Student challenges Blair Pledge of Allegiance policy

A Blair junior met with Principal Phillip Gainous on Oct 24 in an effort to reverse the rule that requires students to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Junior Elliott Wolf wrote a letter to Gainous expressing his opposition to the schoolwide policy. The current regulation holds that students who do not stand for the Pledge of Allegiance must be sent to Gainous' office.

In the letter, Wolf claimed the rule violates freedom of expression, one of the basic constitutional rights stipulated by the First Amendment. "If there is truly to be ‘liberty and justice for all' in this country, then students must be at liberty to express their views freely without reprisal or guilt," Wolf wrote.

Gainous believes the standing rule is important in ensuring that those who do not want to say the Pledge show deference to students and teachers who do wish to participate. "We are just asking students to be respectful to others who are saying the Pledge, not requiring anyone to say the Pledge of Allegiance or face the flag," Gainous said.

According to Gainous, a similar incident occurred 10 to 15 years ago, when a student and parent challenged the standing rule. He said the Maryland courts agreed with the school because it did not force anybody to say the Pledge.

However, according to Stacy Mink, a development director for the American Civil Liberties Union, Wolf has a valid concern regarding the constitutionality of the standing requirement. "There have been Supreme Court cases that say anyone can be exempt from the Pledge if they do not want to participate," Mink said. She cited the 1969 court case Tinker v. Des Moines, which established that rights students have outside of school also apply within school walls.

Mink referred to a Maryland Annotated Education article that states that students who do not want to participate in the Pledge cannot be required to do so. "It could not be clearer that it is illegal to make students stand for the Pledge," Mink said.

After the meeting, Wolf said he wanted to speak with an MCPS lawyer to see if the standing policy at Blair is legal. "I understand the basis of the rule, but I still want to check with the lawyers," Wolf said. "I still believe the rule is unconstitutional."

Though Wolf did not stand for the Pledge, he was not sent to the office as punishment. Instead, his teacher only told him to sit. According to an informal Silver Chips survey of the English and Social Studies departments taken on Oct 23, 83 percent of teachers said they would not send students who refused to stand for the Pledge to the office but instead would discuss the student's behavior in class.

In his letter, Wolf argues that the standing rule at Blair is contradictory to such court cases as West Virginia v. Bartlett, Goetz v. Ansell and State of Maryland v. Lundquist, which hold that a student cannot be forced by law to take part in patriotic exercises. "Legally and morally, it is wrong of the administration to force students to respect the flag," Wolf said.

Personally, Wolf does not oppose what the American flag and patriotic rituals symbolize. "The country and the flag do not represent forcing people to stand," Wolf said. However, Gainous felt differently about the exercise. "The ritual reminds me of the freedoms of this country and what we have here in America," Gainous said.