by James Dabgotra
Tuesday, Dec. 04, 2001 at 9:13 PM jdabgotra@ypsl.org 626-810-2893 1449 Jellick Ave. #D
Reflections on compulsory patriotism in schools, patriotism itself, and the so-called War on Terroris.
errorRecently I was informed that my school, as well as all other schools in California, is required by law to enact a patriotic activity on a daily basis. At once I thought this law was a clear violation of my freedom of speech, and so I decided to investigate. Section 52720 of the California Education Code, the law requiring this patriotic activity, states that in "every public secondary school [such as my high school] there shall be conducted daily appropriate patriotic exercises. The giving of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America shall satisfy such requirement."
The Supreme Court, however, ruled in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1948) that the "action of a State [such as California] in making it compulsory for children in the public schools to salute the flag and pledge allegiance – by extending the right arm, palm upward, and declaring, 'I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands; one Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all' – violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments."
I e-mailed my assemblyman, voicing my discontent with the law. He gave a surprisingly researched and detailed response. It turns out that students aren't technically required to do the Pledge of Allegiance but, rather, schools are required to hold these daily patriotic sessions for anyone who wishes to do so. This does not satisfy my complaints for a few reasons. Firstly, no one informed me that I didn't have to participate in giving the Pledge. My right to refuse is of no use if I am not informed that I have the right to refuse to begin with. Secondly, no one has informed my teachers, so they will assume that students must do it. If a student hesitates to do it, they can quickly be disciplined – threatened with detention or suspension and put in their place. Thirdly, students tend to conform and passively obey, hence they will do the Pledge simply because it's taking place and everyone else it doing it, not because they truly wish to do it.
Many at school asked why I stopped to complain about such a law. "Why not just do it?" they asked. After learning about how nationalism and patriotism were forced upon citizens of countless nations throughout history – communist and fascist states alike – in order to have those citizens support one evil atrocity or another, such as genocide or war, I can't help but wonder why the United States would need our full devotion. As a radical, I understand that the frequently immoral U.S. foreign policy requires the unthinking support of the masses.
Patriotism, defined as love for one's country, is an ambiguous term. It can either mean love for the land or the people of a region, or love for the government and a willingness to die for it. There are no words in the Pledge that admire the people or places of America. Rather, we pledge our unthinking devotion to "the Republic for which it stands” – the government.
Still, the Pledge includes the words "one Nation, with liberty for all," so some may say that if one loves freedom, one will be proud to recite the Pledge. However, a law requiring someone to be free is a logical contradiction. If this country is truly a free country then, at minimum, we should be able to think, speak and feel the way we wish. Surely, freely choosing to be patriotic or not is a simple freedom everyone should be entitled to. The truth is, the Pledge is a device that makes people believe they are free, perhaps masking a reality where they lack freedom altogether. If a person believes her government really stands for freedom, she does not need to be required to say she believes so everyday. If the government didn't represent freedom, on the other hand, then a daily routine of Pledge recital would be needed to obscure the truth. The fact that legislators took the time from seemingly important issues to force us to think we are free raises a very critical question: Are we?
Liberty is the concept that we should have freedom insofar as we do not take freedom away from others. Choosing not to salute the flag, or even the burning, washing, or the hanging upside down of the flag – all forms of symbolic speech – are acts that do not harm others and thus shouldn't be restricted. Furthermore, true patriotism comes voluntarily, not by force. Saluting the flag because one is forced to says nothing about one's character, other than one is obedient and submissive.
My complaints were brought under a whole new light a week later on September 11th. Almost immediately after the terrorist attacks, all of corporate televised media displayed phrases such as "Attack on America" or "America United" on our screens. They, along with both political parties, agreed completely with whatever our commander-in-chief George W. had to say. The media then denounced anyone who called for a peaceful response, as many socialists did, as people who are on the side of the terrorists. The classic “us vs. them” rhetoric was dragged out and reformulated again: you are either with Bush or with the terrorists, they said. The media went on to encourage patriotic acts. Flags began to be sold by the hundreds of thousands, appearing everywhere from store windows to car antennas. Hundreds of racist attacks against Arabs, or those mistakenly perceived as Arabs, were committed by many of these “patriots.” Reflecting on the wholly uncritical corporate media, the blind devotion to our “leader,” the endless parade of patriotic flags, and the explosion of racially and religiously-motivated hate crimes, I was left wondering if Nazi Germany looked something like the America we live in today.