Texas & Pledge of Allegiance Law

[Adam D]

Texas Pledge Of Allegiance Law Undermines Democracy And Critical Thinking


by Robert Jensen
June 05, 2003


Among its many dubious achievements this session, the Texas Legislature -- in the name of promoting appreciation for democratic political values in the public schools -- struck a blow against the critical thinking skills crucial for meaningful democracy.

The Legislature passed, and Gov. Rick Perry last week signed into law, a bill ordering all school districts to require students to pledge allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flags once during each school day, starting in the fall.

The message is pretty simple: To be good citizens-in-training, children must stand up, face a flag, and recite by rote a questionable set of political assertions. That's democracy in action? That's education?

No, that's instruction in subordination, the unquestioned acceptance of authority.

In his defense of the bill, sponsor Sen. Jeff Wentworth pointed out that the habits we form as children are crucial to moral and political development. "If you want children to know what work is, have them work," the San Antonio Republican said. I couldn't agree more.

He continued, "If you want children to love country and state, teach them to honor their flags."

That one begs some obvious questions: Why should we want children to love country and state? What do such declarations really mean? If our country or state is engaged in illegal or immoral activities, should we love it? If what we claim to love are not the actions of our government at any given moment -- which can be, and often are, stupid or wrong, or both -- is it really principles about freedom and justice we are claiming to love? If so, why claim those principles for country or state? Aren't those principles universal?

And, more importantly, if the lives of all people all over the world are of equal moral value -- as every major religious and philosophical system contends -- shouldn't we be pledging allegiance to our common humanity? Perhaps we should be pledging to work toward a future in which state and national boundaries no longer separate people. Maybe we should be pledging to work toward a set of universal principles that are articulated and defended in a world council made of up of representatives from different watershed regions based on principles of voluntary association.

Or maybe not -- which is my point. Different people have different viewpoints on these questions. In a meaningful democracy, the conventional answers to those questions shouldn't be drilled into children through rituals. In an educational system that takes seriously the goal of encouraging critical thinking (see the Texas Education Code, section 28.001), the answers to all those questions should not be dictated but should be the subject of discussion from the earliest possible age.

Yes, we want children to form good intellectual and political habits -- one of which is subjecting to rigorous critique the political assertions handed down from above.

This is the problem of patriotism. If we want to live in a real democracy, the concept of patriotism itself has to be up for grabs. We must encourage serious debate -- not just about what constitutes patriotic behavior, as the question is usually framed, but about whether patriotism itself is politically and morally desirable. That debate isn't fostered by required recitation of pledges to flags.

The new law also mandates a one-minute period each day for students to "reflect, pray, meditate, or engage in any other silent activity." That provision and the "one nation under God" phrase in the national pledge of allegiance raise questions of church/state separation. But my concerns here are about pedagogy, not theology.

Because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 60 years ago that a school could not force a child to recite the pledge, the new Texas law allows schools to excuse a student, at a parent's request, from reciting the pledges. Even with that provision, in some classrooms students who opt out may face ridicule from fellow students, and we should be concerned about them.

Much more dangerous, however, is the effect on those students who stand up every day and participate in the pledge drill. Our democracy is in serious trouble if we think we can teach citizenship and critical thinking like the multiplication tables.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Element4040]

That's an unbiased article

Who really cares, I remember saying the Pledge of Allegiance in school when I was a kid. Seems to me like this guy is making a mountain out of a molehill. What's wrong with saying the Pledge?

[Adam D]

It's psychological conditioning.

[xryptic]

I quit saying the pledge in 5th grade when I realized that as a foreign citizen I had no reason to pledge my "allegiance" to a flag that wasn't mine. I was never hassled for it, but I never went to school in Texas either.

This country's worship of a piece of cloth is absolutely ridiculous, as is making laws forcing children to comply.

[Element4040]

Originally posted by Adam D
It's psychological conditioning.

Psychological conditioning for a allegiance to your country? I don't get it, I really don't. I could see some people having issue if they aren't christians, but pledging allegiance to your country, what is wrong with that.

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

The Pledge of Allegiance was first recited in 1892, the year it was first written. The author was Francis Bellamy who wanted a special celebration, and he wanted to center it around a flag-raising ceremony and salute. With this in mind, he wrote his pledge. It was written in honor of the 400th anniversary of Columbus Day.

[Adam D]

Because you're telling kids to pledge allegiance to something they really don't understand, and without giving them any reason to do so. If the purpose of education is to produce people capable of critical thought and analysis, instructing people to pledge allegiance to a piece of cloth without any reason given is not the way to do it.

Now, I don't think our education system is designed that way in any manner beyond the rhetoric of politicians.

[Element4040]

Originally posted by Adam D
Because you're telling kids to pledge allegiance to something they really don't understand, and without giving them any reason to do so. If the purpose of education is to produce people capable of critical thought and analysis, instructing people to pledge allegiance to a piece of cloth without any reason given is not the way to do it.

Now, I don't think our education system is designed that way in any manner beyond the rhetoric of politicians.

And that would be the fault of the Education System now wouldn't it. Isn't it their job to teach, why wouldn't they be teaching their kids the reasons they say the pledge or what the flag means and stands for. The Education part falls on the responsibility of the Teachers and Principals as far as the curriculum (sp?) they decide to teach. I certainly don't want the government handing down the curiculum for teaching those things. I think thats best left up to the individual school or the Board of Education for that matter.

But you are insinuating that Schools are just going to start making kids say the pledge of allegiance without teaching them what it means and stands for. I highly doubt that is the case or will be.

I just think we have much bigger things to worry about when dealing with our individual rights than the Pledge of Allegiance. I'll bet your parents and grandparents remember reciting the pledge in school, and I'm sure they turned out just fine, as did I. Sure I may not have realized what it meant when I was a wee young lad, but in time when I got old enough to understand the meaning it made sense. I also remember in History class going over the subject of the Pledge.

[Adam D]

Consider the wealth of problems highlighted in this forum, and then consider how much the majority of the population really cares about them. I'm not sure how "fine" they all turned out. On a side note, at least in Texas the curiculum is determined by the state.

The issue is that the state is trying to require students to repeat a series of statements with no discussion of what they mean, or what they represent. I went through honors everything in school, and never remember talking about what the pledge meant, although I was supposed to repeat it in school since kindergarden. There are a number of kids in school who don't even know what the correct wording is until they have been saying it for years, and many never really grasp the full meaning of the pledge. It hardly seems democratic to suggest that one ought to be required to repeat a pledge to the country without first telling them or discussing what the terms of the pledge are.

[LucyCiel]

Whatever... this 'pledge' thing is something that will simply allow schools to remove more children from classrooms and place them into a disciplinary room (ie: In School Suspension). The less children in the classroom, the less chance of a child noticing that the teacher who is "teaching" their class isn't certified because TEXAS IS UNDERSTAFFED FOR TEACHERS because Texas pays a PITTANCE for those interested in EDUCATING THE PEOPLE OUR FUTURE DEPENDS ON.


And besides, I remember saying the pledge all the damned time and I still grew up to hate authority. I wonder if all of that overstructuring has anything to do with it....?

[Element4040]

Originally posted by Adam D
Consider the wealth of problems highlighted in this forum, and then consider how much the majority of the population really cares about them. I'm not sure how "fine" they all turned out. On a side note, at least in Texas the curiculum is determined by the state.

Hahahah, you got me there

The issue is that the state is trying to require students to repeat a series of statements with no discussion of what they mean, or what they represent. I went through honors everything in school, and never remember talking about what the pledge meant, although I was supposed to repeat it in school since kindergarden. There are a number of kids in school who don't even know what the correct wording is until they have been saying it for years, and many never really grasp the full meaning of the pledge. It hardly seems democratic to suggest that one ought to be required to repeat a pledge to the country without first telling them or discussing what the terms of the pledge are.

Well I guess we can agree on one thing, and that is that there definetely needs to be more education on what it is about. I guess I would like to see them add that to the wording of the legislation. I am just looking at it from a broader perspective I guess, and just not seeing a real problem with making it mandatory for children to recite the pledge. But I do see your point in that they need to understand what the Pledge means. But I don't have a problem with what the Pledge stands for.

[Satchel]

I agree fully Adam

[per1sh]

pretty soon children will be learning how to zieg-heil in school.