Pledge fight rages in Atlanta appeals court

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution ^ | 6/29/02 | Bill Rankin

[GeneD]

After high school senior Michael Holloman refused to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, raising his fist defiantly in the air, the principal gave him two choices: detention or corporal punishment.

Holloman chose the paddle. His father chose to file suit.

The Alabama student's case was argued Friday before the federal appeals court in Atlanta, just days after the appeals court in San Francisco declared the Pledge unconstitutional because it contains the words "one nation, under God."

But that wasn't the issue before the Atlanta appeals court on Friday. Instead, the three-judge panel was asked to decide whether schools have the right to discipline a student who refuses to say the Pledge, so long as he's not disrupting the classroom.

"Freedom to differ is not just limited to things that don't matter," Holloman's lawyer, Charles Tatum, said following the hearing. "You've got a right to disagree with things that are seen as morally and politically correct in this country."

Holloman, then 18, was attending Parrish High School in Walker County, Ala., in May 2000 when a classmate, Jon Michael Hutto, refused to say the Pledge during his first-period class. Hutto was called into the principal's office and rebuked.

The next day, Holloman, protesting the treatment of Hutto, refused to recite the Pledge or salute the flag. He stood silent with his fist raised while other students repeated the oath.

Principal George Harland called Holloman into his office, expressed his disappointment and called Holloman's parents. Holloman, as well as another student who stood in protest with him, were later required to apologize to the entire senior class. Harland gave Holloman the choice of three days' detention, which would have forced him to miss his graduation, or corporal punishment. Holloman chose the latter and was paddled.

Months later, Holloman's father filed a federal lawsuit against the Walker County school board, Harland and teacher Fawn Allred. In addition to challenging the punishment, his lawsuit also claimed that Allred committed constitutional violations by saying, "Let's pray," and "Amen," before and after the moment of silence that started the school day.

District court tossed it

Last summer, in two rulings, U.S. District Judge William Acker Jr. in Birmingham threw out the lawsuit.

Holloman's behavior during the Pledge "appeared to Allred, and subsequently to Harland, to constitute an open act of defiance to school authority, as well as a protest against what the Pledge of Allegiance stands for," Acker wrote. "It was certainly designed to disrupt or to interfere with the patriotic routine in which other students were participating."

Acker noted that in 1990 he had banished the ceremonial opening, "God bless the United States and this honorable court," from his courtroom. And he said that Holloman's defiantly raised fist reminded him of when U.S. sprinters Tommie Smith and John Carlos made the same gesture during their medals ceremony at the 1968 Olympic Games.

Holloman had every right to remain silent during the Pledge, Acker wrote. But the judge added, "Symbolic speech can become so 'bothersome' at some point as to trespass upon the free speech rights of those who are 'bothered.' "

During Friday's arguments, judges on Atlanta's 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals questioned whether Holloman's defiant acts had caused a disruption.

Judge Charles Wilson asked whether a student's standing up in class and raising a fist during another time of the day, such as in science class, would be considered disruptive.

But Tatum, Holloman's lawyer, said that during the Pledge, "Certain symbolic gestures are allowed," such as placing one's hand over one's heart. Raising a fist is another symbolic gesture that should be allowed so long as it's not disruptive, Tatum said, contending that Holloman's gesture didn't create a disturbance.

Walker County school board attorney Russell Robertson countered that Holloman was not disciplined for refusing to say the Pledge. Instead, Robertson said, Holloman was punished for being unduly disruptive. Judge Gerald Tjoflat seemed unconvinced, noting that a reasonable person could easily infer that Holloman was disciplined for being unpatriotic and disrespectful.

After Friday's arguments, Tatum said Holloman, now 20, is attending college. He declined to discuss Holloman's feelings about the Pledge of Allegiance or make Holloman, who did not attend the hearing, available for comment.

Also Friday, in response to the California court's decision, George Attorney General Thurbert Baker said no school district in the state needs to prohibit the recitation of the Pledge in the classroom. "I firmly believe the decision is wrong, and I have every confidence that this decision will be reversed upon further appeal," he said in a letter to Schools Superintendent Linda Schrenko.

[winodog]

I was in the 8th grade and we had a assembly. When it started we all stood for the pledge. I thought it would be cool to stay seated and I did. No anti american reasons, just goofy. When everyone sat down the Principal was stareing at me and gave me the finger wag.

He took me to the office and promptly gave me two swats. I got a lot of swats in Jr high. One thing was for sure. I didnt go home and tell mom and dad about what happened. I was goofy but I was not stupid.

[marvlus]

I have no problem with one not reciting the pledge, but I do take issue with someone being disruptive during the time of honoring our national flag.

[mykej]

In other situations, we have a word for forced acts of "love". I don't really think that physical force is an appropriate way to get someone to love you.

[goodieD]

No one is interested in making this dumb kid "love" them, except his parents. The kid shouldn't have to recite the pledge, but he does have to behave. You discipline children when they misbehave. They gave this kid a choice of disciplinary actions. He is the one who chose corporal punishment.

[The Cuban]

I thought this issue was decided by the supreme court in 1943 when they decided that reciting the pledge is optional?

[Militiaman7]

Judge Gerald Tjoflat needs to be spanked, and deport the brat to IRAQ

[mykej]

Sorry, raising a fist is not disruptive. Why can't the other students ignore one silent person with his hand in the air?

[nothingnew]

TO: Michael Holloman...

BOHICA!.....BWAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!

FMCDH

[Michael.SF.]

Sorry mykej. It is diruptive.

Why could he just not stand silently?

One must consider the symbolism of raising one's fist, ala John Carlos and Tommy Smithin Mexico Olympics in 1968, as mentioned in the article.

The raising of the fist was then and is now, a symbolic gesture of Black Power, declaring the USA to be a racist state. Although no mention of race was made (that I saw) my guess was that these were Black Students, thus making the gesture very symbolic and very offensive.

What if they had raised their hand in the classic one finger salute? Would you consider that to be disruptive?

[mykej]

Rainsing one's fist in no way interferes with anybody else's ability to say or listen to the pledge.

Yes, I understand the symbolism of the raised fist, and if he believes the US is a racist state, under the constitution he has the right to express his opinion. It doesn't matter if his opinion is right or wrong or even provably false. It is his opinion, and he is entitled to express it, so long as he doesn't violate anybody else's rights in so doing.

So please tell me, how does his expression of speech intrude on anybody else's rights? Would you prefer it if they gave him a daily minute for rebuttal to the pledge?

And to answer your last question, no it wouldn't bother me if he flew the bird either. Symbols mean what you want them to, and obscenity or patriotism is in the eye of the beholder.

If somebody *really* believes that the US is a racist society, isn't it their *obligation* to point it out and try to correct the matter? Is it not your duty as a citizen to help your country become a better place?

Yes, we can, and will, disagree on "better". But the whole point is that everybody has a right to his or her stupid opinion, and the right to try to convince others that that belief is correct.

[goodieD]

kind of hard to ignore a raised fist. Why should the other kids have to be bothered if one kid wants to be a little creep? Why does the majority always have to bow before one idiot? Besides, it's a school and there are RULES..some people think they don't have to abide by them.

[goodieD]

As I said in my post.. saying the pledge should be optional, Protest in silence at school, but anything beyond that needs to be done outside of school time. School time is for learning, not making an ass out of yourself.

[ijcr]

What if the hand was outstreched,palm flat? would that be disrupting the class?

If the answer is yes,then the same applies for a clenched fist.

[mykej]

What if the hand was outstreched, palm flat, like a nazi salute as you suggest? Again, it doesn't interfere with anybody else's right to speech. It stops *nobody* from saying the pledge.

Another person suggested that protest in silence at school was ok. The raised fist, while it is a powerful political statement, is silent and non disruptive.

Another person suggests that simply because it is in a school, people should not be allowed to exercise their constitutional rights to non disruptively protest.

Schools exist to teach, and there are many things beyond readin' 'riting and 'rithmatic they should teach. They should teach that individuals have rights in the US. They should teach that you cannot be punished in the US merely for holding unpopular political views. They should teach the concepts of good citizenship, going beyond hollow repitition of the pledge and explaining the importance, current and historical, of citizen activists. They should teach that nobody is allowed to take away your rights, not a student, not a teacher, not a principal.

If this kid had tried to physically restrain other kids to stop them from pledging, yes he should be punished. If he decided to sing The International at the top of his lungs during the pledge, I would agree that was disruptive and worthy of punishment. Since he *silently* made a statement others didn't like, I don't see how you can call it disruptive.

What if he had been so moved by the pledge, he put his hand over his heart? It's not required, you know. That is also politcal speech. Should he have been punished for that? Or should you only be punished for unpopular political speech?

[vannrox]

Personally,

I think that all American-BORN Children should go through Military-style Basic Training. This would occur when they are 16-18. Failure to do so would indicate an irregularity in their lives.

The training would consist of an intensive period of CIVICs, history, government theory, teamwork, marksmanship, and self reliance. Then after their training they would have two years of compulsitory government service. The services would replace the lower tier services currently provided by Government. Such as Mail sorting, or community activities.

Then, once they complete their period of service, if they desire, they can become a member of society with full rights and privileges. Or, alternatively they could continue to proceed into the military service or other form of government service.

We would still have an army of people who wanted to be in it. But we would also have a trained and disiplined citizenry.

We can no longer rely on our educational system to provide the basic skills required to be a US Citizen.

[SarahW]

That was the original salute used for the pledge of allegiance.

If people knew where the pledge came from, they wouldn't say it, let alone hold it up as a sacrament.

[Austin Willard Wright]

It is rather odd that freepers who are always worried about people being "too sensitive" (and properly so) now are so worried by the other students who "might have been offended" by one lone student holding his fist in the air.

[Michael.SF.]

"So please tell me, how does his expression of speech intrude on anybody else's rights?"

Where have you been? There are so many limitations placed on our "free speech" rights as to almost make them meaningless, at times. Try these as examples:

A man in Washington DC was forced to resign from his job for using the word 'niggardly'. The word was used properly, but in front of some ignorant people who mistook it for the racial pejorative.

Hate crimes - Why is the use of a racial pejorative during an assault deemed to be a greater crime then just plain assault? Does one not have a free speech right to use such words, even if inflammatory?

Utterances of Pejoratives - The City of Laguna Beach passed legislation to start tracking people who use pejoratives such as: faggot. The lists are being kept to track people, for what purpose?

The use of certain words to describe people is no longer acceptable and can cause people grievous injury from being fired to being killed. WHY? Because people find such words to be offensive. But the right of a person to offend others is subjectively protected. Thus some feel a Black Power salute or burning a flag or giving the bird during the Pledge is acceptable, in spite of the fact that many find it offensive.

To accept one demonstration of "free speech" while simultaneously passing legislation on Hate crimes (thought police), or by selectively denouncing other forms is very hypocritical.

[mykej]

Does abridging this young man's rights help the overall situation for constitutional rights in the US or hurt it?

How does denying this kid's right to protest fix the other problems?