|
|
Mark Cole's Pledge bill would boost conformity at the expense of conscience
IF A SPOTSYLVANIA public school student were being com- pelled by his teacher, as part of a class exercise, to read aloud from a work of modern fiction that contained curse words, and such utterances violated the student's reli- gious code regarding blasphemy, what would Del. Mark Cole say? It's a good bet, based on Mr. Cole's own beliefs and legislative history, that he would strongly defend the child's right to opt out of the readings.
And rightly so. The Constitution's First Amendment--that is, the addition to the document the Founders thought most critical--protects individuals' conscience from the coercions of government officials, including those who stand in front of a class, even when those coercions serve a good end. An appreciation for the truths found in contemporary literature, for example. Or the inculcation of patriotism.
In the latter case, alas, Mr. Cole would inculcate away with little sympathy for individual conviction. In reaction to a Ni River seventh-grader's refusal to stand during the Pledge of Allegiance, and the Spotsylvania School Board's recent policy change acknowledging that the boy's conduct is permitted by state law, Mr. Cole, a Spotsylvania Republican, would change that law. In a bill filed Jan. 10, he would direct school authorities at least to notify the parents of any child who spurned the pledging ritual (as though such information couldn't be shared during a routine parent-teacher conference); school boards could also require parental consent before allowing a child to sit out the Pledge, or, standing, to remain mute.
In seeking these governmental impediments to free expression, Mr. Cole displays a fickle affection for the fruits of the First Amendment, which shields both speech and religion. The two liberties are so related, in fact, that the U.S. Supreme Court in 1943, midway through World War II, voided state laws requiring students to recite the Pledge, based on a suit brought by the parents of three Jehovah's Witnesses children. (Witnesses, whom, incidentally, the Nazis persecuted almost as ardently as they did the Jews, believe that glorifying earthly symbols constitutes idolatry, a sin inviting hellfire.)
Writing for the majority in the case, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, Justice Robert Jackson held: "That they [school authorities] 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."
Not only is the Ni River pupil squarely within his rights to boycott the Pledge, whatever his parents' view; his unorthodox action provides a grand educational opportunity to discuss principles of American freedom more deeply than parroting 31 words in singsong unison in the sleepy morn of a school day--even if that discussion isn't part of a Standards of Learning lesson plan.
Who knows? A robust debate might persuade the dissident student to change his mind. Fellow students might point out, for instance, that the Pledge predates and will outlast the Bush administration, which he dislikes, and that it's easy to interpret its words ("with liberty and justice for all") as a strong affirmation of the all-American, star-spangled, eagle-hearted right to differ, the group's opinion be hanged. Mr. Cole would reinforce that lesson by withdrawing his badgering bill.
