Ok, let’s start out simple. Who here knows what the First Amendment is?

(Pick a person)

Ok, tell me what the First Amendment is and what it dictates. Freedom of Speech, right! Thank

you. So I’m sure that all of you know what Freedom of Speech is, but it’s ok if you don’t. It’s

been established in the Constitution and ​multiple ​Supreme Court cases throughout America’s

history, and regarding the Pledge of Allegiance, it proves a crucial, but often generalized point.

The First Amendment is often referenced by the general population, a large portion of the

time jokingly. Exclamations of “you’re not letting me exercise free speech” or “I can say this

because of the First Amendment!” aren’t uncommon, but there is some genuine clout to these

arguments when taken out of context.

West Virginia v. Barnette (1943). In the context of the case, a Jehovah’s witness raised

student refused to stand for the pledge, and the West Virginia Board of Education responded by

requiring public schools to include salutes to the flag by teachers and students as a mandatory

part of school activities. The case reached the supreme court, in which they decided that

“students have the right to remain silent during the pledge, and by extension, any patriotic right.”

This shows that by no means should students be required or expected to say a pledge, they are

alotted full mobility when exercising their right.

The freedom of religion is a sanctity in this country, it’s one of our founding beliefs. We

as a nation hold true that everyone should have the right to believe what they want, and the right

to express that belief. When you say the pledge, sure, you’re pledging yourself to the country,

but you overlook a crucial point: you pledge yourslef to a nation Under God. What if someone

has love for their country, and wants to participate in the declaration of said love, but in doing so

has to forfeit their own beliefs? Mercedes Pierce, an atheist, says that she loves her country, but
also says “I do not believe in the statement in the Pledge of Allegiance, so I do not say the pledge

of allegiance.” She also claims to feel unrepresented by the pledge because of the Under God

statement.

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) dictated that students have the ability to protest in schools as long

is no disruption is caused.​ ​However, the case also dictated that if the protest was disruptive, the

students involved could face disciplinary action. Currently, if you look around a stereotypical

classroom here during the pledge, how many people do you see standing up? How is that not a

cause of disruption? Class time is shortened by something students do not participate in. How is

that worth it? It might be a different story throughout other parts of the nation, in which it is less

acceptable to sit out for the pledge. But even so, it is a formality that takes away class time and is

only a verbal proclamation, not a solidified commitment.

There are so many other ways to express your love for your country instead of reciting

the same words every day, over and over again. If you ​really ​love your country, if you ​really

want to show those around you that love and that loyalty, show it through your actions, not

through your words. Saying the words doesn’t equate to you meaning them. With that, what

meaning do they really hold? You acknowledge that one can have love for their country, but you

don’t prove it or back it with action.

Now, moving on. We recently learned about political socialization in Ms. Russel’s class,

right? We learned about how school plays a ​huge r​ ole in the development in the political beliefs

of a child. Dr. Jacquelynne S. Eccles, Ph.D., who is a professor of psychology and education at

University of Michigan, wrote a paper titled “The Development of Children Ages 6 to 14.” In

said paper, Dr. Eccles states that “The involvement in formal schooling and organized activities
that begins during these years, introduces children to new social roles in which they earn social

status by their competence and performance… Researchers have corroborated [Erik Erikson’s]

notion that feelings of competence are of central importance for a child’s well-being.” Children

come into school at a young age, and are immediately introduced to the pledge. They’re too

young to know that they aren’t required to stand, and as mentioned in Dr. Eccles’ quote, they

want to feel competent, and if they see those around them participating, they will partcipate as

well. Why should we influence our children in such a matter? We are instilling a bias in them

while they are shapeable, easily manipulated.

So, I beg the question: how can you pledge yourself to liberty if you don’t want to

provide it?