America is often referred to as the “melting pot” because it was built on many different nationalities. For centuries it has been common place that school students stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance before beginning classes. In the past, the courts have been challenged to rule whether students are required to recite, stand during the pledge, or can remain quietly seated. This has become a monumental task for the courts to rule in favor or against these actions due to the various beliefs and traditions of the school population. Due to the controversy, students in schools should not be required to recite or stand during the Pledge of Allegiance because the act itself denies students the right to exercise their First Amendment rights to …show more content…
Civic responsibility not only includes learning civic duties but also acting upon those duties. Once again the courts were challenged to intervene and in response to Lane v. Owens (Bennett 2004) the court systems agreed with the plaintiffs who challenged that “The Mandatory Pledge law cannot be defended as advancing legitimate curricular objectives because it promotes no educational goals.” This means that the repetitive recitation of the pledge does not teach students what the words really mean to be able to apply the words to become responsible citizens who engage in civic activities. (Bennett 2004) Furthermore, it has been proposed by Kahne and Middaaugh (2006) that in order to teach students civic responsibility that there needs to be a strong educational plan established in areas of history and government that create situations where students have to interact and discuss civic responsibilities since statistics indicate a decline in citizenship …show more content…
Although it has been customary for many years for students to stand and recite the pledge, times are changing and individuals are fighting for their freedom to abstain from the customary ceremony. When challenged, the courts have even agreed that it should be at the discretion of the student to participate. Therefore, students should not be required to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance because students have the right to invoke their First Amendment rights, the recitation of the pledge has no educational meaning that teaches citizen responsibility, and one could infer that the Pledge of Allegiance creates unity instead of individuality. Perhaps the clear cut answer to stand or not to stand will be answered in the
Fox News, in their news article titled “New Mexico school board to recite Pledge of Allegiance in Spanish at meetings”, highlights the efforts being made by parts of the United States to become truly unified by reciting the pledge in both Spanish and English. Fox News uses logical, emotional, and ethical appeals, as well as historical and cultural facts to adjust their reader’s mindset. Fox News’ purpose of this article is to indicate the political correctness of the bilingual declamation of the pledge, especially considering recent protests against the American flag and what it stands for. Fox News adopts an objective and candid tone in order to clearly state the facts of the situation, while still shifting the thoughts of readers - more specifically such as those who are protesting, or perhaps those who currently have a pessimistic outlook - to give them a more positive outlook on the situation.
One day when the Pledge of Allegiance was being said at my high school one student became upset. He said he did not understand why he had to stand and say the Pledge because it was almost like a prayer and prayers were not allowed in school. He also said if he does not believe in God then he should not have to say it. The teacher over heard him talking about it and told him that he simply did not have to stand and participate during this event. The teacher also gave him the option to leave the room when this was going on.
The essay “Why the Pledge of Allegiance Should Be Revised” by Gwen Wilde is a thought provoking essay. The essay begins with Wilde giving us background on the Pledge of Allegiance, from the original version of the Pledge of Allegiance to final version of the Pledge of Allegiance; that includes at least two revisions that many may not have known of and the reasons for these revisions. Wilde goes on to give her reasons why she feels that the latest revision, the inclusion of the words “under God”, should not have been added into the Pledge of Allegiance and giving examples of how adding this phrase puts many American people in a position to seem un-American or un Patriotic because they cannot speak this phrase and really believe it or mean it. Even if these people are proudly American and very Patriotic, some even risking their lives for America and its people while in the military. Wilde then clarifies that she does not believe that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional (66) and she backs up this claim by stating a phrase from the First Amendment.
Public School Prayer Throughout public schools in the United States, there is a growing concern over whether students should be allowed to pray in school. In “Should Students Be Allowed to Pray in School” Michael Cantrell he states each individual school should be able to decide if prayer is allowed. Many times throughout the article, the author uses fallacies such as poisoning the well, hypothesis contrary, straw man and hasty generalizations to argue his point incorrectly. Although the author attempts to shed light on this highly debated topic, his arguments are not valid and not factual.
The National Anthem was written in 1814 and was adopted by America in 1931. Years after adopting the National Anthem people are ready to fight and die for it. Recently at Harrison High School a ninth grader by the name of Philip Malloy states he had his first amendment rights taken away. Philip was supposedly singing the National Anthem at a time of respectful silence. What people did not know was that Philip was lying about being stopped for singing.
On June 25, 1962, a Supreme Court case, Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, was decided. The lawsuit was brought to the United States Supreme Court by parents (of students who attended schools in the Herricks School District) who complained that a nondenominational prayer instituted by the New York Board of Regents in their district was unconstitutional. The parents argued that the prayer, although optional, violated their First Amendment Rights. When the 6-1 (two justices did not vote) decision was made, it was ruled that voluntary prayer in public schools violates the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. One concurring opinion was given, and the single judge that did not vote the same as the rest provided
As we all know today’s school are a lot different than those in the 1960’s. During the 1960’s is was tradition to open each and every day with a nondenominational prayer, along with the Pledge of Allegiance. Today, prayer is accepted in schools as long as it is led by the student themselves, and not the teacher. In 1962 the case of Engel vs. Vitale went to the Supreme Court based off the idea of whether school sponsored prayer violates the First Amendment Establishment Clause. At this time there was a general law in New York State that required every school within the state to open each day with the Pledge of Allegiance, and a prayer that did not restrict denomination.
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. What the First Amendment allows American citizens is the freedom to practice their religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and the freedom of the right to petition. America does not have a state-wide, announced religion but the early colonists were mainly protestant, therefore, Christianity continued through each generation until now. Christian practices are accepted as the norm in the United States whether
Free Me: Racist Speech Freedom is a paradox, especially in America. Everyone is free, but everyone must obey laws. In 1776, America chose to fight against her oppressor. Rather than be a single colony, America became a separate country. Today as an adolescent, America faces a new uphill battle, free speech.
We are told that we are the land of the free, but in school we are taken many rights. We’ve been told to put our trust into the government, but only to realize false hopes. We are told to follow the books, but realize that they too are filled with mistakes. We are told to help the school by fundraising to grow our education, but then get fined because it’s illegal to sell during school hours and to strangers. Even though they do their best to educate us, they too are restricted on teaching us too much for it “doesn’t go with the school’s study plan,” we seem to have liberty to know all but at the end we are left empty.
In 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District upheld the right to freedom of speech of students to protest the Vietnam war by wearing black armbands. The case explained the problem that “students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” (Student) As students, we are free to express ourselves through what we wear. As students, we have every right to proclaim our beliefs
President Eisenhower, in his address to the country, more specifically the people of Arkansas, discusses the inevitable situation involving racial segregation occurring in Arkansas. Eisenhower’s purpose is to convey to the country that he will fight to preserve the decision that the Supreme Court came to on racial segregation. He adopts a personal tone in order to convey to the people of Arkansas that he understands how they feel in this situation. After establishing that he will do whatever is necessary to protect the rights of the students and connects with the Arkansas people by addressing the fact that his decision wasn’t based on his personal beliefs, Eisenhower shifts his focus to validating the citizen’s feelings of anger and feeling slighted. Eisenhower through logically crafted arguments asserts that he will use his powers to ensure the students’ rights aren’t withheld.
http://www.salon.com/2013/11/08/forcing_kids_to_say_the_pledge_of_allegiance_is_bullying_and_pointless/ Why should students be showing aligents to a flag every school
As Americans, we view the Constitution as a stepping stone to making the great country we live in today. Yet, we the people of the United States failed to realize another component in order to form a perfect union. Which is to establish and promote equal opportunities for a quality education for all. However, we live in a society where social locators such as class, gender, and race are huge factors in the determination of one’s educational future.
On June 25, 1962, the Supreme Court ruled 7 to 1 that it was unconstitutional for a government agency to make students recite prayers. Which for me I think we need to pray every monringin. Im not say recite a prayer, but I think it would be nice to have a momnet of slicent every mouring before we start the school