Experimental Aircraft Association
Chapter 393 - Concord, California

Pledge of Allegiance Discussion

On March 26, 2008 during a business portion of the Chapter 393 general meeting, a motion was made and passed that the Chapter start meetings with the Pledge of Allegiance.

In the next Cleco (Newsletter), Chapter President Ken McKenzie, in his President's Perspective, stated his opposition to the motion (see below).

After the Cleco was published, several comments were directed to Newsletter Editor Harvard Holmes. The Newsletter Editor responded by notifying members of the policy which he intended to follow regarding the discussions about the Pledge. This Notice is included below.

Wikipedia is one starting point for those interested in more details about the Pledge.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag is an oath of loyalty to the country. It is recited at many public events. Congress sessions open with the recitation of the Pledge.

The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag reads as follows:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

The Wikipedia article continues with a history of the Pledge, including legal challenges to making the recitation compulsory.

At this point, I (Harvard Holmes, the Newsletter Editor and also the Webmaster) am working to expand the coverage of this issue.

Since some correspondence came to me with a request NOT to publish or share it, I feel it necessary to confirm with all writers that they want their comments shared, unless they are explicit in their original correspondence.

I have also received a request for our By Laws. Our By Laws are on the web.

From the April, 2008 issue of the Cleco (web availability announced April 15), from Ken McKenzie's President's Perspective. This was the last of 5 major topics addressed by Ken in his President's Perspective:

Controversy Strikes 393!
A motion was made by Bob Rudolph to have the Pledge of Allegiance recited at the opening of the monthly meeting. The motion passed with overwhelming support.

In order for this to take place it was suggested that a flag would need to be procured. To this end Duane Allen offered to provide an extra one from his hangar.

So it has been left to me to implement this. I find myself in a very difficult position, as I didn't vote for it. The 1st thing is to find someone to lead this activity. That shouldn't be hard, given the support indicated by the vote. So I will limit my involvement to calling for a volunteer to lead this activity.

At the break, one of our newer members approached me with the concern that they would feel singled out by this activity. They could not participate due to the fact that they are not a U.S. citizen. They expressed legitimate concerns as to how they would be viewed by the group. I believe that many others might also fit into this category. So it's not just me who has a problem with this issue.

I don't believe that this activity has any place at a meeting of the EAA chapter. My reasons for opposing this proposal are as follows. I feel that this was proposed as a purely divisive measure. It has been my experience that the most vocal proponents of such loyalty tests want nothing more than to publicly intimidate those less comfortable with public declarations of patriotism. I firmly believe that the overwhelming show of support at the vote was nothing more than members fear of being seen not supporting this blunt instrument of the McCarthy era. To be seen not voting for this overt sign of patriotism is to somehow be viewed as less American.

My response to that is that talk is cheap. Just because someone stands up and repeats something in public doesn't provide any proof that he believes it. Furthermore, I find the idea that I must perform this ritual, just to make someone else feel good about themselves, to be offensive.

So, I don't do it. Furthermore, as long as I'm president of this club, I will make sure that only those members that truly want to participate in this activity do so. It is my job to make sure that all those who attend the meetings feel welcome. I don't want anyone to feel pressured by this or any other activity.

As a new member way back in 1988, I felt intimidated by the introduction part of the meeting. I expressed this to the then president and from that point on whenever the intro portion of the meeting began it was announced that participation was strictly voluntary.

So I plan to make it perfectly clear that participation in this new activity is also strictly voluntary and no one who isn't completely comfortable with the practice need participate.

I plan to sit and respectfully witness, whoever so desires, pledge allegiance to the flag. I invite any and all so inclined to join me.

Email from Bob Rudolph to the Newsletter Editor (Harvard Holmes), received April 20, after several days delay due to internet problems:

Harvard - Here is my response to our illustrious president's tirade in the April Cleco regarding the Pledge of Allegiance. You may publish this at your pleasure or not. I frankly, don't give a tinkers damn what our president thinks.

"Oh for God's sake! Now, I'm a divisive force in the chapter. Well, I guess that fits just fine. If my kindergarten going grandson has the opportunity to repeat the simple Pledge of Allegiance at the start of each school day then I didn't think it was an imposition if the adult members of our august body did the same.

Over the years I have belonged to several civic organizations; all started meetings with the pledge. Most of those civic organizations completed public service projects so I was of the mistaken, I guess, belief that the EAA had a public service component. I don't know where you categorize Young Eagles, Air shows, and this new make-a-wish fare thing but I would call them public service functions. So I proposed that we act like the Lyons or Kiwanis or Rotary. I didn't mean to insult anyone.

For the immigrant, non-citizen contingent of our club we welcome you and your participation. No one dislikes you because you have come to the United States of America. I hope you are not insulted when going to a baseball game and hearing the "Star Spangled Banner" or "Oh Canada" if one of the Canadian teams happen to be in town. Let me recommend citizenship, then you can participate.

For the "code pink" loving members of this organization; God Bless you. A bunch of fine people have given a lot so you could spout off.

I would rather be compared to Joe McCarthy than to Medea Benjamin.

So I stand by my motion. I hope that those who voted for it were not intimidated by social pressure. If you have reached the age that most of us have and your life is still run by what other people think of you; you have my deepest sympathy.

How would everyone feel about a benediction right after the pledge?

Bob Rudolph"

On April 18, I received the following email from Neil Reid:

To: Ken McKenzie, President

Dear Ken,

Please hear a voice from the past, that of one of the Founders of this organization who, acting as your attorney, facilitated the legal process that created the corporate identity of EAA Chapter 393 and thus became a life time-non voting member. And one who continues to read THE CLECO monthly.

The well intended motion by Bob Rudolph to have the Pledge of Allegiance recited at the opening of monthly meetings is totally inappropriate and should be immediately rescinded.

There is no requirement at National that membership in the EAA be restricted to US Citizens. Nor does any similar requirement exist in your bylaws or that of any other EAA Chapter. The Pledge directly conflicts with the Membership in that it imposes a requirement not consistent with the purpose of EAA, express or implied.

Furthermore, even though recitation may be considered optional, it still is objectionable. In Frazier v Alexander, a 2006 Florida case, the First District Court held that a State law requiring students to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, even though students could opt out with written parental permission. Now there is no Federal Constitutional issue here of course, but the reasoning in that case is equally applicable. You should not create a condition where members are required to subscribe to an oath totally outside the activities and purpose of your Chapter, or in the alternative be effectively ostracized for nonconformity.

The EAA is not a fraternal organization nor a religious one. While patriotism and religion may occupy a place in our society there are also very good reasons for them not to be introduced where they do not rightfully belong.

Personally, I am in complete agreement with the objections you published in the April 2008 issue of The Cleco and the reasons you put forth. Now as a Member whose contribution was legal services ( I was one of the original six members invited by National to form their Legal Advisory Panel and I incorporated many of our local chapters) I feel compelled to address this controversy. It has no applicability to your situation and should be rescinded.

On a nostalgic note, The EAA's B-17 coming to Concord reminds me that the very first aircraft in which I held the controls in flight was a B-17! I volunteered for the Army Air Corps Aviation Cadet Program at age 17 and went into the pipe line at 18. But by then there was a back up so they created OLT (On Line Trainees) for those who were waiting to become full fledged Cadets. We went to Hobbs, NM a B-17 Transitional base where we took classes in the morning and worked out on the flight line helping the mechanics service the aircraft afternoons and evenings. There were ample opportunities for rides and one time the bored young pilot told me to take the left seat and fly for awhile. What a thrill.

Time passed and eventually I received AAF silver wings in the Class of 45C but at Luke Field, Phoenix AZ -which from its first day has trained nothing but fighter pilots. Well, I did start flying at 18 and sold my beautiful C-180 at age 81, while still holding a valid Commercial Certificate and current medical. Still, the sight and sound of a B-17 can make me young again-for a moment.

Neil D. Reid

On April 21, I emailed the following EAA393 Notice to Members:

Dear Chapter 393 Members,

In the last Cleco (April 2008), President Ken McKenzie expressed his opinion about a recently passed motion that the Chapter begin each meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance. Since that issue was published, I have heard conversations and received emails expressing opinions on both sides of the issue. Clearly, strong feelings are involved. I have also wrestled with my own feelings about how to proceed. From my perspective as Editor of the Cleco, my concern is the proper balance between free speech on an issue of clear concern to the members and my desire to stick to issues directly related to building and enjoying aircraft. I have therefore decided to publish a single article with the opposite opinion from Ken McKenzie’s last President’s Perspective and I will ask at the next meeting for someone to volunteer to compose that article with input from all who wish to express their opinion. I will also add a page to the web site for opinions on this issue. Members may send their opinions to me and I will put them on this web page. After this article, I intend to severely limit Cleco reports on this issue – e.g. “so-and-so expressed their opinion on the Pledge of Allegiance” or entirely omit the fact that discussion occurred on this issue. I also do not intend to announce new additions to the web page set aside for this discussion. Members will have to use their own initiative to view the web page if they wish to keep up with postings. To make it perfectly clear where this policy came from, be advised that I made it up, and consulted no one else before writing it up. Members are reminded that there are procedures for removing the Newsletter Editor if need be. The By Laws are posted on the web.

Now, where are those hot letters to the editor on running lean of peak, on soldering vs. crimping your wiring, on the stability of solid state gyros, on electronic ignitions, on the future of aviation fuels, on composite vs. aluminum construction, on the most efficient cooling design, and so forth? Members have demonstrated their ability to write – now put it to work writing about building and operating your aircraft!

Harvard Holmes, Chapter 393 Newsletter Editor and Webmaster

On April 21, following the Newsletter Editor's email, I received several comments on the email:

From Steve Snyder

Nice email... let both sides vent (once), then back to plane business. Ongoing discussions can be continued within the PAC of one's choice. Then EAA'ers can focus on our common interest/passion, instead of divisive topics du jour.

From Guy Jones:

BINGO!! Mr. Editor. Nicely done. Hope it generates some feedback regarding purely aviation-type issues.

From Frank Harvey:

wonderful letter, Harvard.
frank harvey

On April 23, from Jack Romanski:

[Also responding to the news of Dave Cunningham's death.]
Sad news. I was out at Concord yesterday and heard a few more details of the crash. The aircraft was a Cessna 150 on floats. Following a takeoff from a mountain lake, facing rising terrain, the aircraft failed to complete a turn back towards the lake, stalling low and going straight in through the trees.

The pledge thing is most divisive. I think we can all agree on that, right? We associate because of our love for airplanes, not for our political beliefs. If somebody wants to act divisive and political, I'd just as soon they did not do it on our collective time. If it is insisted upon, I will no longer attend meetings, or extend my membership in our chapter. I don't figure that would bother anyone, as nobody has ever conversed with me at the few meetings I have attended. I couldn't ever get a conversation started. I guess nobody there likes talking to people with long hair. I guess that ties in with the pledge thing too. Fascists have little to say to hippies.

I fly more than anyone else in the chapter, and my evident taildragger skills clearly reflect this. I fly the red and off white RV-6, N30AK. It is my 11th airplane. I did not build it, but I have built multiple aircraft. I made the first hang glider that they all look like now. I have several new aircraft types under consideration, including an inexpensive electric hydrogen one man airship. I am trying to understand how to concentrate fields of repulsive gravity, what they have just discovered and call dark energy. We concentrate fields of electromagnetic energy all the time in our present technology. My point is, I have something to say and I think I bring something to our collective table. Perhaps I am too weird for you all. The pledge thing just points that out.

30 years ago I was the busiest flight instructor in the LA basin. I taught taildragger and acro as well as the usual stuff. I am no longer current to instruct for compensation or hire, but I still have all my chops and can easily impart my highly developed taildragger landing skills to chapter members who just built a taildragger but lack thousands of hours flying them and don't want to be embarrassed on that first flight. I can do first flights too. Compensation is not required and my schedule is largely open.

I don't like the pledge controversy, but I liked being ignored even less. I've been at Concord for 3 years and have had friendly conversations with many people on the field. I usually get along famously with experimental aviation people. Perhaps our chapter contains too many people who automatically dislike me. I fear that may be the case. The pledge thing reinforces that impression.

Sorry about the passing of one of our members. Let us learn the sad lessons and apply them. Hot and high is bad when combined with underpowered and heavy.

A Dios, indeed.

-- Jack Romanski

On April 23, at Chapter 393's general meeting, Harvard read his Notice to Members and asked for a volunteer to respond with an opinion on the other side of the issue from Ken McKenzie. Bob Rudolph graciously responded.

Why EAA Chapter 393 should open its meetings with the Pledge of Allegiance.
Separating the freedoms we share as airmen, or airpersons to be more politically correct, from the United States of America is an impossible task. Our skies are the freest in the world. That’s why aspiring pilots from other countries flock to the United States to learn to fly. In our local area there are academies for Japan Air Lines, Korean Air Lines and the Sierra Academy at the Oakland airport maintains itself by training foreign pilots. One NATO country even sends all of its fighter pilots to Texas to train. Even with the restrictions of post 911, we have the freest skies of any nation on earth.

We enjoy the freedom to soar the skies at our own risk. There are a few rules one must follow and a bureaucracy, with the itinerant troubles that bureaucratic organizations engender. Nonetheless, when we want to go somewhere in a private airplane, we don’t have to ask the permission of any government. We have unprecedented freedom to fly. That alone should make stating our allegiance to our country and its symbol, Old Glory - our flag, easy and enjoyable.

Should we recite The Pledge of Allegiance? Could our freedoms be practiced in other nations? Would you be stopped by your Race, Creed or National Origin? The wider freedoms we enjoy as American are different from those shared by almost all other countries. These freedoms alone would make citizens of most nations say a pledge of allegiance to almost anything. It is right to pledge allegiance to the flag our fathers fought for, your grandfather fought for and a number of current Chapter 393 members fought for. We should always honor them and our symbol of freedom.

With the exception of exercising our freedoms, Chapter 393 is not a political group. There is nothing political about the Pledge of Allegiance. And if someone doesn’t like the Administration du jour, or God or America, let them exercise their freedom publicly and choose to not participate. No harm done in a truly free country. Leave your politics at the door but not your patriotism.

It’s amazing the difference 12 minutes can make. 12 minutes flight time from Buchanan field finds Rio Vista Airport. It’s interesting to see Old Glory flying over their terminal building, above the California State flag, oh and above the POW/MIA Flag. We might take a lesson from the Rio Vista City Government.

So, for our freedom to the open skies, our freedom to live with our restrictions, and because most of us choose to honor the symbol of our freedom we should start our meeting by saying the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag.

Bob Rudolph

On April 30, Neil Reid responded to the article in favor of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance (edited for brevity)

Harvard,

How unfortunate that Bob Rudolph introduced a divisive and totally unnecessary issue into our chapter meetings.

There is indeed a considerable difference between a kindergarten classroom environment and an adult social meeting when considering the rational for compelling an oath by the membership.

Now turning to his April 23 response which consists primarily in his description of our national policy regarding freedom of the air, a matter on which we are all fully aware and require no further reminder. He very correctly states that Chapter 393 is not a political group but he then goes on to state that "there is nothing political about the Pledge of Allegiance". He could not be further wrong.

The Pledge of Allegiance was first conceived in 1892 and published in a children's magazine of the time by a Baptist Minister and Christian Socialist whose express political intent was to teach obedience to the State as a virtue. Thereafter it gradually became associated with political observances. The Pledge not only specifically speaks in political terms but requires a salute. ( Prior to WW II the arm was extended toward the Flag but that was discontinued because it was too like Nazism and Fascism salutes.) Obviously, this was a political decision by war time government.

What Bob Rudolph entirely fails to grasp is that introducing the Pledge of Allegiance at the beginning of a meetings is in actual fact requiring COMPULSORY UNIFICATION OF OPINION. This is totally undemocratic and was found to be a violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution in the 1943 Supreme Court case of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. The Government is not a party to our club meetings but the standards we apply to should be no less.

Furthermore, reference to Article IV of the By laws (which I helped to draft) provides that membership is open without regard to race, religion, politics or degree of skill. To the extent that Bob Randolph or anyone else seeks to use this organization for the purpose of promoting their personal belief or persuasion which is not related to the aviation, they do a severe disservice to the group as a whole, cause dissatisfaction and unproductive discourse.

Bob Rudolph is totally wrong when he seeks to compare EAA Chapter 393 with the likes of Lyons, Kiwanas or Rotary. They are entirely different in scope and purpose and have their own by laws that permit, even require political and religious considerations. Ours do not.

In my opinion, rather than seek to impose his personal dogma on the membership, opinions which are divisive and inappropriate, he should reconsider his position and find some other outlet to display his avowed patriotism. There are among us those who have, when called upon, served our country well and faithfully defended its principals quite adequately without resorting to such public display. Were he truly as patriotic as he professes, Bob would stand and move to retract his prior motion. Then sit quietly and observe whoever is presenting an aviation related talk. In that way he would demonstrate that he really understands what freedom is all about.

Neil

On May 28, Harvard Holmes, citing numerous comments that the Pledge of Allegiance was not "welcoming," especially to foreign visitors, moved that the Pledge of Allegiance not be recited at the beginning of Chapter meetings.

He also asked that the vote on this matter be taken by secret ballot. The motion was seconded and discussion followed:

(The editor apologizes in advance for errors in reporting and requests corrections at your earliest convenience.)

Rob Hadley noted that he considered himself a patriot and that he had served his county. Nevertheless, he felt that our meetings should focus on being welcoming, and avoid elements that do not further that goal. He considered that the Pledge of Allegiance was not focused in the direction of being welcoming.

Steve, a guest, who identified himself as a former Marine, noted that his wife is from another county. He found it odd to embarass guests with the Pledge.

Carl-Erik Olson noted that he is not an American, but that he has great respect for America and for the Pledge. He feels that the Pledge is important, and there is a time and place for it. However, he feels the Pledge is not needed here -- it is not the right time for it.

Richard Sperling, a retired Army Officer, stated that he knows soldering and serving our country. He notes that the Pledge has been labeled "not a political issue," but he feels that it really is. He wants to keep the focus of the Chapter on airplanes. He noted that the Chapter is not required to include the Pledge -- he is worried that the controversy will tear the Chapter apart. Three weeks ago, he was the speaker at the commissioning ceremony at a university; he's heartfelt over people willingly serving our country. On the issue of the Pledge, it does not belong here.

Rich Cunningham feels that the Pledge will constitute an influence on the group. There will be a conscious or unconscious judgement about those participating or not participating. We are a diverse society now, and our members have many loyalties. Our focus is on aircraft and we should avoid any unconscious judgement that could accompany reciting the Pledge. We should focus on learning to do well what we need to do in the aircraft environment. We should keep our meetings as free flowing as possible.

Paper ballots were passed out, marked and collected. Treasurer Louis Goodell and Secretary Pete Mitchell sorted and counted the ballots and found 20 in favor of the motion and 4 opposed.