Bemidji school board approves Pledge of Allegiance with 4-2 vote
Jan. 28—BEMIDJI — Two years after being voted down, the Pledge of Allegiance will have a place in
Bemidji Area Schools
Board of Education meetings.
During its first regular meeting of 2025 on Monday, the board secured a 4-2 vote to add the pledge's recitation to the beginning of each meeting.
A similar measure was proposed in January 2023
but was voted down with a 3-3 vote.
Board chair Dave Wall presented the proposal, laying out the protocol and reasons behind it.
"There was a day in America that the Pledge of Allegiance was recited in many sectors of our society by all citizens. Political affiliation, ethnicity or religious persuasion were not a concern," Wall said. "Citizens of this great country came together with their differences and recited the pledge to show that they were committed in unity to the United States of America.
"The unity of our nation is the strength of our nation. Unity guarantees value to each citizen and accommodates diversity."
The protocol notes that those who wish to participate in the pledge's recitation would stand and face the flag, place their hand on their hearts and follow the lead of the board chair. Those who don't wish to participate are free to do so without judgement or consternation, Wall added.
Following the introduction of the motion by board members Anna Manecke and Jack Aakhus, member Ann Long Voelkner expressed her opposition to adding the pledge to meetings, consistent with her stance from two years ago.
"I have sworn, as everybody else has, the oath of office to serve our country and students as a public school board member," Long Voelkner said. "The oath specifically says 'I support the Constitution of the United States and the state of Minnesota.' ... I believe this oath speaks specifically to our role as board members to provide quality education for our students in a safe setting for teachers, staff and students. The Pledge of Allegiance does not speak to that role."
Long Voelkner pointed to the addition of "under God" in the pledge in 1954 following Congressional approval.
"That addition to the pledge ties religion to civil government matters in opposition to our Constitution," she added. "My choice is not to recite the pledge, which reflects our separation of church and state within the Constitution, and also reflects the oath of office I have sworn to."
Board member Jenny Frenzel remained steadfast in her opposition to adding the pledge, a position met with its own opposition in 2023.
"I received personal threats on my life. I received personal threats against my children, against my family, against my business," Frenzel said regarding the aftermath of her no vote. "I had to make a police report and a restraining order just because I shared my opinion."
Frenzel also shared correspondence with then-non-member Todd Haugen, who confirmed that he would've voted down the pledge when the measure was first proposed.
"I admire someone who's willing to take a difficult vote, and I've always been a bit ambivalent about the Pledge of Allegiance," Haugen said, "but I was really impressed, as I ran for the board this past fall, how many people asked me about the pledge. It's an issue to them. ... The message I got loud and clear during the campaign was that people want us to do this."
Aakhus condemned all forms of threats and harassment while emphasizing his view that the motion was to allow a choice in whether a board member wants to recite the pledge.
"Have many Americans been denied liberty and justice? Yes. Are some still denied it today? Yes. Are liberty and justice still ideals worth honoring and committing ourselves to today? Yes," Aakhus said. "This is why we say the pledge."
There is no statutory requirement for school boards to recite the pledge, but many boards add it to meetings if members so choose.
Minnesota State Statute 121A.11,
subdivision 3a, dictates that all public and charter school students shall recite the Pledge of Allegiance one or more times each week. Subdivision 3b of the same statute allows students to decline the recitation.
Student representative Mckenzie Edevold brought up issues related to the pledge in schools particularly for students who decline its recitation.
"Kids definitely get made fun of if they sit during the pledge. I've seen teachers say something to them and tell them to get up," Edevold said. "It's kind of robotic the way the pledge is said, and I don't know if it has any meaning saying it during school."
After more discussion, the board passed the measure with Aakhus, Haugen, Wall and Manecke voting for it and Frenzel and Long Voelkner voting against.
In other business, the board unanimously approved a tentative agreement with the Bemidji Education Support Professionals bargaining group for 2023-2025.
The group, which represents secretarial-clerical employees and paraprofessionals,
has advocated for a more equitable contract and increased salaries at prior board meetings.
The agreement includes a 2% increase in the salary schedule for 2023-2024 and a $1 per hour increase for 2024-2025. District health insurance contributions remain unchanged at $845 a month, but as of July 2024, the district will contribute an additional $165 per month for those with family health insurance coverage.
Among other adjustments, the agreement's two-year cost totals roughly $1 million.
The full meeting can be viewed on the
Bemidji Area Schools YouTube channel.
The next regular board meeting is scheduled for 6:30 p.m. on Monday, Feb. 24, in the district board room.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump can bar AP from some White House events for now, US appeals court says
By Jack Queen (Reuters) -President Donald Trump is free to bar the Associated Press from some White House media events after a U.S. appeals court on Friday paused a lower court ruling mandating that AP journalists be given access. The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit temporarily blocks an order by U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, who ruled on April 8 that the Trump administration must allow AP journalists access to the Oval Office, Air Force One and White House events while the news agency's lawsuit moves forward. The AP sued in February after the White House restricted the news outlet's access over its decision to continue referring to the Gulf of Mexico in its coverage despite Trump renaming the body of water the Gulf of America. The AP's lawyers argued the new policy violated the First Amendment of the Constitution, which protects free speech rights. McFadden, who was appointed by Trump during his first term, said in his ruling that if the White House opens its doors to some journalists it cannot exclude others based on their viewpoints. Trump administration lawyers said the president has absolute discretion over media access to the White House and that McFadden's ruling infringed on his ability to decide whom to admit to sensitive spaces. 'The Constitution does not prohibit the President from considering a journalist's prior coverage in evaluating how much access he will grant that journalist,' lawyers for the administration said in a court filing. On April 16, the AP accused the Trump administration of defying the court order by continuing to exclude its journalists from some events and then limiting access to Trump for all news wires, including Reuters and Bloomberg. Reuters and the AP both issued statements denouncing the new policy, which puts wire services in a larger rotation with about 30 other newspaper and print outlets. Other media customers, including local news organizations that have no presence in Washington, rely on the wire services' real-time reports of presidential statements as do global financial markets. The AP says in its stylebook that the Gulf of Mexico has carried that name for more than 400 years and, as a global news agency, the AP will refer to it by its original name while acknowledging the new name Trump has chosen.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
ICE Barbie Offers Her Own Made-Up Definition of Habeas Corpus
Kristi Noem gave an egregiously wrong definition of the legal principle habeas corpus while testifying to senators Tuesday. 'Habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country,' President Donald Trump's homeland security secretary said. She was quickly cut off by the stunned senator who had asked her to define the term, Maggie Hassan. 'That's incorrect,' the New Hampshire Democrat said. Hassan explained that the well-known legal concept refers to a detained person's right to know why they are being held so they can challenge their imprisonment in court. The Trump administration is considering revoking habeas corpus, which is enshrined by the Constitution, allowing it to hold detainees without any recourse to challenge their detention. 'If not for that protection, the government could simply arrest people, including American citizens, and hold them indefinitely for no reason,' Hassan told Noem. 'Habeas corpus is the foundational right that separates free societies like America from police states like North Korea.' After schooling Noem, Hassan asked her if she supported habeas corpus. 'I support habeas corpus,' answered Noem, who was testifying to Congress about the Department of Homeland Security's budget. 'I also recognize that the president of the United States has the authority under the Constitution to decide if it should be suspended or not.' Article I of the Constitution says that habeas corpus 'shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public safety may require it.' While the Constitution doesn't specify who holds the power to suspend habeas corpus, throughout the history of America, the power has belonged to Congress, not the president. Habeas corpus has only been suspended four times. It was suspended throughout the country during the Civil War, in eleven South Carolina counties controlled by the Ku Klux Klan during the Reconstruction, in the Philippines during its 1905 insurrection, and in Hawaii after the Pearl Harbor bombing in 1941. The Trump administration has faced legal pushback on its attempts to detain and deport undocumented immigrants and non-citizen activists without due process. Stephen Miller, one of Trump's top aides who is behind his mass deportation strategy, said earlier this month that habeas corpus was a 'privilege' that the administration is looking at suspending. Noem's agency has played a key role in carrying out the mass deportation plan. She has earned the nickname ICE Barbie for often donning garish outfits to cosplay as a boots-on-the-ground law enforcement officer.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Democrats lost voters' trust. They need a new radical center wing to win it back.
The Democratic Party is in need of a thorough overhaul. Democrats clearly lost trust on the key issues voters care most about, yet instead of getting back to basics and earning back voters' confidence, the Democratic party leadership in D.C. has been riddled for six months with infighting and knotted into a blame game around the party's failure in 2024. This is not surprising. Too many party leaders have been content to ride the two-party pendulum into office every two, four, six or eight years, taking increasing amounts of campaign funding from interests who are perfectly fine propping up a system that has failed to deliver the American dream for more than a generation of regular folks. We have each worked in and around the Democratic Party for much of our careers. We've seen firsthand the party's lack of focus on macroeconomics and national security. We've seen the lack of curiosity and courage to solve big problems that require tough conversations for the benefit of the average Joe or Jane on Main Street. Well, Main Street spoke in 2024, and we are going to listen. Our starting point is the Constitution. Based on the first five months of executive orders and their one big outrageous bill, today's Republican Party is opposed to America's sacred statement of purpose, alienating patriotic Republicans and independents who have voted, served, and died in support of its timeless articulation of American values. What is that common purpose? It's the Constitution's preamble and its promise to 'form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity …' Even as Trump's faction actively undermines each promise, the Democrats' standing with Americans struggling to stay in the middle class, let alone climb higher, keeps slipping. The party seems oblivious that the general welfare is poor, and the blessings of liberty don't feel like blessings anymore. For average Americans, it all feels like walking a tightrope without a net. That's why we believe that it is time to build a new wing of the Democratic Party. Only a new wing — beholden to no special interests — can forge a durable new direction for the country to deliver the prosperity and security voters demand while embracing all who respect the Constitution. The U.S. has done this before. In 1952, Dwight Eisenhower was faced with a similar crisis: Neither party understood how to steer the nation through what would become a decades-long struggle between freedom and communist dictatorship. So Eisenhower jumped in the race, won in a landslide, and spent the next eight years building a bipartisan consensus on a 'grand strategy' to guide that mid-century struggle. It is now 34 years since Eisenhower's grand strategy defeated the Soviets, and neither party has offered a coherent replacement calibrated to the fundamentally different existential challenges we face today. It's not a surprise. From President Kennedy on, Washington forgot how to do grand strategy. China and Russia, however, have not forgotten and are celebrating (and stoking) our confusion. But grand strategy is not that hard to understand; it's just big. Grand strategy realigns domestic and foreign policy together, knowing that America always wins when we let our economic engine do the heavy lifting. And once we think like Ike and use the lens of grand strategy, a new direction is revealed. Today, the pieces of a powerful new economic engine are ready to assemble. There are massive pools of pent-up economic demand in housing, transportation, agriculture, energy and materials. There is plenty of private capital needing long-term certainty. And, there is more than enough fiscal space to get started without stoking inflation. In other words, a real full-employment, high-wage, high-return economy is just waiting for us to get our act together. To unleash that economic potential, this new wing of the party will have to cast aside ideology, myths and disinformation for what works in practice and at scale. We like to call this approach radical centrism. Radical centrism recognizes that good economic ideas are good if they deliver consistently for hard-working regular folks, not just the exceptional or exceptionally privileged. With a strong economic foundation, we'll earn back the tough America that deterred nuclear war, and the principled America that embraced its allies to stop two 20th-century authoritarian empires while improving lives around the world. The contrast is clear. The House GOP just revealed their know-nothing economic promises were yet another con and Trump's foreign policy is founded on corruption. Under MAGA supporting Republicans, the economy will only get worse between now and 2028, weakening American families and weakening us against Russia and China. Democrats have two election cycles left to get this right. That's why we'll be working to build a new wing of the party to reestablish that only Democrats can deliver for all Americans and meet our responsibilities to the world. At the end of the day, what's so radical about radical centrism? The only thing is that we want to actually get stuff done. Patrick Doherty is the former deputy director of the National Security Studies Program at New America. Rich Pelletier is the former deputy campaign manager for the Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign. Peter Brown is a former aide to Colorado Gov. Jared Polis. The authors are the co-founders of the Center for the Constitution and Grand Strategy. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
