A student cannot be forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance, but does a
student also have a right to refuse to stand during the Pledge? In this case
in Madison, a student was not required to stand but was "called to the
principal's office and urged to stand during the pledge even if she chose
not to
sues for Law Academics
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Required to stand for the Pledge?
A student cannot be forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance, but does a
student also have a right to refuse to stand during the Pledge? In this case
in Madison, a student was not required to stand but was &quo
rom: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ann Althouse
> Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 10:24 AM
> To: conlawprof; Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Required to stand for the Pledge?
>
> A student cannot
9 F.2d 834 (3d Cir.1978) holds students cannot be made to
>> stand during the pledge.
>> Marc Stern
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ann Althouse
>> Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 10:24 AM
&g
nal.
Marc Stern
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ann Althouse
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 12:23 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
David Cruz
Subject: Re: Required to stand for the Pledge?
I
issues for Law Academics
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
David Cruz
Subject: Re: Required to stand for the Pledge?
I note that the 7th Circuit, discussing Lipp in Sherman (our "Under
God"
case) said "no pupil was compelled to recite the Pledge, to stand
during the
Pledge or place his hand ov
w Academics
Subject: Re: Required to stand for the Pledge?
"7th Circuit, discussing Lipp in Sherman" was not the most elegant
prose. I meant that in Sherman the 7th Cir. was discussing Lipp. Lipp
itself is 3d Circ.
This seems like an excellent example of a good time for the school to
L PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ann Althouse
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 1:48 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Required to stand for the Pledge?
"7th Circuit, discussing Lipp in Sherman" was not the most elegant
prose. I meant that in S
Ann,
I appreciate your post and sympathize with your conundrum of what
happened in class. But it seems to me that to encourage showing
respect, the principal should have talked to the teacher and the other
students about respecting the minority beliefs of the affected student,
not the other wa
This is from Mark Tushnet:
Begin forwarded message:
From: Mark Tushnet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: September 10, 2004 2:03:25 PM CDT
To: Ann Althouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Required to stand for the Pledge?
Hi Ann -- this got bounced by the listserv. Could you te
Calling attention to the student's difference might be emotionally
wounding to this student too. ("Class, please tolerate Susie, she's
different.") But I agree that tolerating the different student is
better.
In my class, many students were offended. One called out in a
particularly angry way.
ssage-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ann Althouse
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 2:30 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Required to stand for the Pledge?
Calling attention to the student's difference might be emotionally
wo
Putting aside the issues raised by "under God" in the Pledge:
Can it be true that the school has no right to try to convince students to
show respect for the flag and for the country? Must the school be neutral on
the value of showing such respect? Schools routinely try to convince
students of var
'
Subject: RE: Required to stand for the Pledge?
Putting aside the issues raised by "under God" in the Pledge:
Can it be true that the school has no right to try to convince students to
show respect for the flag and for the country? Must the school be neutral on
the value of showi
ailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ann Althouse
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 2:30 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Required to stand for the Pledge?
Calling attention to the student's difference might be emotionally
wounding to this student too. ("Cla
gion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Required to stand for the Pledge?
Why do you assume that a student who does not wish to recite the pledge is
not patriotic?
Marc
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scarberry, Mark
Sent: Friday, Septe
How quickly we wander far afield from the original point and stretch
what each other never intended! Surely the school can (and IMHO ought
to) teach and perhaps even inculcate respect for country. And respect
for other students. And teachers. And the UN. Treating each other
with respect i
An anecdote others might find interesting or useful:
A few years ago I interviewed a woman about
her experience as a Jehovah's Witness. She told me that when her son
Wesley Edmunds refused to say the Pledge the teacher sent him to the
principal's office. That W Va principal knew enough to
Mark Scarberry is dead on; the school can attempt to persuade the
student to say the secular parts of the Pledge. Government can lead
opinion, or attempt to, on secular matters, but not on religious
matters. The question is when persuasion becomes coercion, and Lee v.
Weisman is not the te
> Mark Scarberry is dead on; the school can attempt to persuade the
> student to say the secular parts of the Pledge. Government can lead
> opinion, or attempt to, on secular matters, but not on religious
> matters.
Does this not conflict with the key passage of Barnette: "No public
offici
On Friday, September 10, 2004, at 09:03 PM, Robert O'Brien wrote:
Mark Scarberry is dead on; the school can attempt to persuade the
student to say the secular parts of the Pledge. Government can lead
opinion, or attempt to, on secular matters, but not on religious
matters.
Does this not conf
s .
Tom Berg
University of St. Thomas (Minnesota)
_
From: Robert O'Brien [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri 9/10/2004 8:03 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Required to stand for the Pledge?
> Mark Scarberry is dead on; the school can attempt to
In a message dated 9/11/2004 2:09:56 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The
government "decide[s] what shall be orthodox inpolitics" all the
time, in the sense of advancing policies and attempting toconvince the
public that they are right.
Although, I h
In a message dated 9/11/2004 2:09:56 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The
government "decide[s] what shall be orthodox inpolitics" all the
time, in the sense of advancing policies and attempting toconvince the
public that they are right.
Although, I ha
f the Barnette
passage, I think the point still holds that the passage is imprecisely
written at best and suggests some constitutional restrictions on government
political speech that can't really be valid restrictions.
Tom Berg
University of St. Thomas (Minnesota)
_
F
In a message dated 9/11/2004 12:47:30 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Even if
Professor Lipkin's argument is a reasonable reading of the
Barnettepassage, I think the point still holds that the passage is
impreciselywritten at best and suggests some constitutional r
26 matches
Mail list logo
