Whether you like it or not, you are never going to forget this.

Every school day since kindergarten, it’s been drilled with confident and proud voices into our minds. To confess, as a high schooler, that this common piece of knowledge was unknown, or forgotten, would be implausible and absurd.

No, we’re not talking about your address, or your parent’s phone number, but instead the arguably most constant practice in all public schools throughout America: the Pledge of Allegiance.

Considered by some as a patriotic brainwashing tool, and to others, a loyal salute to the country we call home, the act of reciting the Pledge has fueled a century long controversy and national debate.

Written in 1892 by socialist minister Francis Bellamy, the Pledge was first published in The Youth’s Companion, a children’s magazine, with the intention of giving readers a sense of pride and passion for their country. After multiple revisions, the pledge was not officially recognized by Congress until 1942, which eventually led to the 1943 West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette Supreme Court decision, which found that forcing children to recite the Pledge was unconstitutional.

The West Virginia Board of Education had required a flag-salute and recitation of the Pledge to be a part of all public school activities and programs, and stated that failure to comply would be punishable by expulsion. In a 6-3 ruling, the Court found that this demand violated the student’s First Amendment rights, considering it “compulsory unification of opinion,” as it infringed upon their freedom of speech.

While the Barnette decision pertained to student’s rights when it came to reciting the Pledge, the 1973 Goetz v. Ansell 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals case and the 1978 Lipp v. Morris 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals case ruled that requiring students to stand during the Pledge was also unconstitutional. Goetz justified that requiring a student to stand for the Pledge “can be no more required than the Pledge itself.”

It wasn’t until August 2012, however, when the Nebraska State Board of Education voted to approve the requirement of the recitation of Pledge each school day. Failure to comply with this expectation could put districts at risk of losing their accreditation and therefore state funding.

This order states:

Each public school district shall require each such district’s schools to establish a period of time during the school day, when a majority of pupils is scheduled to be present, during which pupils will be led in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in the presence of the flag of the United States of America, in grades kindergarten through twelve. Pupil participation in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance shall be voluntary. Pupils not participating in the recitation of the Pledge shall be permitted to silently stand or remain seated, but shall be required to respect the rights of the pupils electing to participate.

When this expectation was established, Westside’s administration announced to the staff that starting on Dec. 17 of 2012, the Pledge would commence at approximately 8:01 every morning across the intercom. To help implement this requirement, social studies instructors Diana Schergin and Jonathan Preister assisted in the creation of an activity that focused on the history and interpretation of the Pledge, which was to be done in homeroom during the week of Dec. 10.

At Westside, these expectations are made known to all staff by the administration and enforced to the best of their ability. However, just as the level of participation during the Pledge varies from classroom to classroom, so do the opinions on what is considered respectful behavior from the students who chose not to participate.

On Jan. 13, dean of students Kim Eymann sent an email to all staff regarding the Pledge, stating that, “Students and Staff are NOT required to stand or say it (this is according to the State Law), but everyone DOES have to be respectful and stay off all technology.”

Westside does not have a definition of “respect” when it comes to these situations, but Eymann and assistant principal Trudi Nolin ensure that the staff is aware that refraining from using technology during the Pledge, specifically computers, (which are a constant in every classroom) is what is regarded as respectful at Westside.

“Last year we talked about it,” Eymann said. “And we said, ‘Students should not be on their technology during the 30 seconds of the Pledge of Allegiance.’ The computers are one thing that we can try to make them [be held] accountable [for].”

As in most situations, the definition of respect is open to interpretation, and this topic is no exception.

“People have different opinions on what’s respectful and what’s not,” Eymann said. “Or I should say, what is disrespectful versus not. They might not necessarily think it’s respectful, but they might not see it being disrespectful.”

This whole subject matter falls into a gray area, and becomes even more grayer when you bring the First Amendment back into the picture. The freedom of speech protects those who choose not to stand for the Pledge, whether it is for a politically affiliated reason or otherwise.

There should no longer be an argument regarding if you should have to stand for the pledge or not. The answer to this has long been supported by the First Amendment, and it is now time to apply our rights to the current question at hand:

By defining what is considered respectful and essentially deciding what can and can’t be done during the Pledge of Allegiance, are the First Amendment rights of non-pledging students being violated?

Multiple First Amendment lawyers who have been questioned admit that they don’t have an answer to this question. The First Amendment allows all citizens to express their opinions without fear of retribution from the government, or in this case, public school officials who are under the authority of the U.S. government.

So, for example, would telling a student who was demonstrating their political disagreement with the Pledge to put their computer away, stop reading a book, or to stop painting their nails, be infringing upon their right to express their opinion?

Arguably, none of these actions would be disrespecting or impeding up on the ability of the next student who chose to say the pledge.

While situations such as these make it essentially easy to hold the school accountable for the debate at hand, it is important to remember the balance that our schools must maintain between respecting the student’s and staff’s First Amendment rights and the law that the school must uphold.

Regardless, this dispute is worth the conversation. It is important that we discuss our rights and question the ability of others to interfere with them.

If someone were to choose to participate in a quiet and respectful activity while the pledge is being recited, we need to recognize that they have the right to do so. Just as the First Amendment protects non-Pledging individuals, it also protects the right and opinions of those who disagree with them.

The beauty of the First Amendment, which is arguably taken for granted far too often in our country, or simply just misunderstood, also gives us the ability to have these conversations in the first place.

While Westside is within its bounds to ask students and staff to abstain from using technology during the Pledge, we should not always conform without question to these demands. We need to question authority within reason, and hold ourselves accountable for regular checks and balances of those in control. If no one is scrutinizing the power that governs us all, the security of our First Amendment rights are in jeopardy.