the right to refuse. How are you sympathizing with his sentiments?

runawayyyy on May 12, 2014 at 8:57 AM

OK, but as you pointed out, Rosa Parks “quietly sitting” was disruptive on an international scale…so a kid “quietly sitting” during the pledge cannot be disruptive? I don’t think that’s logical. You can’t have it both ways, that is, civil disobedience is disruptive for good, but is not disruptive for good, but in a different setting…?

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 11, 2014 at 4:45 PM

He wasn’t practicing civil disobedience. There is no law compelling him to either stand for or recite the pledge, and even if there were it would be trumped by the first amendment. You’re usually a much more careful writer and, I assume, thinker. This one has gotten away from you, you’re sounding hyperbolic.

runawayyyy on May 12, 2014 at 9:15 AM

Too bad nothing can get rid of these ridiculous school boards.

Another Libertarian on May 11, 2014 at 11:42 PM

Nothing? It’s called an election. Try it!

post your case for me to review. If it says what you say, I’ll admit I’m wrong. I still think you are citing to imaginary authority.

hamiltmc on May 12, 2014 at 12:07 AM

Already linked it. A simple Google search will take you to the Tinker case. What does it boil down to in practice? Students have pretty broad speech rights at school between classes, at break, at lunch, and before and after school. During class? Bzzzzt. Schools are free to regulate speech which disrupts the educational environment.

Forcing someone to stand is forcing them to take positive action

hamiltmc on May 12, 2014 at 12:44 AM

So is forcing them to pick up a pen/pencil and write, or open a book and read, or move to their next class at the bell, or stop groping their boy/girl friend. I think I met your kid…the one who said “I HAVE A RIGHT TO BE HERE” while refusing to pick up a pencil. He got the hook and the door.

If the state can force him to stand during the pledge or leave the room during the pledge, how do they not have the power to make him recite the pledge?

runawayyyy on May 12, 2014 at 8:57 AM

Court decisions on the First Amendment forbid obliging you to actually state the Pledge. Sadly for people like you and others here, no court restricts me as a teacher from stopping your kid from hitting someone, or cussing them out, or refusing to leave my room to go to his/her next class, or spitting on the floor, or standing on his/her desk to rant and rave about this or that. I limit their rights every day.

Freedom is so limited at your local public school! [shakes head]

xNavigator on May 12, 2014 at 10:49 AM

for all of its warts and blemishes, it’s still the best one on the planet.

Standard boiler plate bullshjt. The USA is in fact a fascist police state where the government controls every tiny facet of your life at the point of a gun. You can pretend it is otherwise, but you are either a liar, a rube, a tool, or just fooling yourself.

earlgrey on May 12, 2014 at 12:09 PM

TXJenny, if it goes against his conscience, then it’s a sin for him to do it.
io on May 11, 2014 at 9:44 PM

No, that is incorrect, according both to Natural Law and Catholic theology. Whereas the child in the story may believe he is right, per his wee conscience, he is bound to obey his lawful superiors in all but what is objectively sinful. He is a child, and he must accept the fact that his judgment is fallible, because his reason may be imperfect. That is why he is under the authority of his parents. His parents incur a share of the moral culpability of his actions, which is why he must give them the obedience that they demand. Now, were he commanded to murder or steal or covet, etc., then he would be bound to disobey his parents/teachers, because his first duty is to God.

If we are to allow children to determine for themselves what is right and wrong–let them eat of the Tree of Knowldge of Good and Evil–then we have effectively argued that parents and teachers and all authority are superfluous, and anarchy ensues. A child that is allowed to be disrespectful and disruptive in the classroom over merely standing and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance would be allowed, on his line of reasoning, to refuse to do any particular assignment or all of them. At best, he is a hypocrite for refusing allegiance to the State to which he and his parents have entrusted his mind & soul. At worst, he is a hypocrite and an anarchist-in-the-making.

TXJenny on May 12, 2014 at 12:11 PM

Xnavigator -

You don’t have to act like a boor to make your points.

Tinker does not stand for what you keep saying. You may be a great teacher, but you’re not a very good lawyer.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_21

“Yes. Justice Abe Fortas delivered the opinion of the 7-2 majority. The Supreme Court held that the armbands represented pure speech that is entirely separate from the actions or conduct of those participating in it. The Court also held that the students did not lose their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech when they stepped onto school property. In order to justify the suppression of speech, the school officials must be able to prove that the conduct in question would “materially and substantially interfere” with the operation of the school. In this case, the school district’s actions evidently stemmed from a fear of possible disruption rather than any actual interference.

In his concurring opinion, Justice Potter Stewart wrote that children are not necessarily guaranteed the full extent of First Amendment rights. Justice Byron R. White wrote a separate concurring opinion in which he noted that the majority’s opinion relies on a distinction between communication through words and communication through action.

Justice Hugo L. Black wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the First Amendment does not provide the right to express any opinion at any time. Because the appearance of the armbands distracted students from their work, they detracted from the ability of the school officials to perform their duties, so the school district was well within its rights to discipline the students. In his separate dissent, Justice John M. Harlan argued that school officials should be afforded wide authority to maintain order unless their actions can be proven to stem from a motivation other than a legitimate school interest.”

As you once said, reading is fundamental.

The majority ruled thus:

In order to justify the suppression of speech, the school officials must be able to prove that the conduct in question would “materially and substantially interfere” with the operation of the school. In this case, the school district’s actions evidently stemmed from a fear of possible disruption rather than any actual interference.

You may be of the opinion that a teenager not standing to say the pledge of allegiance during home room merits a code red and having Colonel Jessup run him out of Guantanamo even if it kills him because we need you on that wall and deep down inside in places we don’t like to talk about at cocktail parties we want you on that wall.

But here in reality, you are citing to imaginary legal authority. I highly doubt the US Supreme Court would find a silent protest (not standing) during the pledge to constitute a material and substantial interference with the operation of the school.

hamiltmc on May 12, 2014 at 12:54 PM

If the state can force him to stand during the pledge or leave the room during the pledge, how do they not have the power to make him recite the pledge?

runawayyyy on May 12, 2014 at 8:57 AM

Court decisions on the First Amendment forbid obliging you to actually state the Pledge. Sadly for people like you and others here, no court restricts me as a teacher from stopping your kid from hitting someone, or cussing them out, or refusing to leave my room to go to his/her next class, or spitting on the floor, or standing on his/her desk to rant and rave about this or that. I limit their rights every day.

Freedom is so limited at your local public school! [shakes head]

xNavigator on May 12, 2014 at 10:49 AM

Did you just equate refusing to stand and/or cite the pledge with one kid hitting another? Did you just equate a Constitutional right with assault and battery?

I’d ask if you’re really that stupid, but I’d say you’ve answered that question already.

runawayyyy on May 12, 2014 at 2:22 PM

Xnavigator -

You don’t have to act like a boor to make your points.

Tinker does not stand for what you keep saying.

Your teacher-hate and students’-rights-inventions bore me. Hate to break it to you, but yeah, my point on Tinker is dead-on. Even religious-liberty lawyers admit the very same (see the ACLJ for that, a groups of LAWYERS, lol at your lawyer-quip). You have fairly broad free speech rights between classes, at break, at lunch, and before and after school. During class? NOPE.

Did you just equate refusing to stand and/or cite the pledge with one kid hitting another? Did you just equate a Constitutional right with assault and battery?

runawayyyy on May 12, 2014 at 2:22 PM

No, that would be the idiot parents of idiot children (and we have too many of both, sadly) who refuse to allow a teacher to expect the MOST BASIC OF THINGS FROM THEIR CHILD, LIKE SITTING OR STANDING, yet somehow expect that, well, they’ll listen to the teacher when it really counts.

You people are NUTS. You invent rights where they don’t exist and you wonder why we have disciplinary problems in the school. I’ll tell you why: You folks aren’t even willing to allow that a teacher, in his/her own class, can require a kid to stand the hell up.

It’s no wonder 50% of teachers quit within the first few years of beginning the career. Why would anyone want to stick with a job where the stakeholders involved routinely disrespect those involved in it? What do you expect from teachers when they can’t even rely upon parents to support them in requiring a kid to stand up in class? Seriously?

Ridiculous. All of you.

xNavigator on May 12, 2014 at 5:17 PM

He wasn’t practicing civil disobedience. There is no law compelling him to either stand for or recite the pledge, and even if there were it would be trumped by the first amendment. You’re usually a much more careful writer and, I assume, thinker. This one has gotten away from you, you’re sounding hyperbolic.

runawayyyy on May 12, 2014 at 9:15 AM

Where do you draw the line? What else can a kid in a school refuse to do?

This is the friggin’ pledge, not some kind of religious communion or the like that’s being forced upon him.

Thank you for the kind words, though. ;-)

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 12, 2014 at 5:38 PM

The government should not be compelling loyalty oaths from teenagers as a condition of receiving a tax-payer funded education. You seem to see this issue through a patriotism lense and I can respect that, but I see it through a different lense regarding the proper scope of government authority over its citizens.

hamiltmc on May 11, 2014 at 8:05 PM

I think this is the most succinct statement of the controversy to this point.

The crux is this: at what age, and in what situations, should the school (or any authority, including governmental, ecclesiastical, and parental) cease dictating standards of personal behavior where there is no threat of imminent harm* to persons or property?

A lot of the discussion is actually peripheral to this central point, such as the meaning of the Pledge (Is it socialist or conservative?), its current applicability to the US political situation (Should we honor dishonorable governments?), school administrations’ and teachers’ preferences (Suppose there is a student in an overwhelmingly “liberal” school who wants to say the Pledge and is prevented because it disrupts the classroom?), perceptions by other persons regarding its importance (Veterans who have sacrificed for American foreign policies, and immigrants fleeing genuinely repressive countries), whether communal values trump dissident private opinions (That heretic Martin Luther should have just kept his 97 Theses to himself!), and many other facets of a most interesting philosophical diamond.

Ultimately, I don’t think we will ever reach complete agreement.
However, we often hear people evaluate a political position or law from the standpoint of “How would we like it if it was the other party in power, not mine?”
Conservatives (and classical liberals, as well as libertarians) all resist giving extensive power to the executive, legislative, or judicial branches of government even when “our party” is in power, because it can be turned against us because, “elections have consequences”.

By that standard, I would assert that older students (certainly those in high school) have the right to refrain from making statements of personal belief mandated by the school.

I support teaching the Pledge of Allegiance to American students, because it expresses the high ideals to which we aspire, as one nation composed of many distinct jurisdictions, factions, religions, and ideologies.**
But it is not impossible to imagine a day when the State School Collective requires all students to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the Great Leader and His Enlightened Care for the People — and in that case, I would want to have hundreds, thousands, of Mason Michalecs willing to refuse, despite not having the “right” to do so.

We will not have those students then, if we do not protect them now.
* * * * * * *

*(A lot of schools are actually allowing or even abetting physically harmful behavior by students; you can find examples within HA or generally on the web. Others are persecuting very attenuated perceptions of harm, such as pop-tart and finger guns.)
**(not one monolithic Borg entity, pace the anti-Bellamy faction).

AesopFan on May 12, 2014 at 5:44 PM

y that standard, I would assert that older students (certainly those in high school) have the right to refrain from making statements of personal belief mandated by the school.

AesopFan on May 12, 2014 at 5:44 PM

You misstate the facts of the matter. Nobody required him to verbalize the Pledge. That this is so difficult to grasp is surprising.

And no, standing during the Pledge is not the same as actually taking the Pledge, thank you. That’s ludicrous.

xNavigator on May 12, 2014 at 5:59 PM

AesopFan on May 12, 2014 at 5:44 PM

And as I pointed out waaaay above, the hippies of the ’60s and ’70s felt the same way about the American Flag itself. What if said high school kid burned the flag?

One might say ‘good for him…because of who’s running our government now’

Then one might say ‘that’s an overt act…he merely chose not to do something’…?

So do we pick and choose our Patriotic expression because of the present political climate at any time? When Bush was president all the children of Democrat parents would stay seated, and now that Obama’s president, the reverse?

At any rate I say put it to a vote at either the state or the local level. Same thing with these Confederate flag arguments…and abide by the outcome of the majority.

The other logical step is just to close these high schools down because they are becoming way more trouble than they’re worth. While we’re at it, let’s do away with the Star Spangled Banner and Old Glory herself, because no matter what, a sizable group somewhere bitches and moans about them and I would really like some peace and quiet before I move on.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 12, 2014 at 7:55 PM

And no, standing during the Pledge is not the same as actually taking the Pledge, thank you. That’s ludicrous.

xNavigator on May 12, 2014 at 5:59 PM

Of course it’s not “the same”; but it is a close enough marker that participating in the standing (or saluting) could be said to be either showing respect to the community, or giving assent to the Pledge.

It is a matter of conscience whether one’s standing implies respect, or assent; and it is a matter of conscience whether one is is willing to give that respect or assent, or not.

“A Man For All Seasons” is my go-to resource for a lot of First Amendment and Conscience issues.

The Duke of Norfolk: Oh confound all this. I’m not a scholar, I don’t know whether the marriage was lawful or not but dammit, Thomas, look at these names! Why can’t you do as I did and come with us, for fellowship!

Sir Thomas More: And when we die, and you are sent to heaven for doing your conscience, and I am sent to hell for not doing mine, will you come with me, for fellowship?

Once again, this is a situation for persuasion and gentle teaching, not heavy-handed coercion.
Some of the comments on this thread could be used to explain to the young man, and his peers, just why this country (These or The United States, as you choose) deserves respect, even when its current governors do not live up to its ideals.

Big Surprise: there has never been a time when the government completely lived up to the ideals of the Declaration and Constitutional Bill of Rights, but this country is something more than just the sum of its bureaucrats and partisans.

Garner this young man’s respect, rather than forcing his obedience or punishing his reticence, and this country will have enrolled a Patriot among its citizens, rather than another cynic.

AesopFan on May 12, 2014 at 9:25 PM

It is a matter of conscience whether one’s standing implies respect, or assent; and it is a matter of conscience whether one is is willing to give that respect or assent, or not.

And it’s a matter of conscience when I kick that student’s arse out of class; he/she can come back after the Pledge. And guess what? I’m within MY RIGHTS* to do it, having done so before and being ready to do so again.

*Since we’re talking about RIGHTS so much.

xNavigator on May 12, 2014 at 10:21 PM

You inferior mud people don’t goose-step worth a damn. How am I supposed to deny the validity of all of your opposing view points without dissecting my own?

everdiso on May 11, 2014 at 2:07 PM

/
BMSD

S. D. on May 12, 2014 at 11:14 PM

Your teacher-hate and students’-rights-inventions bore me. Hate to break it to you, but yeah, my point on Tinker is dead-on. Even religious-liberty lawyers admit the very same (see the ACLJ for that, a groups of LAWYERS, lol at your lawyer-quip). You have fairly broad free speech rights between classes, at break, at lunch, and before and after school. During class? NOPE.

Teacher-hate? So you’re just gonna make stuff up now, I guess.

I’ll tell you what is boring, X. Your penchant for bragging about how tough you are on children. I hope for your sake and your students that your tough guy act is how you blow off steam and you’re actually not the jerk you act like here during your day job.

As for your continued insistence that TInker means something it doesn’t, you’re simply wrong. You’ve never read the case and should stop spouting off about something you don’t understand.

hamiltmc on May 13, 2014 at 12:33 AM

So, they don’t. My wife and I take that responsibility (to rear our own children, not leave it to the state) seriously. It’s cost us ten years of her forgoing a salary, and ten more to come. It’s worth it.

#Dealwithit

xNavigator on May 11, 2014 at 10:57 PM

Seems you’ve found an island.

#Dealwithit

Bmore on May 13, 2014 at 8:27 AM

Ridiculous. All of you.

xNavigator on May 12, 2014 at 5:17 PM

Lolz! Sure. We aren’t on your island.

Bmore on May 13, 2014 at 8:28 AM

Just for you.

Bmore on May 13, 2014 at 8:29 AM

The American Right: Government coercion is bad, unless it involves ritualistic worship of the nation-state, then you must participate!!!!

libfreeordie on May 10, 2014 at 6:29 PM

You take God out of the Pledge and it is something in principle ALL leftists would support.
Since the Pledge is of socialist origin, I expect if it didn’t have religious leanings you’d love the hell out of it.
Originally socialists were very dogmatic fascist religious people.
Wilson was one of them. The only good thing about him was he hated communism.
But communism and socialism are the same thing. Control of people.
And I support this no more than I support your brand of politics.

Badger40 on May 13, 2014 at 9:16 AM

It’s interesting how many people here are so Progressive.
You want a child to blindingly pledge allegiance to his country, even if he doesn’t wish to.
Listen, I love America, it’s original founding intent.
The Pledge is of socialist origin. If you are true to original Founding principles, you do not make people do shit like this.
Now if you have a naturalized citizen, then yes, that citizen should take an oath to their new country.
But in all seriousness, those of your advocating Old Glory is some sainted godhead to be worshipped is going too far.
I respect the decision of an American to not state the pledge, to not go to church, to be an atheist, or gay etc.
I believe the individual states need to sort out the way they govern themselves locally.
Tell me folks would you be for forcing students to pray to God in school, or would you just be for letting them if they wish to do so or not?
Our country has had a lot of the former in individual state’s laws.
I DO believe in a Godly nation. But it is not something you can force & evidently we have a lot of ‘conservatives’ who want to force this sort of behavior.

Badger40 on May 13, 2014 at 9:30 AM

The other logical step is just to close these high schools down because they are becoming way more trouble than they’re worth. While we’re at it, let’s do away with the Star Spangled Banner and Old Glory herself, because no matter what, a sizable group somewhere bitches and moans about them and I would really like some peace and quiet before I move on.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 12, 2014 at 7:55 PM

I’m not trying to bait you, really, but can you not see the hyperbole in any of the above statements?

That’s all I was saying. I know how capable you are of making a better argument, so it surprised me to see stuff like this.

runawayyyy on May 13, 2014 at 11:26 AM

I’ll tell you what is boring, X. Your penchant for bragging about how tough you are on children. I hope for your sake and your students that your tough guy act is how you blow off steam and you’re actually not the jerk you act like here during your day job.

hamiltmc on May 13, 2014 at 12:33 AM

LOL. You know what’s really boring, Mr. MC? That a teacher requiring a kid TO STAND DURING THE PLEDGE equates to “BRAGGING ABOUT HOW TOUGH YOU ARE ON CHILDREN” and equates to being “A JERK.”

That’s your conservative perspective…that requiring a kid to stand during the Pledge is “TOUGH ON CHILDREN” and is being “A JERK.” It’s loons like you that have turned too many children across the country into entitled brats, and made public school a cesspool of ‘rights’ rather than ‘education.’

That’s nuts. Truly nuts.

As for your continued insistence that TInker means something it doesn’t, you’re simply wrong. You’ve never read the case and should stop spouting off about something you don’t understand.

hamiltmc on May 13, 2014 at 12:33 AM

The ACLJ itself, a group of religious-rights LAWYERS, interprets Tinker and subsequent court cases to mean exactly what I have said, since it was in their own words: Your free speech rights are, in their words, pretty broad at school “between classes, at break, at lunch, and before and after school.” Not during class. Period.

Seems you’ve found an island.

Bmore on May 13, 2014 at 8:27 AM

Good thing, too. I know, from your prior posts, how much any sense of community obligation to children bothers you. You’re an independent man, after all! And island unto yourself!

/s

You take God out of the Pledge and it is something in principle ALL leftists would support….But communism and socialism are the same thing. Control of people.

Badger40 on May 13, 2014 at 9:16 AM

I’m sure that’s exactly what The Greatest Generation says every Memorial Day as they stand during the Pledge; “This thing is all about communism, leftist progressivism, and control of the people. I’m gonna sit my arse right down right now!”

Yup. You have your finger on the pulse of patriotism. :rolling eyes:

I DO believe in a Godly nation. But it is not something you can force & evidently we have a lot of ‘conservatives’ who want to force this sort of behavior.

Badger40 on May 13, 2014 at 9:30 AM

Exactly. After all, think of the children! They cannot be required to stand in respect for their community, their class, their forebears, or the flag! Nobody should force the little snowflakes to stand or sit if they don’t want to! And let’s not even get started on picking up a pencil!

/s

Ridiculous.

xNavigator on May 13, 2014 at 3:40 PM

The fact that you keep playing dumb and arguing in bad faith shows you have lost the argument.

Here’s one example of many of your tough-guy bragging:

And it’s a matter of conscience when I kick that student’s arse out of class; he/she can come back after the Pledge. And guess what? I’m within MY RIGHTS* to do it, having done so before and being ready to do so again.

Whoa…tough guy teacher. You show those captive kids who’s boss!

You’ve admitted you’ve never read the case you keep citing, relying on somebody else’s supposed interpretation. But I literally quoted the Court’s holding to you and it is not what you keep saying.

Here’s your homework assignment, teacher.

Read the case. Come back here when you are done and quote or at least cite to the portions that actually support what you claim. Remember to show your work!

hamiltmc on May 13, 2014 at 4:35 PM

Full circle ridiculous or just ridiculous? You should really kick back this evening and read through your own comments. Lolz!

Bmore on May 13, 2014 at 5:03 PM

Whoa…tough guy teacher. You show those captive kids who’s boss!

hamiltmc on May 13, 2014 at 4:35 PM

Whoa, tough guy parent! You show those evil teachers, (who would dare to ask your kid to stand up!), who’s the REAL boss! It’s parents like you who have completely eroded the ability of teachers to get kids to listen and thereby learn, which gets kids hurt in schools (because after all, the bad kids have rights and don’t need to listen to us!) and ruins the classroom environment for those good kids who would like to learn.

Here’s a newsflash: As long as I am accountable for the behavior of kids in my classroom (as every teacher is), I AM THE BOSS in my classroom, not you or any other permissive parent whose little angel can’t be required to stand, sit, pick up a pencil, or otherwise lift his head off of his desk. Your kid will stand during the Pledge in my room, or he’ll be staring at the hallway walls until it’s over.

You’ve admitted you’ve never read the case you keep citing

hamiltmc on May 13, 2014 at 4:35 PM

You struggle with literacy, as I never said any such thing; I pointed you toward a LAW GROUP’S interpretation of the case. I’d blame your teacher, but it’s clear that it’s your parents, who obviously instilled a sense of entitlement and resistance to the most basic of requests from your teachers (like, say…standing) who failed you.

Here’s your homework assignment, teacher.

Read the case.

hamiltmc on May 13, 2014 at 4:35 PM

Here’s yours: Figure out how to use Google and read up yourself, as I already have. Until a new case arises to change free speech parameters at schools, SCOTUS (through Tinker and subsequent cases) does not give you the right to use the classroom as a platform for protest. Period. The case backs me up on that, as does the interpretation of the case from other law groups who actually complained about the limitations.

There’s the door. ==============> []

Bmore on May 13, 2014 at 5:03 PM

I hope you’re not a parent. You’d be one of the ones who would demand the kinds of policies that have held back so many bright and hardworking kids from being challenged and stretched in their classes, because their teachers were too busy with your kid, who can’t even figure out when to stand or sit during class, lol.

xNavigator on May 13, 2014 at 6:16 PM

Sounds like some teacher needs to be put in the rubber room for a bit. You’re the boss! lol

SCOTUS (through Tinker and subsequent cases) does not give you the right to use the classroom as a platform for protest. Period. The case backs me up on that, as does the interpretation of the case from other law groups who actually complained about the limitations.”

The fact that you keep saying “Period” does not make your legal analysis correct. The case simply does not stand for the hard and fast rule you keep claiming.

Once again, for the slow kid (oops “BOSS”):

Tinker Holding: In order to justify the suppression of speech, the school officials must be able to prove that the conduct in question would “materially and substantially interfere” with the operation of the school.

For you to be correct under Tinker, you have to show – you, BOSS, you are the government here, not the child you are bullying – you have to show that his failure to stand during the pledge of allegiance “materially and substantially interferes” with the operation of the school.

Got that BOSS?

Since you are claiming to have read the case now, quit copying off your neighbor, and show your own work. Cite to the actual legal opinion. Quote the actual judges. Back up your claims, BOSS.

I already gave you the right answer, but you won’t accept it. Show use the court opinion and show me otherwise. The worse you can do is be wrong, but failure to show your work gets zero points on this assignment.

Get to it, BOSS.

hamiltmc on May 13, 2014 at 6:33 PM

Sounds like some teacher needs to be put in the rubber room for a bit. You’re the boss! lol

Sounds like a parent with mommy/daddy issues and therefore a problem with authority! And yes indeed, I am the boss in my classroom, as designated by the local elected school board. When a student for example, out of the blue, slugs another one in the head, a parent would be happy to have a teacher who took his responsibility seriously, and to have students in the class who actually listen to that teacher (that would be me). Or when a fire occurs in a classroom, and someone needs to put it out with the extinguisher (that would be me).

Oh, no you wouldn’t want a teacher who is in charge. You don’t even think kids should have to stand up. Gotcha.

The fact that you keep saying “Period” does not make your legal analysis correct. The case simply does not stand for the hard and fast rule you keep claiming.

The fact that my analysis matches that of lawyers who want even MORE free speech freedom but cannot find it, not even in case law such as Tinker (which does NOT allow you to disrupt classroom education), is evidence in my favor. Period.

Tinker Holding: In order to justify the suppression of speech, the school officials must be able to prove that the conduct in question would “materially and substantially interfere” with the operation of the school.

Exactly. And for a classroom to function, kids cannot actually randomly get up whenever they want and walk wherever they want, or sit and refuse to move to the next class (or assembly, or class meeting, or whatever), but nooooooo…you’ve identified a whole new right to free speech for kids in school! They don’t even have to stand up in response to direction to do so during class!

For you to be correct under Tinker, you have to show – you, BOSS, you are the government here, not the child you are bullying

Hahaha! You think it’s the students who are being bullied by teachers in the modern public school system? Hahahahaha! I’ve personally seen what your precious snowflakes have done to several of my colleagues in assaults (physical and verbal), yet I’ve never personally seen the reverse. Interesting, that!

Cite to the actual legal opinion.

Sorry, I already sent you out of my room for your refusal to stand with the Pledge. I can’t teach you at the moment! Besides, you’re resistant to knowledge, and I’ve been teaching long enough to know my limitations in reaching those such as yourself!

I already gave you the right answer, but you won’t accept it.

LULZ. Oh fount of knowledge, thank you for deigning to descend to us.

The right answer is that in the classroom, children need to listen to their teachers’ directions, and per SCOTUS rulings on the issue, if their exercise of speech becomes a distraction or disruption to the educational environment, their right to speech ends in that environment.

Period.

xNavigator on May 13, 2014 at 7:06 PM

You’re an odd bird, X. Stubborn, pig-headed, overblown sense of importance with a near complete lack of self-awareness. You don’t seem to have any idea of how silly you’ve made yourself look in this thread.

Or maybe you’re just in denial, like you are regarding Tinker.

The fact that my analysis matches that of lawyers who want even MORE free speech freedom but cannot find it, not even in case law such as Tinker (which does NOT allow you to disrupt classroom education), is evidence in my favor. Period.

I think it’s cute that you still play at lawyer even though you won’t and can’t cite to the actual case. Here’s a tip, boss. There is no such thing as “evidence” when it comes to reading settled case law.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/393/503/case.html

“A prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.”

That’s literally the holding of the case. You can keep claiming the case says other things. You can keep dropped the “Period” bomb over and over. You can keep reliving the glorious moment when you stood up to a teenager over his pencil. The bards will long sing of your bravery in verse and song.

But the fact is you’re full of it. Your refusal to cite to the case speaks for itself. You can’t because it simply does not say what you claim.

Now go have the last word, boss. I’m betting you’re not done beclowning yourself quite yet.

hamiltmc on May 14, 2014 at 12:15 AM

Blah blah blah ad hominem blah blah blah

I blame your parents for having failed to rear you with self-respect and dignity. Now that we’ve got your verbal diarrhea out of the way, let’s get to the meat of it, shall we?

“A prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.”

Exactly as I have been saying all along. SCOTUS case law on free expression in public schools does not allow you to disrupt the classroom and use it as your platform for protest. You hilariously avoid encountering reality on this issue because, as is the case with the police who decide in the moment on issues related to disorderly conduct, the staff of the school decide on what is disruptive to the classroom and academic environment. Now, you are free to dispute this as much as you see fit, as you have been feebly trying to do here repeatedly, but the REALITY, PERIOD (just for you!) is that your only recourse when the school decides you are disrupting the educational environment and prevents you from engaging in speech is to go to court, or perhaps whine on a message board/forum, lol! So, in the case where this occurred in my classroom, it occurred once and thereafter the student spent that time elsewhere, out of my class. If they didn’t like it, and felt they had a right to disrupt my class, they could take it to court…and lose, because there was no additional disciplinary action or loss on their part, other than the loss of an audience for their protest. That particular student was intelligent and mature enough to know that she could have her conscientious objection to the Pledge without having to be SEEN stomping her feet and planting her arse on a chair during it, which would be disruptive and disrespectful of others in class. She had more grace than you in this, that’s for sure. She didn’t insist on her right to SHOW EVERYONE that she was against the Pledge. It was enough for her to have her conscience respected, and to respect her community in return. You could learn from her behavior.

You also ignore the fact that the school has immensely wide latitude in determining what is and is not disruptive, and your only recourse is to take them to court (unless you just like whining on forums, in which case, post a reply!). Disruptions would naturally be defined differently in different school systems. In my area, in the South, sitting during the Pledge while surrounded by children whose families are faced daily with the sacrifice that military duty entails is highly disruptive to the educational environment, because it affects the emotional, and thereby academic, state of students whose parents risk all for the flag, the nation, their brothers/sisters in uniform, and all those represent.

Now go have the last word, boss.

Thank you for that! Remember to keep fighting the good fight against verticality during the Pledge. You want to be as close to horizontal, in front of as many people as possible, as often as possible. It represents a brave ‘stand’ (lol) against…something something.

xNavigator on May 14, 2014 at 2:46 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3