I am still trying to wrap my head around this. How did a kid not reciting The Pledge Of Allegiance wind up with him being arrested on misdemeanor charges? Thus begins our latest Call-Out.
An 11-year-old student from Lawton Chiles Middle Academy in Lakeland, FL, on February 4th refused to recite The Pledge, stating that the flag and the national anthem are racist. Substitute teacher Ana Alvarez, for whom discretion is clearly not the better form of valor, replied, "If living in the United States is so bad, why not go some place else to live?" When the boy replied that he was brought here (because, you see, Ms. Alvarez, children tend to go where their parents go), the good woman replied, "Well, you can always go back, because I came here from Cuba, and the day I feel I'm not welcome here anymore, I would find another place to live." (Ah, well-played, Ms. Alvarez, you would do SO well at my job. I can just imagine what your reaction would be the first time a customer didn't like your hand-crafted beverage!)
At this point, she decided she didn't want to deal with the student anymore and called the office. They couldn't seem to deal with the child either, and called Lakeland Police Department, who arrested the boy after he created disturbances and allegedly threatened the teacher. The police also indicated the student resisted arrest, though not violently.
How did so many trained (?) adults have so much trouble with an 11-year-old, who, though he reportedly mouthed off some threats, admittedly did no violence?
Why is it a "federal case" that an 11-year-old doesn't recite The Pledge? Many years ago, not long after the asteroid took out the dinosaurs, Your Crusading Blogger also went through a stage as a 16-17-year-old where I didn't stand or recite The Pledge. I thought it patently silly that a person should face a corner and pledge fidelity to a stick with a cloth stapled to it. Canada doesn't do it. Does any other country? No one said anything. I doubt anyone ever noticed.
Is this young fellow a budding social justice warrior? Or is he just doing what is currently hip, chic and trendy? Who knows? But what this blogger does know is that making a big deal out of something that an 11-year-old was (not) doing, that was hurting no one, was not too smart. It's hard to know who, of the sub, the school's dean, or the Lakeland PD's resource officer, has the greatest responsibility for building this mountain out of that molehill.
But one thing I know: In 1943, the Supreme Court said students do not have to recite The Pledge Of Allegiance. And that's good enough for me.
Said Justices Hugo Black and William O. Douglas:
"...Words uttered under coercion are proof of loyalty to nothing but self-interest. Love of country must spring from willing hearts and free minds, inspired by a fair administration of wise laws enacted by the people's elected representatives within the bounds of express constitutional prohibitions. These laws must, to be consistent with the First Amendment, permit the widest toleration of conflicting viewpoints consistent with a society of free men.
Neither our domestic tranquillity in peace nor our martial effort in war depend on compelling little children to participate in a ceremony which ends in nothing for them but a fear of spiritual condemnation. If, as we think, their fears are groundless, time and reason are the proper antidotes for their errors. The ceremonial, when enforced against conscientious objectors, more likely to defeat than to serve its high purpose, is a handy implement for disguised religious persecution. As such, it is inconsistent with our Constitution's plan and purpose."
And affirmed Justice Frank Murphy:
"I am unable to agree that the benefits that may accrue to society from the compulsory flag salute are sufficiently definite and tangible to justify the invasion of freedom and privacy that is entailed or to compensate for a restraint on the freedom of the individual to be vocal or silent according to his conscience or personal inclination. The trenchant words in the preamble to the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom remain unanswerable:
'. . . all attempts to influence [the mind] by temporal punishments, or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, . . .'
Any spark of love for country which may be generated in a child or his associates by forcing him to make what is to him an empty gesture and recite words wrung from him contrary to his religious beliefs is overshadowed by the desirability of preserving freedom of conscience to the full. It is in that freedom and the example of persuasion, not in force and compulsion, that the real unity of America lies."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/319/624
And the young man may have a point about the Star-Spangled Banner:
"In November 2017, the California Chapter of the NAACP called on Congress to remove "The Star-Spangled Banner" as the national anthem. Alice Huffman, California NAACP president said: "it's racist; it doesn't represent our community, it's anti-black."[75] The third stanza of the anthem, which is rarely sung and few know, contains the words, "No refuge could save the hireling and slave, From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:", which some interpret as racist. The organization was still seeking a representative to sponsor the legislation in Congress at the time of their announcement."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star-Spangled_Banner
It is comforting to know that Ana Alvarez no longer works for the Lakeland School District.
Let's get it together, America.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/02/17/florida-sixth-grader-charged-with-misdemeanor-after-refusing-recite-pledge-allegiance/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.bd9302b4
