First Amendment Violations: How far do we let it go?

reply to post by ThreeSistersofLoveandLigh

Ok, thank you for the information, though there is one more question and this one would require that you do a bit of research:
Percentage of race break down.

Now here is the real trick, and you have to approach this very carefully, getting upset and screaming only gets you so far, and hot tempers get one into trouble. The first would be to talk to other parents, find out if they go through the same problems, see if there is a common theme here. If this is indeed directed to those of a lower income and are white, well there you have it, the start and ground work for reverse discrimination.

But if not, then start with the Principle and go up. Then to the superintendent, and if no results happen, start making waves.
Most public school do not want the bad publicity, but it has to start with the parents coming together to demand answers. As much as people may not like them, but in this case you may have to act somewhere between Bill O'Rielly and Obama. If it continues, definately be prepared to stand by your principles and have a lawyer ready to pounce, and I do mean pounce with claws extended to try to force the school district into either following the rules or getting the entire administration changed. The more parents that are willing to come forward in this, along with students, the better it will go. Dates, times, names and places of incidents are always good, as it goes along way to prove the point in a court of law.

I still say that the first start is about confronting the principle and superintendant with a lawyer asking questions of them about the policies concerning school officials asking about religious affiliations of students and their families.

reply to post by ThreeSistersofLoveandLigh


I am an anti-bully actually. Have been since I was 16. But call me what you want.

The kid in question has a right to refuse to stand for the pledge. I agree with that 100%. Many dead soldiers agree with it as much as I do. Protesters didn't provide that right by the way.

Your posts raises another question for me though. You say the lower income kids are targeted for bullying by the school's administrators. Is there more going on than just refusing to swear loyalty to the nation? Also, if they are lower income I would think they qualified for the "lunch program". Kind of biting the hand that feeds them (literally) isn't it?

reply to post by 200Plus


reply to post by 200Plus


What bothers me, and is especially noted by the way that you have come across in your posts, is that there seems to be a general attitude that it is acceptable to treat someone in a certain way simply because of their economic status. I believe that no matter what your socioeconomic status, that you deserve to treated with respect and dignity. Just because you have money or are lucky enough to come from a background that has provided you with a better status of living, does not give you more of a right to question the status quo than someone who doesn't, nor should it entitle you to a lesser punishment for the same crime.

The members of this small group of parents are all "poor" and in our present circumstances due to a down-swing in the economy, or because certain medical conditions prevent us from being in the workforce (one parent is a registered nurse with a seizure disorder) not because we lack poor work ethic or have "gotten used to" taking government handouts, We are merely victims of the times. Trust me when I say each one of us would rather be earning a living than sitting down and discussing ways to make the dollars we have last until the end of the week, or pooling what little resources we have to prepare meals for our children.

Does our present economic status entitle others who were more fortunate than we are to treat us (or in this case our children) like we are less, or that we lack any amount of intelligence, simply because we don't have the money to purchase better resources to defend our rights? Does our economic status dictate that we are expected to act in a certain way that would not advance our knowledge or provide us with a better status of living? Should people who are poor not have the same resources or ability to voice their opinion or raise a fuss when their dignity or rights are violated as those who have money?

That is the attitude that appears to be prevalent in America today, and something that I have a sincere problem with in general, especially because I have been on both sides of the socioeconomic ladder.Your statements seem to indicate that you too believe this to be the case, and in that I find offense.

For me it is especially notable that this same attitude, including but not limited to the attitude towards the poor and disadvantaged or those that have different spiritual backgrounds, combined with the expectation of swearing fealty to a nation or government was prevalent in Germany not all that long ago...

I just came across this thread by chance.

Apparently this is neither an isolated event nor an isolated attitude by administrators in public schools.

It makes me wonder how pervasive these violations are.


More and more I am leaning toward home schooling being a better alternative for our children. Unfortunately not only can the resources needed be rarely afforded by "poor" families, the school systems, and social service agencies seem to make it more difficult , if not making it seem like it is "unlawful".

reply to post by ThreeSistersofLoveandLigh


I agree with what you said in spirit.

It's not so much an issue whether a child should be made to recite the pledge of allegiance. It's the issue that the child is being taught they have no choice.

And it does seem as though many public schools would prefer children to recite a pledge to a hammer and sickle emblem.

It's up to the individual parent to ensure that their child is not given away to the collective. That the parent still 'owns' the child.

That may sound so old fashioned in these Orwellian Times.

I don't see any problem with saying the pledge of allegiance in school. Saying it when I was a kid did not effect the way I think. I understand that we are all citizens of a nation, part of something together. You go to church and act as others there do. You go to the store and should act as others there do. You go to the license bureau and act as others there do. You go to school and act as others there do. If you do not believe in something it is advisable to ACT as if you do so you fit in. Wise up.....You don't have to believe something to act as if you believe it. Going against the grain is always a lot rougher.

If I go to a function today and people start saying the pledge of allegiance I will join in.

reply to post by rickymouse


What people don't seem to understand is that this whole issue isn't about the pledge per se, but about the fact that the child is being told that they have no choice, that they do not have the ability to express their opinion. The pledge is just a part of the predicating incident.

The real issue is that the student was told they did not have a choice. The fact is in this particular case, and regarding this particular incident, there are supreme court rulings that support the child's stance.

But keep in mind that this is the final straw in a series of incidents where the child's rights, and the rights of the parent, have been blatantly violated. The child finally found something to stand for (or sit as the case may be ) that has a legal precedent to back the child up.

I've got to tell you that because of this incident, and because of what has transpired since then, not only does it seem that this child has a bit more self confidence, the teachers and administrators seem to be a lot more reluctant to knowingly violate her rights, as it seems they have for quite some time now.

What is also interesting to note is that previously some of the other students in this child's class have defended this child when substitute teachers have asked the child to perform tasks that they have difficulties with, because this child just happens to be a little "different". The class didn't accept it when this child was told "you have to do it because I said so", and although it is unknown for sure, may have been what led this child choosing to make a stand. Others stood up for the child, and maybe, just maybe it is from this that the child decided that they could stand up for themselves.

reply to post by ThreeSistersofLoveandLigh


LMAO, I grew up in Detroit when it was the murder capitol of the world. My family would have had to take a loan to be considered "poor". So, the whole "better economic situation" thing is a wash. As I see you want to fall back onto the whole "people that disagree with me are Nazis" argument, I am done.

I hope everything works out for everyone involved.

reply to post by 200Plus


Because I pointed out the parallels in what happened in Germany and what is seems to be happening today in America, and most notably about the perceived "requirement" of saying the Pledge of Allegiance without any foreknowledge of what it means (which you seem to support), am calling you a Nazi? That's an interesting take.

My disagreement with having the children stand and recite the pledge is in only that they do not understand what it means, and should not be required to say it until they do, fully understand the implications, and only if it is of their free will.

This child's own words:

"It doesn't make sense to me. I don't agree with the government, so why should I promise to do what they say?"

Could it be that this 8 year old child has a greater perception of what the implications of the pledge are, and what it means than we do?

Explain to me how "they don't know what the pledge means" and "they disagree with the government"? What eight year old can form a cognizant opinion about the government but is unable to perform assigned tasks in a classroom? Unless the child has a physical handicap and was given a physical task. I am by no means making light of the handicapped so please do not assume that I am. I am just really trying to figure out what the story is.

+ETA - perhaps the parents need to teach the child that they are not pledging to the government.

"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"

Where is the agreement to do what the government says?

Originally posted by 200Plus
Explain to me how "they don't know what the pledge means"

Easy: children are taught the words of the pledge and required to repeat them. No explanation is given. The words are taught, and expected to be repeated by the students.

What eight year old can form a cognizant opinion about the government

They can't and that is pretty much my point. Why should they be required to repeat something that they have no understanding of, especially when there is a deep (and what some would consider patriotic, and political) meaning to the words. This isn't itsy bitsy spider that we are talking about.

I am just really trying to figure out what the story is.

Here is the story- it is pretty simple

I'll put it in Q&A format, and keep it as simple as possible

(Student to teacher)
Q: "Why do I have to say the pledge of allegiance?"
A: "Because you have to"
Q: "Why?"
A: "Because it's what is expected for you to do"
Q: "Why"
A; " Because we do it every morning"
Q: "Why?"
A; "Just do as I tell you"

(Student comes home and asks parent)
Q:"Mommy, the teachers tell me I have to say the pledge of Allegiance, but they won't tell me why I have to say it"
A: "Do you know what the words to the Pledge of Allegiance are? "
Q: "Yes, but they don't make sense to me"
A: "Let's go look them up"

Keep in mind that the small group of parents that I belong to try really hard to teach our children/grandchildren to form their own opinions and not just parrot what our beliefs are, no matter what the subject matter, and we also allow them to maintain their opinion even if it differs from ours so long as the child can validate their reasons with logic. In our households "Because I said so" is NOT a reasonable explanation, even if we are the ones saying it, and if we do not expect our children to accept that explanation from us, then we cannot expect them to accept it from someone else. We allow our children to ask WHY, and we feel that this helps develop a child's critical thinking skills, and teaches them valuable lessons that they may not otherwise get.

+ETA - perhaps the parents need to teach the child that they are not pledging to the government.

But, as the 8 year old pointed out after looking up the meanings of the words that they did not understand, they are....

"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"

Where is the agreement to do what the government says?

it is found in the definitions of the words pledge and allegiance.

PLEDGE
a binding promise or agreement to do or forbear

and from the "Merriam Webster Student Dictionary
a promise or agreement that must be kept

ALLEGIANCE
the fidelity owed by a subject or citizen to a sovereign or government

and again from the Merriam Webster Student Dictionary
loyalty and obedience owed to one's country or government

The definition of the word allegiance says it all. It's pretty simple to understand, and right there in black and white.

Originally posted by ThreeSistersofLoveandLigh

Originally posted by Hopechest
Children have no freedom of speech until they are 18 let alone in a school setting, they agree to follow the school rules when they register.

Really?

Ever heard of the Tinker Test?

Maybe you should refer to Tinker v. Des Moines (393 U.S. 503, 1969) (link) which stated quite the opposite.

Perhaps you should refer to limitations on the Tinker decision due to subsequent cases and the limitations of students' freedom of speech.

That said, I do see (and agree with) what you're getting at with being able to ask "why" without fear of reprimand or punishment; it seems that asking "why" is sometimes treated authoritatively as "don't ask why just do it," with which is strongly disagree and have seen put in practice. It's a very similar to obedience to LE, when it's "because I say so."

The religious issue is quite another, but if the schools asked about the student's religion, while as some have argued it might not be their business, if the student had legitimate religious (or political) grounds for refusal, then I can see it as acceptable to ask.

Nevertheless, IMO a student should not be required to participate in or do anything (within reason) with which he or she might not agree, or object to religiously, politically, or morally (ethically).

reply to post by Liquesence


I agree that there should be limitations to a student's ability to have free speech, especially in a public school setting.

One of the criteria for an act of free speech to pass the "Tinker Test" is that the act cannot be disruptive. Sitting down (quietly) and not saying the "Pledge of Allegiance", or leaving the room while it is being said is not a disruptive act, nor does it violate anyone's rights or infringe on others ability to participate in the pledge if they choose to do so.

The fuss in this case came from the teacher, and the vice-principal, not the student. The student was told that they would have to provide a note from the parent in order not to participate, and even after the parent provided one, the issue still escalated to the point of the vice-principal pulling the child from class and questioning the student.

It should never have gotten that far. If the teacher had just accepted the note, and allowed the student the ability not to participate, there would have been no further discussion on the matter. The fact that the teacher still wanted the student to be "compliant" and participate after the teacher's request for a note from the parent was filled, and the student was disciplined (being pulled from class by the vice principal) and questioned further is why this issue became so hot.