Authoritarian Nationalists Outraged Over Pledge Compromise

The Woodbury Elementary School in Woodbury, Vermont, has become the focal point of an intense debate over the Pledge of Allegiance. School administrators are willing to have a daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, but only under conditions where students who don't want to say it are safe and not singled out for attention, harassment, or ridicule. Some local parents, in contrast, don't seem to want dissenters to be made to feel safe and instead want the Pledge recited in a manner that makes it easier to single out those who don't join in.

Of course, none of the parents have actually expressed this desire in so many words, but that's the practical consequence of what they are saying and, ultimately, it's the only reason for them to object to how the school has tried to do things so far. For some strange reason, these parents are confusing the fact that their kids have a right to say the Pledge of Allegiance with the school having a duty to provide circumstances in which those saying the Pledge are treated as special. Is it a coincidence that some Christians have the same attitude when it comes to prayer?

At first, one student was sent to each of the school's four classrooms and collect anyone who wanted to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. They would all gather in the gymnasium, say the Pledge, then return. About half the school's student body did so.

[Ted] Tedesco, 55, a retired U.S. Marine Corps major, and others who signed his petitions didn't like that solution, calling it disruptive to routine and inappropriate because it put young children in the position of having to decide between pre-class play time and leaving the classroom to say the Pledge.

"Saying the Pledge in the classroom is legal, convenient and traditional," said Tedesco. "Asking kindergarten through sixth graders who want to say the Pledge to leave their classrooms to do so is neither convenient nor traditional." ..."There's no way a heckler's veto should abridge the constitutional rights of the majority," he said.

[Principal Michaela] Martin and School Board Chair Retta Dunlap defended the practice, saying it restored the Pledge to the school as requested, preserved the rights of students who — for political or religious reasons — didn't want to participate and gave others the opportunity to pledge their allegiance.

"I was happy to have it upstairs. I think it's important that all the kids share in it together," said parent Ellen Demers, 42.

Source: News OK

Notice the stark contrast in stated motives here: administrators want to make things easier and safer for any minorities who might feel pressured to participate or singled out for negative attention if they refuse to participate; Tedesco and others want to make it easier to "choose" saying the Pledge over other activities by eliminating the appearance of choice. When people who want to recite the Pledge of Allegiance all go somewhere to do so, the existence of a choice is obvious. When the recitation of the Pledge is led by your teacher right there, the existence of a choice is not so obvious — and if you do choose not to, you stand our more in these small classes.

Notice also that Tedesco cannot and does not argue that kids who want to say the Pledge of Allegiance are in any way denied the ability to do so or hindered in their ability to do so. He's not fighting to protect or restore anyone's rights because no rights are being infringed upon. The worst that's happening is that the choice to exercise this particular right has competition — but if playing with toys really is that much more of an attractive option, maybe the fault isn't in giving children a clear and free choice?

It's not illegal to gather up willing students to say the Pledge of Allegiance in a central location. It's not particularly inconvenient and it's also not untraditional — I've seen many photos of students standing outside and saying the Pledge in front of a flag on a flagpole. Ted Tedesco doesn't have any genuine arguments against reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in a central location, so all that's left is to make it easier to single out those who dissent.

Still, the public pressure he brought to bear against the school forced them to try something new, but which nevertheless was still designed to protect minorities at least a little bit: now everyone must attend a daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance whether they want to or not and are forced to stand whether they want to or not, but they can remain silent if they wish. Because the crowd is much larger, those who remain silent might be a little more anonymous.

In an interview, Martin said the point of having the whole school gather for the Pledge was to protect children who don't participate in it.

"If you're in a classroom with 15 students and you choose not to say the Pledge, it's much more obvious than a group setting. When they're saying it in a group of 55, it's may not be so obvious. We don't want to isolate children," she said.

I appreciate Martin's desire to continue protecting minority students, but the fact that everyone is forced to attend and forced to remain standing is legally problematic. Courts have been fairly consistent in ruling that students not only have a right to opt out of active participation (reciting the Pledge), but also passive participation (standing at all). I also don't think that the larger crowd will preserve anonymity very well; the only protection students have, quite frankly, is the relatively large number of them. If only one or two refused they'd be noticed and become easy targets for harassment; if nearly half refuse to join, that's a substantial group which can't be easily targeted by bullies.

Of course, none of this even touches on the important fact that the Pledge of Allegiance is designed to send the message that atheists are second-class citizens, incapable of being truly patriotic, while religious theists are preferred, privileged, and in power. It's inappropriate for public schools to endorse and support such a message even if there are students who want to ritually repeat it, never mind the present of students who want to opt out for varying reasons.