Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
HS student punished for not standing for Pledge of Allegiance
ShrugHat RetweetedScenes from a lawsuit by HS student punished for not standing for Pledge of Allegiance:
---
School: Standing for pledge also lets us see if you're complying with the dress code
Student: Can't you just check me before or after
School: Negative
https://www.pennlive.com/news/2020/01/pa-student-says-school-district-is-violating-his-rights-by-punishing-him-for-not-standing-for-the-pledge-of-allegiance.html
Link to tweet
Pennsylvania Real-Time News
Pa. student files civil rights suit over refusal to stand for pledge in school
Updated Jan 31, 1:53 PM; Posted Jan 31, 10:27 AM
By Matt Miller | mmiller@pennlive.com
A midstate high school student has filed a federal lawsuit, claiming his school district is violating his civil rights, including his right to free speech, by punishing him because he won’t stand to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. ... The 16-year-old junior, identified in the U.S. Middle District complaint only by his initials, X.F., claims Lebanon High School officials have repeatedly placed him on in-school suspension for his stance.
X.F. claims in the suit, filed by New Jersey attorney Judith A. Gran, that he refuses to stand for the pledge “because of his religious and political beliefs.” ... School district officials declined to comment on the suit Friday morning, saying they have not yet seen it.
According to the suit, X.F.’s battle of wills began during his first-period math class on Oct. 7. When his classmates stood to recite the pledge “X.F. sat quietly and respectfully, causing no disturbance,” the suit states. He claims his teacher told him to stand, and when he refused, he was sent to the principal’s office. ... The principal “interrogated” him about his actions, X.F. claims, and told him teachers check students for compliance with the district’s dress code while they are standing for the pledge.
“X.F. was in compliance with the dress code,” the suit states. His offer to stand for a dress code compliance check before or after the reciting of the pledge was rejected, X.F. contends. ... What followed, he claims, was a pattern of his refusal to stand followed by in-school suspensions. X.F., an honor student and a student-athlete, says he ended up spending every first period in the principal’s office, missed math class and flunked that course.
{snip}
Pa. student files civil rights suit over refusal to stand for pledge in school
Updated Jan 31, 1:53 PM; Posted Jan 31, 10:27 AM
By Matt Miller | mmiller@pennlive.com
A midstate high school student has filed a federal lawsuit, claiming his school district is violating his civil rights, including his right to free speech, by punishing him because he won’t stand to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. ... The 16-year-old junior, identified in the U.S. Middle District complaint only by his initials, X.F., claims Lebanon High School officials have repeatedly placed him on in-school suspension for his stance.
X.F. claims in the suit, filed by New Jersey attorney Judith A. Gran, that he refuses to stand for the pledge “because of his religious and political beliefs.” ... School district officials declined to comment on the suit Friday morning, saying they have not yet seen it.
According to the suit, X.F.’s battle of wills began during his first-period math class on Oct. 7. When his classmates stood to recite the pledge “X.F. sat quietly and respectfully, causing no disturbance,” the suit states. He claims his teacher told him to stand, and when he refused, he was sent to the principal’s office. ... The principal “interrogated” him about his actions, X.F. claims, and told him teachers check students for compliance with the district’s dress code while they are standing for the pledge.
“X.F. was in compliance with the dress code,” the suit states. His offer to stand for a dress code compliance check before or after the reciting of the pledge was rejected, X.F. contends. ... What followed, he claims, was a pattern of his refusal to stand followed by in-school suspensions. X.F., an honor student and a student-athlete, says he ended up spending every first period in the principal’s office, missed math class and flunked that course.
{snip}
One of the things that makes me most hopeless is that not participating in the Pledge has been a right recognized by SCOTUS for 77 fucking years and every time one of these stories comes up, ignorant totalitarian assholes are howling for the kids to be punished.
Link to tweet
10 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
Thursday, June 14, 2018:
Happy 75th anniversary, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette
If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette
Argued March 11, 1943
Decided June 14, 1943
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment protects students from being forced to salute the American flag or say the Pledge of Allegiance in public school. The Court's 6–3 decision, delivered by Justice Robert H. Jackson, is remembered for its forceful defense of free speech and constitutional rights generally as being placed "beyond the reach of majorities and officials."
Barnette overruled a 1940 decision on the same issue, Minersville School District v. Gobitis, in which the Court stated that the proper recourse for dissent was to try to change the public school policy democratically. It was a significant court victory won by Jehovah's Witnesses, whose religion forbade them from saluting or pledging to symbols, including symbols of political institutions. However, the Court did not address the effect the compelled salutation and recital ruling had upon their particular religious beliefs but instead ruled that the state did not have the power to compel speech in that manner for anyone. In overruling Gobitis the Court primarily relied on the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment rather than the Free Exercise Clause.
....
Decision of the Court
The Court held, in a 6-to-3 decision delivered by Justice Jackson, that it was unconstitutional for public schools to compel students to salute the flag. It thus overruled its decision in Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940), finding that the flag salute was "a form of utterance" and "a primitive but effective means of communicating ideas." The Court wrote that any "compulsory unification of opinion" was doomed to failure and was antithetical to the values set forth in the First Amendment. The Court stated:
The Supreme Court announced its decision on June 14, Flag Day.
....
Argued March 11, 1943
Decided June 14, 1943
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment protects students from being forced to salute the American flag or say the Pledge of Allegiance in public school. The Court's 6–3 decision, delivered by Justice Robert H. Jackson, is remembered for its forceful defense of free speech and constitutional rights generally as being placed "beyond the reach of majorities and officials."
Barnette overruled a 1940 decision on the same issue, Minersville School District v. Gobitis, in which the Court stated that the proper recourse for dissent was to try to change the public school policy democratically. It was a significant court victory won by Jehovah's Witnesses, whose religion forbade them from saluting or pledging to symbols, including symbols of political institutions. However, the Court did not address the effect the compelled salutation and recital ruling had upon their particular religious beliefs but instead ruled that the state did not have the power to compel speech in that manner for anyone. In overruling Gobitis the Court primarily relied on the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment rather than the Free Exercise Clause.
....
Decision of the Court
The Court held, in a 6-to-3 decision delivered by Justice Jackson, that it was unconstitutional for public schools to compel students to salute the flag. It thus overruled its decision in Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940), finding that the flag salute was "a form of utterance" and "a primitive but effective means of communicating ideas." The Court wrote that any "compulsory unification of opinion" was doomed to failure and was antithetical to the values set forth in the First Amendment. The Court stated:
If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.
The Supreme Court announced its decision on June 14, Flag Day.
....
Robert H. Jackson
Robert Houghwout Jackson (February 13, 1892 – October 9, 1954) was an American attorney and judge who served as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. He had previously served as United States Solicitor General, and United States Attorney General, and is the only person to have held all three of those offices. Jackson was also notable for his work as the Chief United States Prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi war criminals following World War II.
Jackson was admitted to the bar through a combination of reading law with an established attorney, and attending law school. He is the most recent justice without a law degree to be appointed to the Supreme Court. Jackson is well known for his advice that, "Any lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect, in no uncertain terms, to make no statement to the police under any circumstances", and for his aphorism describing the Supreme Court, "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final." Jackson developed a reputation as one of the best writers on the Supreme Court, and one of the most committed to enforcing due process as protection from overreaching federal agencies.
....
Robert Houghwout Jackson (February 13, 1892 – October 9, 1954) was an American attorney and judge who served as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. He had previously served as United States Solicitor General, and United States Attorney General, and is the only person to have held all three of those offices. Jackson was also notable for his work as the Chief United States Prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi war criminals following World War II.
Jackson was admitted to the bar through a combination of reading law with an established attorney, and attending law school. He is the most recent justice without a law degree to be appointed to the Supreme Court. Jackson is well known for his advice that, "Any lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect, in no uncertain terms, to make no statement to the police under any circumstances", and for his aphorism describing the Supreme Court, "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final." Jackson developed a reputation as one of the best writers on the Supreme Court, and one of the most committed to enforcing due process as protection from overreaching federal agencies.
....
