Ten-year-old refuses to stand for pledge

Written by: William Liao

Will Phillips, is a fifth grader at West Fork Elementary in Washington County, Ark. Phillips is a perfectly intelligent kid having successfully skipped a grade, even more so, he has a clear outlook on his future and wants to be a lawyer.

With all this in mind, Phillips decided not to conform to what the many students of his school do: the pledge of allegiance. He stood for his rights and chose not to stand for the pledge of allegiance. Instead of blindly reciting the pledge, he firmly believes that there isn't "currently justice and liberty for all." He spoke of this in regards to the lack of rights for gays and lesbians.

As a consequence of Phillips' decision, he was punished by his teacher, and was forced to engage in a parent-teacher conference. The dispute eventually escalated into a court case, challenging his right to not stand for the pledge of the allegiance.

So what's there to say about all of this? Does Phillips have the right to choose not to stand for the pledge? The answer is simple, and the answer is yes. He has bound by the constitution in that he is to have his own beliefs and opinions. While the United States does not currently offer rights to gays and lesbians, he is exempt from such complications as he himself isn't gay.

I find that, furthermore, on a more stretched basis, viewing humanity as itself: we as humans are entitled the right to not conform to a practice so long as it does not inflict deliberate harm one another. Also, we as people are entitled to our own opinion. Phillips' actions have run parallel precisely to his "natural-born" right, and as a consequence Phillips has not committed any wrong-doing in his decision to not conform to the pledge of allegiance.

Speaking strictly in constitutional terms, Phillips has not committed any sort of crime either. He simply utilized his rights defined solely by the constitution.He expressed his own opinion, stood for what he believed in, and he didn’t create any harm in doing so either.

The sum of all this leads to one clear, simple conclusion: There is no reason Phillips should have been penalized for his actions (or rather inaction in this case), as he clearly expressed and utilized his rights as a free human being.