The students in Vincent Pulciani's seventh-grade class were reciting the Pledge of Allegiance this week when they heard the voice over the intercom say something they'd never heard before, at least not during the Pledge.It wasn't a classroom teacher, it was an intercom voice that was changing the words.
Instead of "one nation, under God," the voice said, "one nation, under your belief system."
If a teacher in class had changed the words as a classroom exercise, it would be very different, and better, really than leading the class in a rote incantation. But then I'd want to have a debate in which the students could participate. Here's what I'm picturing:
TEACHER: Not everyone believes in God, so when we say the Pledge today, let's change "one nation, under God" to "one nation, under your belief system."
STUDENT #1: That sounds kind of awkward and ugly, and anyway, why are we standing and saying a pledge together if the words aren't about a shared belief? Why don't we just stand and say "I pledge allegiance to my personal individuality as a human being in the world"?
STUDENT #2: Also "under your belief system"? Is that even good English? Why am I pledging to your belief system and not my belief system?
STUDENT #3: Well, what if my belief system is Communism? The United States isn't under that!
TEACHER: You all raise very good points. My idea was to be more inclusive, but I can see I've introduced some new problems. Actually, I'm pretty impressed by the way you figured out those problems.
STUDENT #1: Yes, maybe we could spend more time in school figuring out problems instead of saying pledges.
STUDENT #2: If we didn't try to do these individuality-crushing mass exercises, the whole problem of "inclusiveness" wouldn't even come up.
STUDENT #3: Why don't we spend more time studying what the flag actually stands for? It would be a better use of your time too.
TEACHER: Of course, that would be best for all of us... Why don't we have a little discussion about why you think government officials want us to use class time to say this pledge every day?
Oh, that's just what I dream school could be like! But really why are we talking about whether a teacher has a "right" to change the Pledge, and not whether a teacher has a right not to have a disembodied intercom voice intrude on the class with a rote exercise?
UPDATE: Joe Gandelman has some good wisecracks.
পোস্টগুলি
৬টি মন্তব্য:
You know, I need to pay more attention to who's doing the posting at The Volokh Conspiracy. That, it appears, was Tyler Cowen's first post there. Usually I read his stuff over at Marginal Revolution.
Here in Michigan I received a call from some lobbying group asking if I would be in favor of making the reciting of the pledge mandatory in school. While my mind was balking at the idea, trying to see what the subtext was, I was told that, under this proposed law, other documents could be substitued for the saying of the pledge like,
Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech
The preamble to the Constitution
or (my favorite) The Federalist Papers!
I thought "The Federalist Papers?!?" Who would recite that? Who could? How many teachers would know?
Big Wacky!
How exactly does changing the Pledge of Allegiance "commemorate Columbine?"
Lindsey: You're right that there's a Supreme Court opinion (Barnette) saying that the students have a right to refuse to say the pledge. The question whether a teacher could refuse to offer the Pledge or could reword it if the school board required the Pledge to be part of the school day is different however. Consider that teachers are required to teach about evolution and all sorts of other things they might not want to teach. Students are compelled to attend school, and the teacher has voluntarily taken on a job with a particular description.
Pitiful. I don't think we should have amended the pledge to say "under god" in the first damn place. But given that we did, it seems ridiculous that a spur of the moment change should be introduced over the loud speaker! It seems much more reasonable to educate the kids about their rights to NOT say the pledge (or to omit the offensive, later added phrase altogether).
Michigan could subsitute Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, presumably changed to say "...that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under your belief system, shall have a new birth of freedom..."
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন