Good grief! The Supreme Court ruled in 1943 that a student cannot be required to say the Pledge of Allegiance. Why don't the folks at Lewisville High School know that, since it is covered in every every school law class?

A student who refuses to recite the Pledge of Allegiance has been given a two-day suspension from Lewisville High.

He says, saying the pledge violates his religious beliefs.

The school district says his behavior is a distraction to the rest of the classroom.

The problem is, his "distraction" was his refusal to say the words of the Pledge, nothing more. And since the kid is a Jehovah's Witness, just like the kids in the 193 case of West Virginia v. Barnette, there is not any basis for distinguishing between what this young man, Adrian Boykin, is doing today and what those students were doing 64 years ago.

"The only thing I pledge allegiance to is God, not a flag. It's cloth to me."

Boykin's family follows the teachings of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

They believe the pledge equates to worshiping an image or object above God.

"You're not supposed to put any idol before God," said Boykin's mother, Kolette.

Adrian Boykin says after several months in class, his teacher at Lewisville High finally noticed him not reciting the pledge.

The senior was sent to detention but refused to go, leading to a two-day suspension.

The district says a student has the right not to recite the pledge, but cannot cause distractions with their actions.

Now wait just a minute -- how can the district even begin to claim that there was a substantial disruption or distraction is it took the teacher several months to notice and take action against Adrian for not saying the Pledge. That is laughable on its face.

And as for his refusal to go to the detentions, the administration should have been backing him to the hilt, not suspending him. After all, the teacher's actions were no different than assigning him a detention because he is black. Surely the school would not allow suspend a student for refusing to accept sucha violation of fundamental rihts under the Constitution.

There is only one positive outcome I can see here -- we now know that young Mr. Boykin is likely to have a college fund large enough to attend the school of his choice. Unfortunately, it seems likely that the taxpayers, and not the teacher and administrators who displayed such utter incompetence concluded.

Posted by: Greg at 04:29 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 428 words, total size 3 kb.