Required to stand for the Pledge?

[Scarberry, Mark]

I made no such assumption, nor would I conclude without more that such a
student is not patriotic. 

My message stated that the school need not be neutral on the importance of
*showing* respect for the flag and the country, or on the value of patriotic
*expressions*. If the school sponsors a patriotic expression that it
believes is a good way to show respect for the flag and the country, the
school need not be neutral on the value of student participation. You may
also note that my message was directed to school sponsored patriotic
expressions generally, not specifically to the Pledge (except for the
initial disclaimer with regard to putting aside issues raised by "under
God").
 
Mark S. Scarberry
Pepperdine University School of Law
 

-----Original Message-----
From: marc stern [mailto:mstern at ajcongress.org] 
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 12:52 PM
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Required to stand for the Pledge?

Why do you assume that a student who does not wish to recite the pledge is
not patriotic?
Marc

-----Original Message-----
From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Scarberry, Mark
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 2:51 PM
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Required to stand for the Pledge?

Putting aside the issues raised by "under God" in the Pledge:

Can it be true that the school has no right to try to convince students to
show respect for the flag and for the country? Must the school be neutral on
the value of showing such respect? Schools routinely try to convince
students of various matters -- the need for good nutrition, why smoking is
harmful, why we should recycle, the importance of resisting peer pressure
with regard to use of drugs, etc. 

It seems to me that Barnette stands for the proposition that a school may
not require a student to express a patriotic sentiment; it does not stand
for the proposition that the school must be neutral on the value of
patriotic expressions (or on other issues). If the school were required to
be neutral, the school could hardly sponsor and invite participation in a
patriotic exercise--which Barnette certainly does not prohibit. If being
called in to the principal's office is best seen as punitive or seriously
coercive, then Barnette prohibits it. That may be the best view here, but I
think we should be careful not to think that the school must be neutral. A
friendly, noncoercive chat about the value of patriotism and the good
reasons for making a patriotic expression would not violate Barnette. Of
course, it may be difficult to think that a mandated visit to the
principal's office would be for a friendly and noncoercive chat.

Mark S. Scarberry
Pepperdine University School of Law
 
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
wrongly) forward the messages to others.




_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
wrongly) forward the messages to others.