I will be talking to a reporter later about the Pledge of Allegiance, which is apparently disappearing from California schools. I recognize that this is a classic hot-button issue because deliberately removing the Pledge is seen as an attack on God and country (both named in the modern text). That supports a broader narrative in which patriotism and faith are seen as threatened by secular critics who use the machinery of the state, especially public schools, to push their vision.

Well, I am not on that side of the debate, and I don’t agree about the trends. It’s interesting, for example, that under-30s are the least likely to see our wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan as mistakes–by a large margin in the case of Vietnam. It’s hard to square that with the idea that they have been educated against patriotism.

But let me turn the question around and ask it this way: If there had never been a Pledge of Allegiance and we were thinking of making one up and requiring it for all students, would that be a good idea? The following specific questions would then arise, I think:

• Can minors make a pledge? (They cannot in legal contexts; contracts that they enter are generally considered voidable.)
• If you solemnly pledge something, why should you repeat that daily? Isn’t a pledge a pledge?
• What should students learn from the exercise of daily repeating some words in class? For example, if the draft text of a pledge is going to include the word “indivisible,” shouldn’t 100% of students who repeat it daily be able to explain what that word means and what it implies about state secession? More broadly, what words and ideas should they learn?
• Assuming that the objective is for students to think certain things about the US, is repeating a short memorized statement every day the best way to accomplish that? What are the learning outcomes (for kindergarteners, for high school seniors)?
• Who should write and approve this text, and must it be the same for every class in every school in every community of every state?
• Can God be mentioned in a public school? What is the meaning of the phrase “under God” in the current text? Does it mean, for example, that the speaker affirms the existence of one omnipotent deity who has blessed the United States? If that’s its meaning, may non-monotheists recite the words without foreswearing themselves? May Christians, Jews, and Muslims who deny the fundamental legitimacy of the state (as Tolstoy did) recite this text? What about Christians who read Matthew 5:34-5: “But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne /Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.”
• What about the students who (for whatever reason) don’t want to pledge? The Supreme Court has ruled that individuals don’t have to stand or say the words. But was the Court right, and would the same decision be appropriate regardless of the content of the pledge? For instance, if schools merely required students to pledge not to harm each other, would a student have a right to opt out?
• What if the parent and the student diverge on this matter? Does the child of a Jehovah’s Witness have the right to say the pledge even though his father considers it blasphemous? At what age is the choice up to the parent versus the child?
• How should schools treat dissenters? Should they merely tolerate the rare individual who quietly sits through the pledge? Or should they invite discussion of the pros and cons?
• May and should students who are not citizens of the United States take the pledge?
• If you are going to pledge allegiance to something, should it be to the flag? To the republic? To the people who constitute the republic? To certain principles that underlie the republican form of government?
• Could the government of the United States hypothetically take actions that would render the pledge void?
• What (if anything) should students pledge to do? Is pledging allegiance enough–and is it even meaningful–if it doesn’t imply any action?