State law says the pledge needs to be recited at the beginning of the day at all elementary, middle and high schools. A student must stand for the pledge even if he is exempt from reciting it with a written request from a parent, Harrington said.
We have the same law here in Texas (funny how FL and TX are usually tied at the hip that way, hmm?). Students must have written parental permission to refrain from reciting the pledges (to the U.S. and TX flags) and/or participating in the "minute of silence" required every day. As a public school teacher, I am required to enforce this, and to manage the classroom during the period so that participating students are not disturbed. But I have not complied for the most part, as I will not participate in enforcing what I consider an unconstitutional law.
I do not say the pledges, for a few different personal reasons. I stand during the recitation at "parade rest," hands behind my back. Most of my fifth graders say the pledges, but a few merely do the hand gestures and wait it out, out of boredom rather than objection. I do require silence throughout the morning announcements, from the national anthem to sign-off, so noise isn't an issue. Last year, I had a student who told me that he did not agree with the pledges, and would not say them. He told me this quietly, shyly, at my desk. I simply said that I respected his decision, and that I expected him to follow our procedure of remaining silent and respectful. It was not an issue. I did not ask him for parental permission -- lawmakers damn well know that this clause is meant to intimidate youths who are trying to think for themselves, often against the mores of their parents.
Good for this student, who is well-informed enough, and gutsy enough, to stand up for his rights. He certainly has legal standing to bring the suit, and I hope that the district is stupid enough to fight it, so that the case gains a little more publicity before he wins ... because he
will win.
"You cannot be disruptive during that time or any other time," Harrington said.
Ahh, yes, "disruptive." That, for those who don't know, is EduSpeak for, "We can make you do whatever we want, regardless of your rights." This is because they define "disruption" as anything that makes another student look up or take notice. Tattoos? Disruptive, beause other students will want to see it, rather than be good robots. Long hair or earrings on boys? Same. Different political views? Same. If they say that it affects the school environment, then (they state) it overrules that individual student's freedom of speech or expression.
It's a bit similar to the loophole for employers, that if they can't fire you for disagreeing with them, for refusing to do something illegal, for whistleblowing, for refusing to be harrassed, they
can fire you for "insubordination." It's an insidious, institutional fascism.
Maybe that's why so many Americans are innoculated against the government's slow encroachent on our freedoms ... they have become quite used to it, through their years of indoctrination at the hands of the public schools, employers, and churches, where "going along means getting along."
:rant: :hide: :patriot: