Lame Duck
It all happens in the “lame duck” session. That’s the harried last few weeks before the Ohio State Legislature is adjourned for the year. One of those last minute bills this season requires school districts to “publish” their policy on the Pledge of Allegiance (WCMH).
The Pledge Policy bill would not require school districts to recite the pledge. What it would do is require all districts to publish a policy for it online. Some districts don’t have a specific policy on the Pledge of Allegiance. It is often a matter of individual school administrators. And that would be “OK” under the bill, but the district would have to make that a publicly available policy.
For example, a local school district here in Central Ohio has the following policy publicly in place:
The Board requires all students, grades kindergarten through 12, to recite the Pledge of Allegiance during the school day at a time and manner specified by the building principal.
In addition, District administrators, staff and students are prohibited from altering the wording of the Pledge of Allegiance.
The Board recognizes that beliefs of some persons prohibit participation in the pledge, the salute to the United States flag or other opening exercises. Therefore, such persons are excused from participation.
The Board prohibits the intimidation of any student by other students or staff aimed at coercing participation in reciting the pledge. (2017,2020 – Board Docs).
Most schools recite the Pledge of Allegiance sometime during the school day. It was common practice in public schools up until the late 1960’s. But then the Pledge became a focus for student protests against the Vietnam War. Many schools determined to avoid controversy and division by dropping the practice. It wasn’t until the early 2000’s that reciting the pledge made a “comeback”, after the attacks of 9/11.
Why a Bill?
So what’s the purpose of the “Pledge Policy” bill?
The avowed purpose is to push school districts to include the Pledge in their classrooms. By requiring them to “publish” a policy, the local Boards of Education would open public debate on the issue. That puts a Board without an “acceptable” policy in the public glare. The bill’s sponsor, Tracy Richardson of Marysville (R), states that: “Ohioans are concerned that we are losing our identity as a nation, a nation that is full of opportunity, freedom, and justice for all…”. She believes that reciting the Pledge would promote; “unity and nationalism by affirming our commitment to our values.”
Representative Richardson must have missed that high school social studies class when they explained the difference between patriotism and nationalism. Patriotism is defined as; “…devotion to and vigorous support for one’s country” (OED1). Nationalism on the other hand, is; “…identification with one’s own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations” (OED2). The first one is “good”, the second a cause of war.
Justice for All
As an American, a patriot, and a retired teacher, I don’t have a problem with personally reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. I have a role as a teacher, coach, and now an athletic official. And I recognize the public example I set by being patriotic. But in practice, many students stand, put their hand over their heart, and listen to the Pledge recited by someone else rather than Pledge themselves.
I am concerned though, for those students who remain seated because of their individual beliefs, religious or political. If the avowed goal of the Pledge is to “promote unity”; physically identifying students whose beliefs prohibit reciting it, is hardly unifying. “Liberty and Justice for All” might be learned in the example of those who sit; what a good teacher might use as a “teachable moment”. But, just as likely in our era of internet bullying, it might set them up as targets.
Local schools know best what their student body is like and what is best for them. For a state legislator from Marysville to tell schools in Cleveland, Cincinnati, Millersburg, Ansonia or Pataskala how to “Pledge” is an overreach. But, of course, Ms. Richardson isn’t “telling” them anything. She’s a better politician than that. She’s just forcing them into confrontation, where a majority of the parents can tell a minority how all kids should be taught.
And that’s the point. Parents can and should make choices about their own child’s education. But they shouldn’t have the right to choose what happens to someone else’s kid. Parent choice should cut both ways, even with the Pledge of Allegiance.
