[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Big Win For Iraqi & Houthi Fighters; Israeli Port Declares 'Bankruptcy' After Attacks Tim Pool Makes Trump Prosecutor MELTDOWN & Timcast IRL Lives In Her Head Rent Free! Hilarious Clip! Do THIS With 3 Fruits for REGROWING Stem Cells! | Dr. William Li 37-Year High Jump Record Broken, Highlighting the Difference Between Men and Women Bill Gates Launches Maggot Milk to Replace Dairy Sir Patrick Vallance calls for net zero to have immediacy of search for Covid vaccine I LOVE BIDENOMICS! Douglas MacGregor Uncovers: Egypt Could Join War With Israel - Iran Warns of 'Destructive War 5 DESSERTS That REGENERATE Stem Cells | Dr. William Li Klaus Schwab Says Humanity Must Be Forced Into Collaboration With Globalist Elites Chicago Has 1/3 Of Americas Holiday Murders Harriet Hageman Proposes Amendment To Defund UN International Organization For Migration 'Israel' kills Palestinian detainees from Gaza after their release Israeli white phosphorus shells burn 1,250 hectares of Lebanese soil Turkish military advances 15 km into Iraqi Kurdistan, triggering mass evacuations Rudy Giuliani Disbarred By New York State Court. Does New York Have ANY White Judges? Biden Flies Deported Cameroonians BACK To US, And That's Not All! JPMorgan Warns 86 Million Customers: Prepare to Pay a $25 monthly fee for Checking Accounts Saudi Crown Price Keen to Develop Iran Ties Following Pezeshkian's Election, State News Agency Says Social Security is underfunded by $175 trillion. The "wealthy" will need to pay 7x US GDP in taxes to keep it solvent n: Jul 08 07:41 Israel's worst post-Oct 7 intel failure 'We Don't Accept People From Your Country': Vietnamese Cafe Refuses Service to Israelis House to expose TSAs airport fiasco with Cuban agents as Latino vote up for grabs Gold Star Wife NUKES Joe Biden Biden and his delegates to the DNC Netanyahu Sabotaging Deal With Hamas By Issuing List of Demands Supreme Court Ruling Downgraded January 6 From Insurrection to Trespassing, says Legal Expert War on Gaza Causing Surge in Terrorism Recruiting, Says US Intel Official This is what STRENGTH looks like (Trump Vs Biden in Afghanistam) Gaza_ The Astounding Parallels with 9_11

Resistance
See other Resistance Articles

Title: Texas AG supports school district in Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit
Source: Faux news
URL Source: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/09/2 ... pledge-allegiance-lawsuit.html
Published: Sep 27, 2018
Author: Ryan Gaydos
Post Date: 2018-09-27 19:50:32 by titorite
Keywords: None
Views: 201
Comments: 12

A Texas school district being sued by a black student who was kicked out for refusing to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance received support from the state attorney general Tuesday.

Ken Paxton backed the Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District as it battles the lawsuit. Kizzy Landry sued the district on behalf of her 18-year-old daughter, India, after India was kicked out of Windfern High School in October 2017 for refusing to stand for the pledge.

India Landry said at the time she was inspired by NFL players who decided to kneel during the national anthem to protest perceived racial injustices, according to the Houston Chronicle.

“I felt the flag doesn’t represent what it stands for, liberty and justice for all and I don’t feel what is going on in the country, so it was my choice to remain seated, silently,” she said. “It was a silent protest.” India said she protested the Pledge about 200 times without incident. Then she engaged in the protest while in her principal's office.

“Principal Strother upon seeing this immediately expelled India from school saying ‘Well you’re kicked outta here,’” the lawsuit complaint states. A school secretary then allegedly added: “This is not the NFL.”

While parents in Texas could sign a waiver allowing their kids to sit for the pledge, Kizzy Landry claimed forcing schoolchildren to recite the pledge violates their free speech. Paxton argued, “School children cannot unilaterally refuse to participate in the pledge,” the Dallas Morning-News reported. “Requiring the Pledge to be recited at the start of every school day has the laudable result of fostering respect for our flag and a patriotic love of our country,” Paxton said in a statement. “This case is about providing for the saying of the Pledge of Allegiance while respecting the parental right to direct the education of children.”

Landry has not returned to the school and missed her graduation, KHOU reported. The case is set to go to trial April 15.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

#1. To: All (#0)

I dont see what the girls race has to do with anything, I think thats just the Lame Stream Media playing up that part for sensationalism but what is at the heart of the matter is free speech. She doesnt wanna say the pledge of allegiance.

Big deal neither did I in school but for different reasons... I felt is was kinda nazish to demand a pledge of loyalty. Kinda hitler youth sorta thing. I knew most of my class mates never thought about it and couldn't define half the words in the pledge...but they were reciting it by rote the programming of the propaganda buried deep into their minds... So Fuck no fuck a loyalty pledge , What did napoleon say

"A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon." - Napoleon Bonaparte

Liberty and justice for all is a bit more important to me than some colored ribbon....

SO this colored girl doesnt want to say the pledge, so fucking what. That is her constitutional right. Affirmed by the supreme court. This aint the first time a child refused to say the pledge. Their's precedent. Ken Paxton is a fucking idiot for not knowing that and fucktard for supporting the schools attempted suppression if this girls 1st amendment right. She cant be compelled to say it and should not be punished for not saying it.

She has the liberty and right to speak or not speak. Fuck that school and fuck ken paxton.

______________________________________

Suspect all media / resist bad propaganda/Learn NLP everyday everyway ;) If you don't control your mind someone else will.

titorite  posted on  2018-09-27   19:58:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Paxton

wasn't he the one who paid some fine(s) for fraud before can't stand up abbott appointed him ag?

IRTorqued  posted on  2018-09-27   21:43:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

India Landry said at the time she was inspired by NFL players who decided to kneel during the national anthem to protest perceived racial injustices, according to the Houston Chronicle.

“I felt the flag doesn’t represent what it stands for, liberty and justice for all and I don’t feel what is going on in the country, so it was my choice to remain seated, silently,” she said. “It was a silent protest.” India said she protested the Pledge about 200 times without incident. Then she engaged in the protest while in her principal's office.

“Principal Strother upon seeing this immediately expelled India from school saying ‘Well you’re kicked outta here,’” the lawsuit complaint states. A school secretary then allegedly added: “This is not the NFL.”

Some words of advice that I read online recently, paraphrased for her and others insistent on protesting America's imperfections, wherever and whenever they choose:

Stand for the Pledge of Allegiance and the National Anthem. Kneel only for God. Remain seated or horizontal if you must for physical reasons. Otherwise, it's unrealistic to expect comfortable accomodations for public protest spectacles by the unpatriotic or to be provided with higher levels of respectfullness for such unrespecting demonstrations as yours and the similarly discordants -- not from anyone besides maybe other showy disrespecters of what America fundamentally stands for and however many Patriots there are who certainly know better than you do at this point about what that means.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2018-09-28   5:32:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Liege: noun

a feudal lord entitled to allegiance and service.

a feudal vassal or subject.

The kid's right, you're right, and I am in total agreement. The pledge is bullshit especially when you understand the meaning of "Liege" !

Ephesians 5:11King James Version (KJV)

11 "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. "

The best thing about old age is that it doesn't last forever.

noone222  posted on  2018-09-28   5:35:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Liege: noun

a feudal lord entitled to allegiance and service.

a feudal vassal or subject.

... The pledge is bullshit especially when you understand the meaning of "Liege" !

Nobody is expected to kneel as a feudal vassal for the Pledge of Allegiance or our National Anthem either. It's more than slightly ironic, though - imo, that some oppositionals have claimed to be so disgruntled with America that they'd ... what? Intentionally assume that "Liege" posturance during the Anthem as an offensive joke or something? I have to wonder why but can't even think of logistical reasons that don't amount to bad sportsmanship and intrusively worse.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2018-09-28   7:25:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

March 23, 1775.

MR. PRESIDENT: No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely, and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfil the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offence, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves, and the House? Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these war-like preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask, gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done, to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free² if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending²if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable²and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace²but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Source: Wirt, William. Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry . (Philadelphia) 1836, as reproduced in The World's Great Speeches, Lewis Copeland and Lawrence W. Lamm, eds., (New York) 1973.

Man, I find you almost unbearable in your Stepford Wives approach to patriotism. You continually make excuses for the upside down and non-constitutional behavior of the FEDERAL usurpers. Why should I accept your "opinion" regarding "no one is expected to kneel as a feudal vassal" ... every taxpayer in Amerika is on their knees when forced to support a million issues that violate their conscience.

Please don't get me started ... are you a bot ? Often times you sound intelligent while espousing the most ridiculous positions that are amazingly fact free fictions of your imagination.

Ephesians 5:11King James Version (KJV)

11 "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. "

The best thing about old age is that it doesn't last forever.

noone222  posted on  2018-09-28   7:48:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

That all aside, I think it is perfectly ok for any to say or not say the pledge voluntarily. And that is the whole sum of it. Forcing people to do as you will is force. She has a right to her speech. She chooses not to say the pledge or stand for the pledge this does not impact other people. Pride be damned.

More over as I said, this aint the first kid to refuse to say the pledge. Its been ruled on and their is precedent the principle fucked up expelling her and now the school district and tax payers are gonna have to pay the price for the pride of patriotism.

______________________________________

Suspect all media / resist bad propaganda/Learn NLP everyday everyway ;) If you don't control your mind someone else will.

titorite  posted on  2018-09-28   22:22:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

That all aside, I think it is perfectly ok for any to say or not say the pledge voluntarily. And that is the whole sum of it. Forcing people to do as you will is force. She has a right to her speech. She chooses not to say the pledge or stand for the pledge this does not impact other people. Pride be damned.

More over as I said, this aint the first kid to refuse to say the pledge. Its been ruled on and their is precedent the principle fucked up expelling her and now the school district and tax payers are gonna have to pay the price for the pride of patriotism.

In no way do I mean for the sincere efforts of vigilance by you, none, et al to be depreciated by my perspective that this particular case is not really about an alleged Freedom of Speech issue at all, like it's reported be, and so isn't even worthy of your well-intentioned interventions, in my humble opinion. If you go back and read through it again, I think you'll find and might agree then that the school forced no student whatsoever to recite the Pledge (as her mother deflected the matter to about but is actually not about the First Amendment, except to the extent that it's being misused to gloss over quite a number of conniving issues and motives involved in the background staging of this.) Nor were any students forced to stand for the Pledge or even forced to muster enough quietude in respect for the Speech rights of others who did want to recite it. They were probably also free to go sit someplace else, like a room at the office, where they wouldn't have to see the participants or as many -- all they needed to do was get a signed permission form from one of their parents or guardians and then they were clearance-freed to sit down if they couldn't bear to stand through it long enough out of silent respect for the rights of their classmates and others; just simply sit down, quietly and non-disruptively.

The first issues of importance (and I'm open to being corrected if you think I'm wrong) are these 3:

1. Did she or did she not bring in the custodial permission form to sit down for the Pledge?

2. Was she sent to the office because she was disruptive while sitting down at that time?

3. Was she expelled because she didn't have the required permission on file to sit down through the Pledge, despite having gotten away with doing so numerous times before?

That's about all I have the online time to say for now on this subject but will look forward to posted viewpoints and discussing this further if anyone might want to do that: relevant school system issues, Parental Rights issues, historical issues, distorted historical issues and the Reparations Movement, lawsuit mania, the Cultural Marxist/Communist agendas to divide and conquer America, etc.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2018-09-29   10:13:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The 1st amendment applies to children as well as adults. Kids dont need premission to speak , nor can they be compelled to speak against their will. India , doesnt need a parental slip to remain silent during the pledge not can she be compelled to stand for it. She has the same right to expression as you or I, and remaining seated and silent can not be construed as being disruptive.

She should never of been punished for her choice to remain seated and silent.

education.findlaw.com/stu...the-pledge-of-allegiance- http://and-legal-">education.findlaw.com/stu...-of-allegiance-and-legal- challenges-in-education.html

One of the enduring traditions in public education is the recitation of the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance before the start of class, often while standing with one hand on the heart. But given both the protections of individuals and restraints on the government (public schools are government entities) required by the First Amendment to the Constitution, do students or school staff have to participate in the Pledge? And can students be reprimanded or retaliated against for refusing (sitting or "taking a knee"), in protest or for other personal reasons? The short answer is "no," but there's a long history of jurisprudence leading to that conclusion. The following is a summary of the Pledge of Allegiance and legal challenges in education. 1943: Supreme Court Upholds Establishment Clause In West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), the Supreme Court ruled that requiring the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The case grew out of West Virginia's passage of legislation requiring the pledge and flag-saluting. Lawmakers had intended them to be part of instruction on civics, history, and the Constitution, and they defined noncompliance as insubordination that was punishable by expulsion from school. Parents of expelled students were also subject to fines. After Jehovah's Witnesses students were expelled, their parents brought suit contending that the law infringed upon their religious beliefs, which they said required them not to engage in these secular practices. The Supreme Court found two constitutional violations. The state law violated the Fourteenth Amendment's requirement of due process and the First Amendment's requirements of religious freedom and free speech upon the state. At heart, said the Court, were the principles of freedom of thought and government by consent. Critically, the majority observed a right of individuals to be free from official pressure to state a particular opinion, including that they honor their government. The opinion declared that "no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein." New Challenges in the 1990s In the 1990s, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) repeatedly defended students in school districts who suffered reprisals for failing to participate in the Pledge of Allegiance. In 1998, for instance, the ACLU filed a federal lawsuit against the Fallbrook Union High School District of San Diego, California, after school officials required a dissenting student to stand silently during the pledge, leave the classroom, or face detention; settling the case out of court, the school district agreed to change its policy. "One Nation Under God" and the Constitution: SCOTUS Weighs In A decision by a three- judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2002 stirred the debate over whether the Pledge violates the Constitution. Michael A. Newdow, an avowed atheist, challenged a policy of the Elk Grove (California) Unified School District that required students to recite the Pledge. According to Newdow, because the Pledge includes the phrase "under God," the school's required recitation amounted to an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. The panel of the Ninth Circuit agreed with Newdow and held that the school district had violated the Constitution. The full panel of the Ninth Circuit allowed the decision to stand, but the school district appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. In Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2004), the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit, but only because the Court determined that Newdow did not have standing to bring the case. Accordingly, the Court did not rule on the question of whether the Pledge violates the Establishment Clause. In 2005, Newdow again challenged the constitutionality of the Pledge by bringing suit in a federal district court in California. The court followed the previous decision of the Ninth Circuit and determined that the Pledge indeed violated the Constitution, but the case was later reversed on appeal to the Ninth Circuit (Newdow v. Rio Linda Union Sch. Dist., 2010). The Court determined that the recitation of the pledge -- and, specifically, the school's role in leading it -- does not violate the Establishment Clause. However, it's worth repeating that students have the right to refuse to participate without fear of punishment or retaliation.<.b>

______________________________________

Suspect all media / resist bad propaganda/Learn NLP everyday everyway ;) If you don't control your mind someone else will.

titorite  posted on  2018-09-29   19:33:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

When I was in the 5th grade we went into operation desert shield / desert storm. Things started to get real fruity about then. We went from saying the pledge to saying the pledge, having moments of silence, saying prayers for the soldiers, and everyday listening to the song "Proud to be an American" That was about the time I stopped saying the pledge. Although I did stand with the crowd so as to not draw unwanted attention to attention to myself from the other zombies humming along as they were told too. God knows I had enough trouble from bullies and spiteful teachers in school.

______________________________________

Suspect all media / resist bad propaganda/Learn NLP everyday everyway ;) If you don't control your mind someone else will.

titorite  posted on  2018-09-29   19:44:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Cultural Marxist/Communist agendas to divide and conquer America, etc.

America is being run by cultural Marxists that have been elected and funded by their own kind and obeyed by the majority. The behavior of America has been a geopolitical tyranny of murder and mayhem for its entire history though the populace has been propagandized to believe America was always the defender of freedom and democracy. An honest appraisal of America's actions towards its own people and the people of the world might cause an honest person to burn the flag or throw rocks at it. The public school system has proven itself deficient in educating and proficient in propagandizing the student to believe a myriad of falsehoods. Maybe the students (lieges) would fare better without it.

Ephesians 5:11King James Version (KJV)

11 "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. "

The best thing about old age is that it doesn't last forever.

noone222  posted on  2018-09-30   9:43:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The 1st amendment applies to children as well as adults. Kids dont need premission to speak , nor can they be compelled to speak against their will. India , doesnt need a parental slip to remain silent during the pledge not can she be compelled to stand for it. She has the same right to expression as you or I, and remaining seated and silent can not be construed as being disruptive.

She should never of been punished for her choice to remain seated and silent.

education.findlaw.com/stu...the-pledge-of-allegiance- http://and-legal- ">education.findlaw.com/stu...-of-allegiance-and-legal- challenges-in- education.html

[Insert for website path correction and activation w/excerpt:

The Pledge of Allegiance and Legal Challenges in Education - education.findlaw.com

One of the enduring traditions in public education is the recitation of the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance before the start of class, often while standing with one hand on the heart. But given both the protections of individuals and restraints on the government (public schools are government entities) required by the First Amendment to the Constitution, do students or school staff have to participate in the Pledge? And can students be reprimanded or retaliated against for refusing (sitting or "taking a knee"), in protest or for other personal reasons? The short answer is "no," but there's a long history of jurisprudence leading to that conclusion. The following is a summary of the Pledge of Allegiance and legal challenges in education.]

titorite, I admire your championship of children's rights and the First Amendment rights of all Americans but do think in this case that you've read more into a slapdash news article than you should have (quite a bit more than is actually there) and that you're still assessing the alleged situation much too quickly. I'm not going to fret about that as much as I might if we were discussing a subject of world impact. So, since this is about a uniquely American controversy, please just set all of the media spun hoopla aside for a few moments to think back again, like you did in your next post at #10, about the Pledge of Allegiance procedure in our schools.

Students stand next to their desk facing towards the flag at the front of the classroom. The teacher maybe stands by their own desk or maybe not -- might even have their back to the students but the point is that, whatever direction the teacher stood to face the flag and recite the Pledge too, they would not be likely to guage precisely which of 30 or so students were actually reciting the Pledge or not or if they all had their hand are over their heart. A teacher would probably notice if some were sitting down instead of standing and if there's a disruption of some sort but I've not heard of any complaints like "row monitors on patrol" ever compelling a child or anyone else to speak the Pledge against their will. None/Zero. The office personnel for the Principle would most likely have the responsibility of filing and updating parental/guardian waivers for a child to stand or sit down and abstain from participating in the Pledge or if there's been an authorized change made to withdraw that status.

The specific student at issue is reportedly not a child but an 18-year old adult individual who might not have still needed a stand or sit-down waiver from home. Even if that is so, she is vague about why she was in the Principle's office and implausibly suggests that he's too stupid to know about any school policy that would prevent high level admins like him from expelling students who:

1. happen to have the necessary waiver on file to quietly stand or sit down during the Pledge or

2. perhaps doesn't need one (like a student who is what's legalistically called an "emancipated minor" or

3. is of adult-age, cognizant and freely able to make such decisions for themselves (i.e. not under the influence of drugs or alcohol or judicial supervisions) with full penalty-liabilty for willful misconduct on the premises in defiance of known rules and procedures.

There's a high probability of some reason(s) other than the Pledge involved for why she was expelled. She did indicate that she was freely able to choose hundreds of times to sit down without any faculty problem about it except the sudden expulsion from him -- which sounds like an incompetent abuse of power on his part or, more likely, a smear campaign by her to get him fired, maybe charged criminally and sued monetrarily or whatever other vendetta-motives there might be afoot likewise; or possibly as a thoughtless, "victimization" publicity stunt for herself and/or the NFL et al athletic protesters of the National Anthem.

Nationally, this is a needless controversy that generally amounts to a Parental Rights matter rather than Freedom of Speech. As far as I know, there are no presently active school or government policies of compulsion to recite the Pledge, or such compellings to participate in it by civilly standing in silence, or any compulsory denial of the right to refuse by sitting down courteously or leaving the room in an orderly manner, as would usually be expected during other formal classtime. The news article indicated nothing to construe there was anything rogue about the school's official policy. That being so, the valid issue, as I see it, is:

Do persons have the right to disrupt or disrespectfully distract the taxpayer funded schooling time of others for that short period particularly and to do so with impunity because it's not something they want to personally tolerate themselves as an American-traditional means of teaching respect for our founding principles as standard values (for good citizen-faithfulness as the inheritors of our Founders' best intentions for our nation/i.e. not traitorous; and good leadership for it which stems from that) ... nor do they want to tolerate it from others at all -- not even for a few minutes, without imposing a disparaging display of objection somehow?; and the answer, imo, is: No, they do not have a right to diminish the right of others to willingly and attentatively participate in that taxpayer funded class period or others, much as they might insist they do or that they should have such a "superior" right. Doing away with loyalty oaths/honor pledges of trust and dedication to the Constitution of our Republic, for example, is one of the listed goals of Communism. This is also about the right of Americans for the Pledge of Allegiance to be provided as part of the curriculum in our public schools -- as one form of Civics Subject studies and practices, among others, with a reasonable opt-out process available for those who prefer to do so accordingly. [Linked 4um Ref.]

The Subject of Civics also includes the studies and practices of common Civility to some extent, I'd say, but not quite so optionally in our schools or other societal settings as are voluntary recitals of the Pledge of Allegiance. There is no confirming evidence in the news article to presume that the student was not disruptive then or otherwise misbehaving simply becase a reporter didn't record any occurance. Although your stated opinion implies that Freedom of Speech means America's minor-age children should be free to speak and act as they choose (even to their own long-term detriment, as well as to the ethics learning-process of others involved), without parental permission needed for anything they want to say or do at that time, I do sadly think the Pro-"Choice"/Pro-Abortionists like "Planned Parenthood" would agree with you and have their own parent-permissionless procedures for the minor-age girls. If you wouldn't mind discussing the Denial of Parental Rights issue further as it pertains to our school system, I'll give you a starting example of how parents in this area were not even notified of any "social studies" experiment "activity" at their school district's Administration-approved camp using their children as "test subjects", much less asked for their signed permission to do such a thing:

The children were instructed to stand in a line, not asked if they wanted to participate or not, and their hands were tied to each other so that they could experience "what it was like to be sold as a slave at an auction." One of the children yelled out and they tried to take off running, which resulted in the smallest boy there having his chest trampled. Please give that hazardous situation some thought regarding the necessity of parental/custodial First Amendment rights to supercede their child's at times in various school matters; and also parental/custodial supercedant rights to put permit-required limits (for what they believe to be in their child's best interests and safety) on the "Freedom of Speech" expressions of their school system's adult faculty and all other workers with oversight and disciplinary responsibilities of them.

Some phrasings at the linked education.findlaw site that you posted, like "required Pledge Recitation", are misleading. That doesn't mean all present are required to recite it. A recording of someone saying the Pledge of Allegiance could be played through the classroom speakers with nobody in the entire building choosing to participate and the requirement that it be provided by the government as a recitational Civics segment option for students K-12 would still have been fullfilled. Whether anyone likes it or not is irrelevant. They don't have to like it or Math and Science or other courses either but any arguments as if those who want it to be degraded or abolished possess a kind of higher prioritized "respectability" or clout to deny others the unimpeded opportunity to hear and see it properly and to participate voluntarily on public school property are tyrannical nonsense -- nihilistic Postmodernism tactics that the Left might refer to amongst themselves as "language arts" but the objective is basically to make discussions and debate senseless and practically everything meaningless except per their demands and agendas (Ref. Glenn Beck and Jordan Peterson for more about that subject.) Another of their strategies similarly is called the Delphi Technique/Method/the "art" of pretending to achieve consensus to manipulate things like school issue meetings and other business, politics and society, too, into a consensus that favors them even when doing that is entirely against logic.

Your findlaw link (which I disagree with on a number of points) talks about a WWII era Pledge of Allegiance case, then a flurry of ACLU case-defenses of Pledge-dissenting students in the 90s. It mentions only one specifically: a 1998 San Diego, California case that was settled out of court. No ageement of wrongdoing by the school district was noted at the site -- just that it agreed to make some type of unspecified change to its sensible-sounding Pledge of Allegiance policy, which wasn't contested by Clintonian D.C.'s Department of Education but probably should have been. Even the Military Oath procedure was concerningly remiss to some degree during those years, imo. The article then goes on to mention the Post-9/11 2002-2010 Pledge-cases pertaining to an atheist male named Newdow. The author's opinion is abruptly stated in conclusion but without citing case-evidence that "students have the right to refuse to participate without fear of punishment or retaliation". That wouldn't mean that they have a right to protest in any manner or place on the property that they choose, which could effectively make themselves participants of the negatively reactive sort and negate their non-participatory status. Pledge-time is not really a "reprisal-free pass" authorizing exhibitions of rude or obnoxious behavior, etc., that would typically result at other times in detention, suspension or expulsion.

So, I'm going to emphatically try to say here, without meaning any ingratitude or offense for your diligent presentment of that report and your willingness to uphold the Constitution: There are far more crucial problems with our school system and elsewhere here than that alleged office-conflict blurb; all of which could better use your assistance. Again, I cannot agree under the stated circumstances that this is the student First Amendment dilemma that it purports to be but do thank you and any other readers who might have made it through this sprawling dissertation about that, which was an attempt to further clarify some complicated things to minimize misunderstandings later and to be as respectful as possible in reconsidering the postings of genuine concern properly, not be misinterpreted as if a slackard of seeming indifference just to be more conveniently concise this time.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2018-10-03   1:20:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]