School committee receives legal briefing on pledge-of-allegiance policy; matter sent to subcommittee

Attorneys told the Springfield School Committee on Oct. 2 that the district currently has no pledge-of-allegiance policy and that any local policy must avoid compelled speech.

Attorney Jeremy Saint Laurent told the committee that while the state statute (M.G.L. c.71, 69) requires that students be given the opportunity to recite the pledge, Supreme Court precedents have held that forcing students to recite the pledge would constitute compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment. "Requiring students to recite the pledge is compelled speech and therefore in violation of their First Amendment rights," Saint Laurent said, summarizing constitutional constraints and the need to reconcile statute with court rulings.

Attorney Ian Keith presented a sample policy from Brookline that would display the flag and permit voluntary recitation at the start of the day without coercion; the sample also cites the state statute yet emphasizes voluntariness in practice. Committee members asked whether the Brookline sample satisfies both state law and constitutional limits; attorneys said the sample is consistent with those constraints when it makes participation voluntary and does not compel teachers or students.

Several committee members, including Attorney Murphy and Mr. Collins, said they had received constituent questions about whether students are being offered the opportunity to recite the pledge on school mornings. The committee directed staff and counsel to take the issue to the legislative and contracts subcommittee for further drafting and to seek additional sample policies (MASC outreach was suggested). No policy was adopted at the meeting.

The district will gather additional sample policies and legal references for the subcommittee and return with draft language for committee consideration.