« Gilrs wear tampons in high school protestAnti-television extremism and snobbery »

Students protest pledge of allegiance

09/27/07

Home of the Brave?

Follow up:

Whatever. But the article is interesting:

First, what's a Student Worker Club? That seems like an odd name for a school club. Does that mean that they all work after school? And then:

"Boulder High has a highly diverse population, not all of whom believe in God, or one God," said Emma Martens, a senior and president of the club, which has about a dozen members.

"We didn't think it was fair for the whole school to have to listen to it. It's almost religious oppression," she said.

Man, can students be more spoiled? "I feel oppressed because I have to hear the word "God" once a day."

Principal Bud Jenkins told the Camera newspaper on its Web site Thursday the pledge will not be moved, but added he was proud of the students for standing up for their beliefs.

Have we gone nuts? Is leaving class at a suburban high school with the approval of the principal and fawning ACLU activists brave in any way?

Members of the student group say they have three main gripes with the way the traditional pledge is read at the start of second-period classes: It takes away from school time; it's ignored or disrespected by mocking teens; and the phrase, "one nation, under God," violates the separation of church and state.

How about encouraging other students to show some respect? They're so into school that 2 minutes makes that much difference? Hasn't the court already decided? They'll grow out of it.

Story here:

Pledging to protest: Some students don't want to hear Pledge of Allegiance during class

Waving signs and American flags, Boulder High School students this morning will stage the first of what could become many Pledge of Allegiance protests in the school courtyard.

Members of the activist Student Worker club are inviting their peers to leave class every Thursday at 8:30 a.m. — when the pledge is recited over the intercom — and meet in the courtyard to say a revised version of the pledge that doesn't reference God.

Club President Emma Martens, a Boulder High senior who's leading the protest, wrote this new version: "I pledge allegiance to the flag and my constitutional rights with which it comes. And to the diversity, in which our nation stands, one nation, part of one planet, with liberty, freedom, choice and justice for all."

Members of the student group say they have three main gripes with theway the traditional pledge is read at the start of second-period classes: It takes away from school time; it's ignored or disrespected by mocking teens; and the phrase, "one nation, under God," violates the separation of church and state.

"Boulder High has a highly diverse population, not all of whom believe in God, or one God," Martens said. "We didn't think it was fair for the whole school to have to listen to it.

"It's almost religious oppression," she said.

Until this fall, Boulder High invited students wanting to recite the Pledge of Allegiance to meet at 7:22 a.m. in the auditorium — before the first period starts at 7:30 a.m. Officials moved the pledge because parents and students expressed concern that Boulder High wasn't complying with a state law that requires schools to "provide an opportunity each school day" for students to recite the pledge.

Former Boulder High student Fleet White III told the school board in 2005 that Boulder High was violating the law by making students get to school eight minutes early if they wanted to say the pledge.

"It's selective compliance with the law," he said at the time. "It's not sending a very good message."

White, who's at school on the East Coast, couldn't be reached for comment Wednesday.

His sister, Daphne White, was behind a controversy that erupted earlier this year over a Conference on World Affairs panel at Boulder High about sex, teens and drugs. In May, she and her parents complained to the school board that the sex panel, which some students were required to attend, was one-sided and discredited religious views and abstinence.
In their own words

Here's the Student Worker revised version of the Pledge of Allegiance:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag and my constitutional rights with which it comes. And to the diversity, in which our nation stands, one nation, part of one planet, with liberty, freedom, choice and justice for all."

Source: Student Worker President Emma Martens

Following Fleet White's 2005 Pledge of Allegiance complaint, some parents joined the fray in protest of the pre-school pledge. After reviewing the law, Boulder High officials decided to move it to the second period, assistant principal Lynn Donnelly said.

"By doing it before school, it wasn't being done during the school day, so it was not fitting the letter of the law," Donnelly said.

Now, she said, Boulder High is meeting the "expectations of the legislators."

Donnelly said Boulder High's daily pledge announcement starts with this invitation: "Please stand if you want to participate in the Pledge of Allegiance."

"Then they go on with class," she said. "It's not disruptive."

Senior Hannah Regan-Smith, 17, said members of the student activist group want Boulder High to comply with state law, "But it can be done in a less disrespectful way."

The group has written a letter to Principal Bud Jenkins asking that the recitation be held in the auditorium during both of the school's two lunch hours.
Pledge provisions

Here are the Boulder Valley School District's Pledge of Allegiance guidelines and the state law:

Colorado law requires public schools to provide an opportunity to recite the pledge every day. According to Colorado law 22-1-106, "Each school district shall provide an opportunity each school day for willing students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in public elementary and secondary educational institutions. Any person not wishing to participate in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance shall be exempt from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance and need not participate."

Earlier this year, district officials sent these Pledge of Allegiance recommendations to Boulder Valley schools:

The pledge should be a schoolwide activity that's initiated, if possible, through the public-address system with this introduction: "Please stand and join in the Pledge of Allegiance."

Anyone — students, teachers or other staff members — can be excused from reciting the pledge. People who abstain don't need to provide a reason for their objection.

Students who don't participate shouldn't be disciplined or forced to stand, leave the room or ostracized in any way. They can be disciplined if they're disruptive.

A teacher who objects to reciting the pledge should "do so in a way that is not intended to impose a personal agenda on students or encourage students to not participate."

Retaliation or harassment of any person based on his or her decision not to participate in recitation of the pledge "must not be tolerated."

Senior Emma Chitters, 17, said that would keep students who don't want to hear the pledge from disrespecting it in class — repeating it in a mocking tone or ad-libbing their own version.

"People talk over it, or they have other ways to say it," Chitters said. "It would be much better to offer it during the lunch hour for people who really want to go."

The group's members — there are at least 11 — said they haven't heard back from Jenkins, and they don't know how many other people will come to the protests.

Sophomore Spencer Gale, 15, said she might go — although she doesn't have a major complaint with the pledge being aired during class. She just doesn't say it, she said, adding that most people ignore the pledge if they don't approve of it.

"Did anyone even go last year when it was in the gym?" Gale asked her friend, Jackson Prince, a sophomore.

"Like, two kids," said Prince, 16.

Assistant principal Donnelly said chances are slim that the pledge will be moved.

Martens, who's leading the student protest, said if school officials ignore their pleas, "We're going to keep on with the protests."

If officials "absolutely refuse" to consider alternatives, Martens said, the students might ask the school to remove "under God" from the pledge when it's read over the intercom.

"That would be better than nothing," Martens said. "But we are not giving up because we really care about this, and we want to have our voices heard."

By nguirado ( Email ), 09:02:50 pm, 1381 words
PermalinkCategories: K-12, News :: 4 comments »

4 comments

Comment from: Chris [Visitor] Email
What is your solution?


Chris
09/28/07 @ 09:54
Comment from: kevin [Visitor] Email
Remember as a child when you didn't want to take medicine and were uncooperative with your mom....then your dad came home and showed you how the meds were dispensed when spoiled rotten crybabies resisted...why can't kids see past their noses?...
09/28/07 @ 10:23
Comment from: nguirado [Member] Email · http://www.nelsonguirado.com
I really don't have a solution. It's their right to protest. I was just thinking that it makes them looked kind of spoiled.
09/28/07 @ 10:33
Comment from: Dave Jarvis [Visitor] · http://www.davidjarvis.ca
===============================================================
=== LESSON #1 (1785): Religious Assessments ===
===============================================================
James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments
June 20, 1785

The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men.

What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people.

===============================================================
=== LESSON #2 (1791): Freedom of Religion ===
===============================================================
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression
Ratified December 15, 1791

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

===============================================================
=== LESSON #3 (1802): NO LAW for Religious Establishment ===
===============================================================
From Thomas Jefferson
January 1, 1802.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

===============================================================
=== LESSON #4 (1947): Separation of Church and State ===
===============================================================
U.S. Supreme Court
Everson v. Board of Education
Decided February 10, 1947

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'"

===============================================================
=== LESSON #5 (1971): LEMON TEST ===
===============================================================
Laws must:

* have a secular purpose, and
* be neutral towards religion (neither hinder nor advance it), and
* not have excessive entanglements between the government and religion.

U.S. Supreme Court
Lemon v. Kurtzman
Decided June 28, 1971

Held: Both statutes are unconstitutional under the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, as the cumulative impact of the entire relationship arising under the statutes involves excessive entanglement between government and religion.

===============================================================
=== LESSON #6 (1984): ENDORSEMENT TEST ===
===============================================================
A law is unconstitutional if it favours one religion over another in a way that makes some people feel like outsiders and others feel like insiders.

U.S. Supreme Court
Lynch v. Donnelly
Decided March 5, 1984

In my view,

those involvements of religious with secular institutions which (a) serve the essentially religious activities of religious institutions; (b) employ the organs of government for essentially religious purposes; or (c) use essentially religious means to serve governmental ends, where secular means would suffice

must be struck down.

===============================================================
=== LESSON #7 (1989): COERCION TEST ===
===============================================================
A law is constitutional if it recognizes or accommodates a religion, as long as its demonstration of support does not appear to coerce individuals to support or participate in a religion.

U.S. Supreme Court - COERCION TEST
County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter
Decided July 3, 1989

Whether the key word is "endorsement," "favoritism," or "promotion," the essential principle remains the same. The Establishment Clause, at the very least, prohibits government from appearing to take a position on questions of religious belief or from "making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political community."

09/29/07 @ 03:32

Leave a comment


Your email address will not be revealed on this site.

Your URL will be displayed.
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Name, email & website)
(Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will not be revealed.)
What color is the sky?
antispam test