Student Disciplined for Omitting "Under God"

[Brown]

From The News Tribune (Tacoma, WA):

A Spanaway Lake High School senior has been banned from TV production assignments for the rest of the year because he altered the Pledge of Allegiance during a student-produced broadcast.

The student, Kenny Hess, removed the words "under God" from the pledge, which is shown with an American flag background on classroom TV throughout the school. Hess also declined to recite the phrase and, instead read, "one nation ... indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

School officials said they've punished Hess for misusing school equipment to deliver a personal message.

What the student should have done, apparently, is keep his mouth shut. He had the choice to either recite the whole Pledge or none at all, and reciting only part was grounds for discipline:

Administrators said Hess' actions put the school out of sync with state law, though lawyers note that there is no criminal or civil penalty for not saying the pledge. State law allows students to remain silent during the pledge.
...
"Our interpretation as a school district is that the law says we say the pledge," said Greg Eisnaugle, Spanaway Lake principal. "'Under God' is still in it. If the court says it comes out, that's what we'll do."

Curiously, the state of Washington is in the Ninth Circuit, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued the opinion finding fault with the use of "under God."

 

[toddjh]

From The News Tribune (Tacoma, WA):What the student should have done, apparently, is keep his mouth shut. He had the choice to either recite the whole Pledge or none at all, and reciting only part was grounds for discipline:Curiously, the state of Washington is in the Ninth Circuit, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued the opinion finding fault with the use of "under God."

Maybe there's a silver lining: could the Supreme Court take this into consideration as evidence that those who refuse to say "under God" really will be singled out and ostracized as a result?

Jeremy

 

[Zep]

Brown, with some astonishment and wry amusement, I note that here comes Catch-22 in real life! And I thought it was supposed to be a satirical story...

Oh well. I suppose we should now hope that a real life Major _______ de Coverley will appear soon to fix the problem.

 

[Silicon]

Why oh why couldn't this have happened two weeks ago?!?!



I guess we can't exactly expect that our teachers are legal scholars, can we?

 

[Silicon]

I guess the problem is that he used school equipment, right?

After all, constitutionally the school is the speaker here.

I know there was a similar case of prior restraint of a high-school newspaper, and the principal won that one.

The school tv channel is the voice of the school, not the students, and they exercize control over the message.

Now if he did it in CLASS and got busted, that would be grounds for a good test case. But I think this area is actually settled. Right Brown?

 

[gnome]

Re: Re: Student Disciplined for Omitting "Under God"

Maybe there's a silver lining: could the Supreme Court take this into consideration as evidence that those who refuse to say "under God" really will be singled out and ostracized as a result?

Jeremy

I'm sort of rooting for him, but from a legal standpoint I don't think so--this wasn't him in the classroom hearing it and refusing to participate of that part of it... it sounds like he was part of the broadcast of the Pledge to the school, so he was changing it for everyone, not just himself.

I see it as an act of civil disobedience. Bravo

 

[Brown]

Brown, with some astonishment and wry amusement, I note that here comes Catch-22 in real life! And I thought it was supposed to be a satirical story...

I have to say that I was not sure whether the story was legitimate. The story was published within hours of the expiration of April Fool's day, and it did not get picked up by the major wire services.

On the other hand, there is no obvious satire or joke in the story. The boneheaded remarks from the school officials are no more absurd than other remarks that I have heard with my own ears from other school officials. Also, the News Tribune is an authentic newspaper, and search engines connect you with the tribnet web site.

When school officials want to regulate the content of student speech, they almost always justify it on the grounds of "maintaining decorum" or "preventing disruptiveness" or something like that. "Misuse of school equipment" is a pretty lame excuse along those same lines, as is the excuse that the school will be in trouble if it doesn't recite the "real" Pledge as required by state law.

The article isn't clear about the details of the situation. If the school allowed students to lead the Pledge, then the school should not discriminate against atheists leading the Pledge by either (1) compelling them to a utter religious proclamation that is contrary to their beliefs or (2) excluding them from the activity entirely.

And in any event, the punishment is way out of line. The student did not "change the words." He omitted words in accordance with his religious views.

The school newspaper case that Silicon was talking about invovled editorial control of newspapers. All reputable newspapers have editorial control. (If you want to read about the importance of editorial control, read "All the President's Men" by Woodward and Bernstein. These guys credit the strength of their Washington Post Watergate stories to editorial control.) In the school context, the teacher typically provides the editorial control. Student reporters (just like "real" reporters) cannot say whatever they want.

There is a difference between the school newspaper case and the Pledge case. In the school newspaper case, students reported what they thought might be newsworthy. They were not coerced to solemnly proclaim their loyalty or religious beliefs. Editorial control would come into play in the Washington incident if the student were supposed to lead the Pledge but instead started to rant about how the Pledge was unfair or stupid (or if he used the opportunity to spout off about his favorite issue). But that is not what happened here. The student was to lead the Pledge. And he did. And when he came to the words that were contrary to his religious beliefs, he remained silent for a moment (as implied by the article) then completed the recitation.

 

[Brown]

Re: Re: Student Disciplined for Omitting "Under God"

Maybe there's a silver lining: could the Supreme Court take this into consideration as evidence that those who refuse to say "under God" really will be singled out and ostracized as a result?

Possible, but unlikely. The Supreme Court refers to events in newspapers occasionally. Newspaper citations are somewhat more common in concurring and dissenting opinions.

In my opinion, there is no question that a hearty endorsement of "under God" from the Supreme Court would mean that atheists would be singled out as unpatriotic, because they wouldn't recite the "real" or "official" Pledge. There is also no question that force would be applied to increase public school students' "exposure" to religious dogma.

I just read a story today (sorry, I don't have a link or a cite) that some local governments have decided to say "under God" when reciting the Pledge, no matter what the Supreme Court says.

 

[Ladewig]

My head hurts. Punishing a student for not professing allegiance to a flag in a very specific way. It all seems somewhat...unamerican.

I really can't get my mind to understand someone who has power over school-aged children saying, "Dammit, there is only one way to announce one's allegiance to our country's flag!"

 

[CFLarsen]

He had the choice to either recite the whole Pledge or none at all, and reciting only part was grounds for discipline

Yeah, but what if he is the proverbial red-white-and-blue all-out American Boy, who patriotically loves his country - but just happens to be an Atheist?

"All or none" strongly suggests that the United States of America is for religious people only (and monotheistic as well). Atheists should pack up and go - or at least be silent.

Gee, in what other countries do we find that kind of religious fanaticism?

 

[shuize]

I'm not so sure. If he were tasked with singing the school song on school television and decided to purposely omit or change the lyrics, I can see the school banning him from future productions. In that case, all or nothing sounds about right. I wouldn't think it unreasonable for the school to expect him to sing the school song correctly or not sing it at all.

Although, I also thought this sounded like an April fool's gag, too.

 

[CFLarsen]

shuize,

I see your point, but this is not a school song, it's the Pledge of Allegiance. I assume the PoA is something for all Americans, not just the religious ones?

 

[shuize]

I wouldn't care in the least if the pledge were changed. But I can't get as excited as everyone else over the school's removing this kid from future school productions if he's not going to follow their instructions on how they want it broadcast on inter-school television. We've already had Supreme Court decisions indicating no student can be forced to recite the pledge. And, as noted above, the student was given the option of not reciting it at all. But, assuming the story is even true, it sounds to me very much like my hypothetical example in which the student demands the mic to lead the school in his own individual rendition of the school song.

 

[daenku32]

punished Hess for misusing school equipment to deliver a personal message.

If "I Pledge" is not a personal message, then what is?

Meaning, even if he had used ALL the words, it would have STILL been an personal message.

I expect an lawsuit.

 

[daenku32]

Oh, and give Wenzel a call:

Wenzel, Mark A.
Director, Communications
Phone: 253-683-6051 E-Mail: mwenzel@bethelsd.org

 

[Brown]

Re: Re: Student Disciplined for Omitting "Under God"

Yeah, but what if he is the proverbial red-white-and-blue all-out American Boy, who patriotically loves his country - but just happens to be an Atheist?

I think this is a very serious concern. There are those who think that athiests cannot be patriots, period. In their eyes, it's "God and country," both together, and if you don't want to publicly support God, then you can't support your country, either.

What is really bizarre about the whole business is that the folks who want to keep "under God" in the Pledge think that they are the ones getting pushed around. They actually think that the little atheist is telling them what they can and cannot believe.

In fact, it's the other way around. By some sort of grotesque logic, these folks seem to think that unless government expressly endorses their religious beliefs, then government is opposed to those beliefs. So they insist that the official government-sanctioned Pledge include a profession of religious belief in it, and if the little atheist doesn't like it, he can just shut up.

 

[Dancing David]

The words 'under God' were not added to the Pledge until after the Red Scare.

So if Abraham Lincoln recited the pledge the way it was designed after his death then they would ban him from school.

I will have to ask Voices on the Wind if they have Lincoln doing the Pledge.

 

[Brown]

But I can't get as excited as everyone else over the school's removing this kid from future school productions if he's not going to follow their instructions on how they want it broadcast on inter-school television. We've already had Supreme Court decisions indicating no student can be forced to recite the pledge. And, as noted above, the student was given the option of not reciting it at all. But, assuming the story is even true, it sounds to me very much like my hypothetical example in which the student demands the mic to lead the school in his own individual rendition of the school song.

The following is speculation.

Suppose that the television Pledge production has educational benefits associated with it. By preparing for the production, the student gets practice and experience with direction, camera presence, technical coordination, production, voice, and other skills that will be useful in a broadcasting career.

Suppose also that the television Pledge production has a certain amount of prestige associated with it, some intra-school celebrity.

Now suppose that these benefits are denied to atheists who refuse to publicly utter words that are contrary to their religious beliefs.

It seems to me that such a denial of benefits is hardly trivial. The "option of not reciting" becomes the "option of not getting as good an education."

It is pretty clear that if the student inappropriately siezed the school soapbox, and said something inappropriate, then he should be disciplined. According to the report, that is not what happened. The student was not disciplined for what he said, but for what he didn't say. People actually complained, and the student was actually disciplined, because the student wouldn't say "under God."

 

[Tmy]

"Personal meassage??" What a crock.

If he closed with "God Bless Our TroopS" do you think he'd get in trouble for that personal message?

 

[pgwenthold]

"Personal meassage??" What a crock.

If he closed with "God Bless Our TroopS" do you think he'd get in trouble for that personal message?

Bingo. This is right to the point.

It's not that he gave a "personal message," it is that he gave one they didn't like. Hence he was punished.

This is exactly the type of thing that th liberty is all about.