PLEDGE

I live in what I believe to be the last blue enclave in a very red state. Last year, following a sitting Congressman's untimely death, voters elected a Democrat-turned-Republican medical doctor to Congress. In order to win the election in a district that includes very blue and very red voters, this chameleon successfully turned purple. Since taking office, we've all learned that he's red through and through.

Case in point: In recent days, the local paper has followed the story of our illustrious US Representative's proposed new legislation. Creatively called the PLEDGE Act, the law would require all school students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and sing the national anthem in English only. I forget what the acronym actually stands for. I'm pretty sure it's not, "Please Legislate Even Dumber Grandstanding Edicts," but it should be.

This week, the local paper took the Congressman to task, calling his proposal, "a solution in need of a problem." Seems all of the schoolchildren in the Congressman's district, not to mention the entire state, recite the Pledge and sing the anthem in English. Now that he's suggested that it could be otherwise, I'm pretty sure the notoriously bleeding heart eggheads across town are busily translating the Pledge en espanol. Peut etre, en francais, aussi.

After this unfounded attack, the Congressman's campaign treasurer came to his leader's defense. The fellow also "handles church relations" for the Congressman. I don't know what this means, maybe he prays for the Congressman. No, I don't mean that he prays for the Congressman's continued good health and fortune. I mean that he actually prays for the Congressman, thus freeing up the Congressman to do other things, like come up with needless legislation and assign stupid acronyms.

Anyway, in this fellow's spirited defense, he makes several points, all of which I'd like to dispute (and ridicule). First, he argues that all schoolchildren "need to speak and read English [because] all of our founding documents and most supplemental materials about important figures in American history are in English. If our kids are going to understand the 'American experience' they have inherited, they need to read about it, study it, and yes, even learn to articulate it."

Give me a minute to dust off my bleeding heart liberal ideals. OK. Who decided what constituted a "founding document"? I'd suggest that whoever made the decision began with "must be in English" as a primary criterion. I'd suggest that the next criterion was something like, "Must be written down." So, any document or oral history in Spanish, a Native American language, or West African immediately doesn't qualify. Sorry, Hispanics, Native Americans, and African Americans, your history isn't "foundational" because you didn't think to write your thoughts down in English. Please take your place back on the sidelines while we focus on the "important" figures. In case you're confused, I'm talking about the rich white guys in the wigs.

Now, to the writer's point about the "American experience:" Whose experience is he talking about? Well, I think it's pretty clear. My point is that as a history professor, I try very hard to communicate that there is a multiplicity of "American experiences," not one "experience." This multiplicity includes a diverse group of historical actors who interact with each other in a variety of contexts. In other words, it ain't just about the rich white guys in wigs. And, here's a stunning thought - the rich white guys often act in response to historical actors who aren't speaking the Queen's English. Who's "important" now, jackass?

Next, the fellow argues that we're doing a disservice to schoolchildren if we don't teach them English because "English is the language of success in the United States." Really? I speak English. Bring on the success! As a student of pop culture, I'd argue that texting is the language of success in the United States. OMG! LOL!

Finally, the fellow argues that all schoolchildren should be forced to memorize not only the Pledge and the national anthem, but also the preamble to the Declaration of Independence (I wonder if he means the Constitution) and the entire Bill of Rights. According to this fellow, "Imagine kids knowing that stuff by heart, and even in English.... School systems are doing kids an injustice by not helping them get a handle on these core principles and history of our country."

Again, as a college professor, I have to say that rote memorization is crap. I don't care if my students can memorize the textbook. I do care if they can explain the historical significance of key events and people, broadly defined. Hell, I can sing the national anthem beginning to end and recite the Pledge of Allegiance, all in English. I can also count on one hand the number of times that I've ever stopped to consider what I was saying or singing. And, I speak English, but I still don't know what "ramparts" are. As for "core principles," how many of us know that the national anthem is set to the tune of an old English drinking song? Fine "core principles" on display.

I'll also point out that any of us who grew up with Schoolhouse Rock can sing the Preamble to the Constitution. How many of us know what it means? For a refresher, check out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_TXJRZ4CFc. Dogboy2709 (a sure expert) tells us that his post "is for studying purposes." Hell, we don't need to make sure schoolchildren learn English, we just need to set everything to a snappy tune.

In conclusion, I'd like to PLEDGE my support for our Congressman's opponent.