The final straw came when a teacher accused
Alicia, a high school sophomore, of treason.
Alicia (not her real name) hardly comes across as subversive.
She’s not one of those kids who is intrigued by anti-American
propaganda from ISIS, for example, nor is she one who has been
duped by homegrown anti-government groups calling for a
citizens’ rebellion. She’s pretty much an ordinary, intelligent
teenager—interested in politics, current events and government,
but hardly a fringe radical.
Her offense in the eyes of her homeroom teacher, however, was
that she chose to sit out the Pledge of Allegiance. This act,
for Alicia and countless other young Americans, has brought on
the wrath of authority, with teachers and school administrators
unleashing mean-spirited accusations and hostility toward
students who dare to question the wisdom of a daily loyalty
oath. We may be a free country, but any kid who chooses to sit
out the collective exercise of exalting America runs a risk of
official ostracization.
I’ve spent the last year interacting with kids who have
participated in the American Humanist Association’s boycott of
the Pledge of Allegiance. The boycott is intended to raise
awareness of the fact that the pledge, which was originally
scripted by a magazine editor in 1892, did not include the words
“under God” until 1954. The insertion of those two words has
long irritated many Americans, particularly those who reject the
notion of tying patriotism to God-belief, and the AHA’s boycott
has been an effective strategy for educating many, especially
young people, on the issue.
The Supreme Court in 1943 ruled that constitutional free speech
principles guarantee public school children the right to opt out
of the pledge, but many school officials need to be reminded of
that precedent. As such, the AHA’s legal center, which I direct,
spends lots of time helping kids whose teachers don’t respect
the nonparticipation right.
And there are many of them.
In fact, the intolerance shown toward nonparticipating kids is
stunning, enough to make one realize that the daily pledge
exercise is far from a benign, unifying activity that instills
healthy values. On the contrary, by the actions frequently
displayed toward pledge nonparticipants by teachers and
sometimes students, any objective observer would quickly
conclude that the exercise is downright toxic, a nationalistic
ritual that too often instills a venomous attitude of
chauvinism.
We see several recurring themes in the attacks on pledge
dissenters. Though some teachers will outright lie and tell
students that participation is mandatory under law, most will
acknowledge the voluntariness of pledge participation if
confronted with a student who seems to know his or her rights.
Still, however, teachers will often respond with the accusation
that nonparticipation is “disrespectful.” Yet it’s not always
clear who is being “disrespected” if a child opts out. The
teacher? The class? The country?
Frequently the teacher will answer that question by saying that
nonparticipation is disrespectful of the troops, as if any
student not taking a daily loyalty oath—something no other
developed country expects from its youth—is thumbing her nose at
America’s military men and women. Here we see how the pledge is
a tool of American militarism, with the clear message: stand
each day and pledge allegiance, kids, because our fighting men
and women are out there protecting your freedoms. Not
surprisingly, no public school offers a daily analysis of the
country’s foreign policy to offset this not-so-subtle message of
nationalism and militarism.
The best response to the “you’re disrespecting our troops”
accusation came from a pledge dissenter whose father is in the
military. When this high school student confidently informed his
teacher that dad fully supported him in sitting out the pledge,
pointing out that there is no logical nexus between kids
pledging allegiance and the idea of supporting the troops, the
teacher was speechless.
Dealing with schools mistreating pledge dissenters is like a
tour of duty in the culture wars, a visit to the trenches to see
the other side at its ugliest. One discovers that critical
thinking is the last thing that many teachers and administrators
really want from their kids, who are expected to line up like
lemmings each day for 13 years and vocally affirm the
Establishment position of national greatness. With such an
educational environment, is it any wonder that over half the
population in 2003 wanted to rush to war in Iraq, believing
Saddam Hussein was behind the Sept. 11 attacks?
George Orwell, an authority on groupthink if ever there was one,
wasn’t fond of nationalism. In his essay on the subject he
warned against “the habit of identifying oneself with a single
nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and
recognizing no other duty than that of advancing its interests.”
Nationalism distorts one’s sense of reality, Orwell wrote, as
well as one’s sense of right and wrong. “There is no crime,
absolutely none, that cannot be condoned when ‘our’ side commits
it.”
Such unhealthy nationalism is cultivated when an entire
population is encouraged to participate in easy symbolic
gestures that validate national greatness. Anyone can stand and
pledge allegiance and anyone can slap a magnet on their SUV to
“support the troops,” but not anyone can learn the history that
underlies today’s international situation and carefully assess
policy options. Surely we need less pledging and more learning.
Ironically, the AHA’s pledge boycott is intended as a means of
changing the pledge, not scrapping it. Seeing the dynamics of
pledge recitation and dissent up close, however, and considering
it in the context of a nation that seems increasingly unhinged
socially and politically, the impact of a daily ritual that
conditions kids to blind national loyalty is worth
reconsidering. If there are concerns about anti-intellectualism
and even fascistic tendencies in American society nowadays, the
practice of daily national exaltation has relevance. If you
truly love America and the values “for which it stands,” there’s
only one thing to do: scrap the Pledge of Allegiance.
David Niose is legal director of the American Humanist
Association and author of Fighting Back the Right: Reclaiming
America from the Attack on Reason. Follow on Twitter: @ahadave. |