Are You Passionate?
posted 2006.11.10 Friday
Three out of five members of a two-year Southern California community college are creating a minor stir with a recent decision on the pledge of allegiance. I will analyze the Reuters story that I first saw linked from Drudge, though there are other "versions" of the story (see below). The story describes a decision by the Orange Coast College student trustees to stop reciting the pledge before their meetings. You just have to love how Reuters keeps trying to spin this as a "church vs. state" issue, while the students seem much more interested in allegiance to the state part.
An eighteen-year-old student makes the statement that "America is the one thing I'm passionate about and I can't let them take that away from me." The only thing? I'll let you guess what her major is. No wait, this is too good: political science. She was also late to the last three meetings for which there are minutes available. Maybe that's why she thought this ruling is designed to take America away from her.
The students who instituted the ban "said they do not believe in publicly swearing an oath to the American flag and government at their school." That seems perfectly reasonable to me. In the very next paragraph, the story goes on to say that "The ban follows a 2002 ruling by a federal appeals court in San Francisco that said forcing school children to recite the pledge was unconstitutional because of the phrase 'under God.' " Yes, it certainly "follows" in a chronological sense (2002 is before 2006) but I really fail to see how the two stories are related.
Apparently prompted by a reporter trying to play up the religion angle, one of the student trustees responded "That ('under God') part is sort of offensive to me." Sort of. He doesn't seem too passionate. But the student wisely followed up by stating that "the ban largely came about because the trustees didn't want to publicly vow loyalty to the American government." It seems that the media is passionate about one thing, the students about something entirely different.
Another interesting aspect of this story is the differing headlines for what is essentially the same story. We have discussed this before with "The Fake Headlines" parts One and Two. The Reuters story I've been quoting is titled "Students at Calif. College ban Pledge of Allegiance." Well, that didn't ban it for the entire country, or even the school. They just don't want to recite it before their meetings. The Washington Post (and many other AP releases) similarly state that "Calif. College Ends Pledge of Allegiance." So this community college (not just the trustee board) has ended the pledge. For who? It seems the only outlet to accurately frame the story and provide a simple, fair-and-balanced account is a local Green Bay, Wisconsin news station: "Student trustees drop pledge during meetings."
An eighteen-year-old student makes the statement that "America is the one thing I'm passionate about and I can't let them take that away from me." The only thing? I'll let you guess what her major is. No wait, this is too good: political science. She was also late to the last three meetings for which there are minutes available. Maybe that's why she thought this ruling is designed to take America away from her.
The students who instituted the ban "said they do not believe in publicly swearing an oath to the American flag and government at their school." That seems perfectly reasonable to me. In the very next paragraph, the story goes on to say that "The ban follows a 2002 ruling by a federal appeals court in San Francisco that said forcing school children to recite the pledge was unconstitutional because of the phrase 'under God.' " Yes, it certainly "follows" in a chronological sense (2002 is before 2006) but I really fail to see how the two stories are related.
Apparently prompted by a reporter trying to play up the religion angle, one of the student trustees responded "That ('under God') part is sort of offensive to me." Sort of. He doesn't seem too passionate. But the student wisely followed up by stating that "the ban largely came about because the trustees didn't want to publicly vow loyalty to the American government." It seems that the media is passionate about one thing, the students about something entirely different.
Another interesting aspect of this story is the differing headlines for what is essentially the same story. We have discussed this before with "The Fake Headlines" parts One and Two. The Reuters story I've been quoting is titled "Students at Calif. College ban Pledge of Allegiance." Well, that didn't ban it for the entire country, or even the school. They just don't want to recite it before their meetings. The Washington Post (and many other AP releases) similarly state that "Calif. College Ends Pledge of Allegiance." So this community college (not just the trustee board) has ended the pledge. For who? It seems the only outlet to accurately frame the story and provide a simple, fair-and-balanced account is a local Green Bay, Wisconsin news station: "Student trustees drop pledge during meetings."
comments (2)
1. Art MacArthur left...
2006.11.24 Friday 8:42 am
Orange Coast STUDENT TRUSTEE SAYS: “THE FLAG REPRESENTS GENOCIDE” The
issue is not the pledge. There is room for discussion on whether or not a
student government meeting needs to begin with a recital of the pledge.
2. Red2 left...
2007.01.15 Monday 11:59 am :: http://www.oriflamme.blogspot.com/
The original pledge did not contain the words "under God." It was also
written by a socialist, national socialist or communist depending on who
you talk to. It is a throwback to another time and it is amazing that a
country which has so violently opposed all of its underpinnings, is so
vehemently in favor of its continued recital.