Professor Offers Alternative In 'Pledge of Allegiance' Debate

Matthew Hersh

Dissatisfied with the "all-or-nothing" terms of the current Pledge of Allegiance debate, Princeton University Prof. Christopher Eisgruber said he thinks a less controversial alternative is possible, and he has submitted his argument to the U.S. Supreme Court as it hears the case as to whether the words "under God" are constitutionality sound and should remain in the Pledge.

"The all-or-nothing terms leave the court with two choices, neither of which are very satisfactory," he said. Instead, he recommends that if the court decides to uphold the Ninth Circuit decision to remove the words "under God," they should be replaced with "one nation, of equals." The latter features the same number of syllables, hence preserving the cadence of the current pledge.

Prof. Eisgruber will take the place of Prof. Amy Guttman as University provost on July 1.

The current U.S. Supreme Court case stems from a June 2002 decision by a California federal appeals court ruling that reciting the Pledge in public schools is an unconstitutional "endorsement of religion" because of the words "under God," which were added to the Pledge by Congress in 1954.

"The pledge requires active affirmation of a position, you actually say something and you're supposed to mean it: you're pledging," he said. "That raises the difficulty that for some people, they may very much want it to be an expression that is solemnized in religious terms, and others may very well not want it to be that kind of expression."

Prof. Eisgruber's submission, in the form of an amicus curiae brief, was spawned from a transcript that the professor is currently writing with University of Texas Professor Lawrence Sager on the topic of religious liberty. When the Ninth Circuit federal court in California first decided the case in the summer of 2002, the two began discussing a proposed solution.

The brief, which literally means "friend of the court," and is submitted by someone who is not active in the litigation but believes that the information could be useful in deciding the case.

"As the case developed and we talked to people about our proposed solution, we found that many people thought it was sensible, but nobody in the case was proposing anything like it," he said.

"I think a lot of people regard this as a relatively trivial matter," the professor said; however, he added that because there are people who feel so strongly on either side of the fence, he worried that a one-sided, "all-or-nothing" ruling would be perceived as a "proclamation" from the court that the U.S. is either a secular or religious country.

Prof. Eisgruber, who will assume the role of the University's new provost in July, has directed the school's program in law and public affairs, and has sponsored law-related courses and research. He has taught three freshman seminars on the Supreme Court and Constitutional Democracy, an undergraduate course on law and public policy, and graduate courses including "Anti-terrorism, Intelligence, and the Law," and "International Human Rights and Democratic Legitimacy."

Prof. Eisgruber said that he suspects the amicus curiae has already been read by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg because he said she has submitted questions regarding the brief.

He expects a decision at the end of the Supreme Court term, which means late June or early July.