General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFlorida Schools Are Forcing Students To Stand During National Anthem
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/florida-forces-students-to-stand-during-national-anthem_us_57dc4832e4b0071a6e0765b3The move comes after students in at least one school district in the state reportedly knelt in solidarity with 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernicks protest against social injustice in America.
District officials told WSBTV that they were following state law regarding the pledge of allegiance, a strict and controversial statute that requires unadulterated participation in patriotic gestures....
Other school districts are punishing students who dont follow state law. In Collier County, one principal is telling students that theyll be sent home if they dont stand during the anthem during sporting events, WFLA reports.
"Other school districts are punishing students who dont follow unconstitutional state law." There. I fixed it for you.
Divine Discontent
(21,056 posts)They cause more drama doing things like this... it actually is not even worth dealing with!
The nosy control freaks of the world always have to say how you must look, talk, behave...
I can just see being at one of these schools ---
For goodness sake, get your asses up and stand for the anthem!!! YOU, over there, you unpatriotic slob, get up!!!! What???! They're disabled? Well... someone lift them up!!!!!!!!! What? It hurts them??? Oh always something with those people! (moves arms around like Trump mocking disabled reporter)
onehandle
(51,122 posts)President Trump says to.
Mika
(17,751 posts)Igel
(35,274 posts)Oh, wait, they never change. Or, rather, only certain people get to say what symbols have always meant.
Just like this picture has always been like this:
Glad we can trust good progressives to not change things, unlike their evil counterparts, fascists.
Older copies that were different were obvious forgeries committed by the fascist Time Lords:
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)The Flag Code was changed in 1942 because the so-called Bellamy Salute was too similar to what the fascists in Germany and Italy were doing As a grade schooler in the 50's we had to stand every day in class and recite the pledge AND sing My Country Tis of Thee.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellamy_salute
Peregrine
(992 posts)That FL law has not been challenged, until it is, it's the law.
Response to Peregrine (Reply #3)
kestrel91316 This message was self-deleted by its author.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)I wish more folks on DU understood this about the whole Bill of Rights, generally.
JustinL
(722 posts)In Frazier v Winn, 535 F.3d 1279 (2008), a panel of the Court considered a facial challenge to two provisions of the earlier law: the requirement that a student "obtain a parent's permission before being excused from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance," and the requirement that a student "stand during the Pledge of Allegiance even if excused."
The Court ruled that the requirement to stand applied to all students, excused and unexcused, and was therefore unconstitutional, based on Circuit precedents.
Regarding the other requirement, the Circuit Court distinguished the Supreme Court's famous 1943 Barnette ruling, reasoning as follows (pp. 1283-1285, footnotes omitted):
Here, unlike in Barnette and in the cases cited by Plaintiff, the refusal of students to participate in the Pledge unless their parents consent hinders their parents' fundamental right to control their children's upbringing. The rights of students and the rights of parents two different sets of persons whose opinions can often clash are the subject of a legislative balance in the statute before us. The State, in restricting the student's freedom of speech, advances the protection of the constitutional rights of parents: an interest which the State may lawfully protect. See, e.g., Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 117 S.Ct. 2258, 2267, 138 L.Ed.2d 772 (1997) (" T)he `liberty' specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the right() ... to direct the education and upbringing of one's children...." .
As the State pointed out before the district court and before us, the statute is neutral on the Pledge in the statute's deference to a parent's expressed wishes. Should a parent request that his child not recite the Pledge even where the child wishes to recite the statute provides that the school must excuse the student. Fla. Stat. § 1003.44(1) ("Upon written request by his or her parent, the student must be excused from reciting the pledge." . Likewise, the school will protect the interests of a parent who refuses to send in a written request that his child be excused.
Although we accept that the government ordinarily may not compel students to participate in the Pledge, e.g., Barnette, 63 S.Ct. at 1187, we also recognize that a parent's right to interfere with the wishes of his child is stronger than a public school official's right to interfere on behalf of the school's own interest. See Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 115 S.Ct. 2386, 2391-92, 132 L.Ed.2d 564 (1995) (discussing public school official's more limited role vis-à-vis parents with respect to infringing on a student's fundamental rights). And this Court and others have routinely acknowledged parents as having the principal role in guiding how their children will be educated on civic values. See Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 1541, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972) (refusing to enforce a compulsory education requirement beyond the eighth grade where doing so would infringe upon the free exercise of the Amish religion and intrude on the "fundamental interest of parents ... to guide the religious future and education of their children" ; Arnold v. Bd. of Educ. of Escambia County, 880 F.2d 305, 313 (11th Cir.1989) ("Within the constitutionally protected realm rests the parental freedom to inculcate one's children with values and standards which the parents deem desirable." .
We conclude that the State's interest in recognizing and protecting the rights of parents on some educational issues is sufficient to justify the restriction of some students' freedom of speech. Even if the balance of parental, student, and school rights might favor the rights of a mature high school student in a specific instance, Plaintiff has not persuaded us that the balance favors students in a substantial number of instances particularly those instances involving elementary and middle school students relative to the total number of students covered by the statute. See, e.g., Muller by Muller v. Jefferson Lighthouse Sch., 98 F.3d 1530, 1538 (7th Cir.1996) ("Age is a critical factor in student speech cases." ; see also Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 93 S.Ct. 2908, 2918, 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973) (" T)he overbreadth of a statute must not only be real, but substantial as well, judged in relation to the statute's plainly legitimate sweep." .
In Frazier v Alexandre, 555 F.3d 1292 (2009), the full Circuit Court denied a petition for rehearing en banc. Judge Barkett dissented, pointing out the error in the panel's reasoning (pp. 1298-1300, footnotes omitted):
Every case that has ever discussed the issue of "parental upbringing" dealt with the conflict between a parent's right and a State's attempted curtailment of that right, not a conflict between parent and child. In the pertinent discussion in Glucksberg, to which the panel cites, the Supreme Court was reviewing the scope of the fundamental due process liberty right, including the parental right to direct the education of one's children. The Court discussed the two seminal cases establishing this right: Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 43 S.Ct. 625, 67 L.Ed. 1042 (1923), which ruled in favor of a parental challenge against the State, overturning a state statute that forbade German from being taught in school, and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 45 S.Ct. 571, 69 L.Ed. 1070 (1925), which ruled in favor of a parental challenge against the State, overturning a statute requiring all minors to attend public schools as opposed to private or parochial schools. Wisconsin v. Yoder, to which the panel directly cites, overturned state legislation mandating compulsory school attendance until the age of 16 because it violated two liberty interests maintained by members of the Amish community: the student's "fundamental rights ... specifically protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, and the traditional interest of parents with respect to the religious upbringing of their children." 406 U.S. 205, 214, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972).
Not only are these cases inapposite to the panel's opinion because they were not about parent-child conflict, but none involved a parent's right to enlist state aid generally, let alone enlist that aid to purposely trump the constitutional right of a minor. Nor can the panel cite any case that does so. Even assuming arguendo that parents did have the authority to infringe upon all minors' First Amendment rights as private actors, enlisting state enforcement would trigger the state action restriction of the First Amendment. Thus, even if such a hypothetical parent-child First Amendment conflict did exist, a private individual could not harness the power of the State to take any action that would directly violate another individual's constitutional right. See, e.g., Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 22, 68 S.Ct. 836, 92 L.Ed. 1161 (1948) ("The Constitution confers upon no individual the right to demand action by the State which results in the denial of equal protection of the laws to other individuals." (emphasis added).
This is not a case pitting the rights of parents against children with the State as mediator but rather a prototypical example of the assertion of State power against the rights of their citizens in this case, those of students. And the right to exercise one's conscience in not reciting the Pledge lies solely with the individual student, not with the parents of that student and certainly not with the State. This is no less true today than it was in 1943:
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.
Barnette, 319 U.S. at 644, 63 S.Ct. 1178 (Black, J. and Douglas, J. concurring).
The Supreme Court denied certiorari in October 2009.
As quoted in the HuffPost article from the OP, the current Florida law appears to differ from the previous law in two respects:
1) The requirement to stand now applies only to unexcused students.
2) Unexcused students are now required only to stand; they are not required to recite the pledge.
If unexcused students can be compelled to recite the pledge, I imagine that a panel of 11th Circuit would rule that they can also be compelled to stand for the pledge. We can only hope that either the full Circuit Court or the Supreme Court would grant review, and adopt Judge Barkett's reasoning.
Ms. Toad
(33,995 posts)In West Virginia v. Barnette, supra, this Court held that, under the First Amendment, the student in public school may not be compelled to salute the flag. Speaking through Mr. Justice Jackson, the Court said:
The Fourteenth Amendment, as now applied to the States, protects the citizen against the State itself and all of its creatures -- Boards of Education not excepted. These have, of course, important, delicate, and highly discretionary functions, but none that they may not perform within the limits of the Bill of Rights. That they are educating the young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of Constitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes.
319 U.S. at 637.
There may not have been a court review on the constitutionality of that specific law, but no state law on free speech takes precedent over the constitution.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)Someone's missed the part about Land of the Free
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)He said a couple of people in the stands sat. One man initially stood up, but sat down when the Anthem was played.
So what are they going to do about the parents/adults in the stands? Send them home too? That could get very ugly when you are talking about adults.
Stubborn
(116 posts)Be careful what you wish for, Florida.
sinkingfeeling
(51,438 posts)requiring participation in patriotic gestures?
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)Are the schools in Orange County so flush with money that they can waste thousands of dollars losing a lawsuit over this? The only reason to promulgate this stupid rule is to lose the court challenge, then listen to conservatives complain about how things used to be so very wonderful when everybody prayed before classes started, and everybody stood for the pledge, and everybody was forced to do everything in conformance with everyone else. But now those horrid liberals have fucked it up with their insistence that not everyone belongs to a church, or thinks it's a good idea to have compulsory displays of ersatz patriotism.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)One of the ones that's always arguing to replace a gay couple's wedding cake with the ten commandments or some damn thing.
niyad
(113,070 posts)school children had to share textbooks, because there was not enough money to fund education. there was, however, enough money to fund a brand new stadium in tampa for what was, at the time, the worst football team in the nfl.
dembotoz
(16,785 posts)seems around here the local gop is very good at getting folks to run for lower entry level public office.
they have a fully stocked pantry of nut jobs ready to move up the ladder..........
couple years ago i was at a business networking event and there was this woman there pushing her small business, using her position on the school board to give her extra validity somehow...anyway she was spouting really cra cra stuff.....politically....
At networking events you really do not lead with your politics....seems no one told her that.....or perhaps it worked for her.
anyway asked my cousin teacher about her and she told me yes she was crazy but she was not the worst on the school board....
Orrex
(63,172 posts)niyad
(113,070 posts)getting the religious whack jobs on the boards, destroying public education as a start.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)very constitutional.
ProfessorGAC
(64,852 posts)Do i need to show them my papers, too?
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)Odin2005
(53,521 posts)tinymontgomery
(2,584 posts)The one that drives me crazy is that Lee Greenwood song. People stand and act like it's the national anthem.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Is that the one?
underpants
(182,620 posts)At first even the NCO's weren't sure what we supposed to do. They finally decided that it would be parade rest... then finally we asked, "Do we have to stand here for this crap?"
I hated the song because A it sucked B it sucked C it was so corny D it was so sucking preachy
I think it lasted 6 months and finally they stopped playing it.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)There are clearly folks out there who can't handle someone not standing for the pledge. Requiring parental permission I imagine helps remove culpability for the school if some dimwit retaliates against a student. It also makes sure the parents are aware it is happening.
Not sure I would want my kid joining this protest simply because of how clearly unhinged some people get over it.
deathrind
(1,786 posts)..rid of the national anthem.
Its obvious in reading the comments and hearing the discussion about it that it represent a truly horrible country. There is no value to keeping such a divisive issue alive.
...
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Not only is it not racist, it isn't about war.
deathrind
(1,786 posts)America the Beautiful (The Ray Charles) version would be an excellent replacement.
ProfessorGAC
(64,852 posts)The best selling point is it is really short.
Efilroft Sul
(3,578 posts)If you don't agree to them, you get kicked out as a spectator.
niyad
(113,070 posts)gestures, and has stand your ground laws. am I missing something here?
niyad
(113,070 posts)at her/his choice. but, on reading this disgusting crap, the child can only stand or kneel?? WTF??????