Since last June, when the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because it contains the words "under God," the nation has hotly debated the precise meaning of this phrase and all of the implications that go along with it.
The two 9th Circuit Court judges who wrote the majority opinion weren't kooky when they made their decision -- their arguments were based on historical circumstances and a careful, conservative interpretation of the Constitution. Their reasoning, however, is ultimately shortsighted and fails to take into account the so-called "ceremonial deism" that pervades American patriotism and culture.
Last Tuesday the 9th Circuit granted a 90-day stay on their original ruling, anticipating a probable Supreme Court hearing on the issue in late April. If Michael Newdow had gotten his way, however, 9.6 million schoolchildren in nine Western states would have stopped reciting the Pledge of Allegiance as of yesterday -
Read More
GARVIE: U.Va. should focus on understanding AI before implementing it
By Adeline Garvie | YesterdayBecause there is no singular or correct approach in an educational world of individualized, class-specific policies, the University must mandate AI literacy training on the ethical, environmental and practical concerns for generative AI.
CLIPPINGER: In praise of the ENWR during the age of AI
By Grace Clippinger | 4 days agoWriting allows us to clarify complex ideas, wrestle with ambiguity and engage critically with texts and concepts.
HAWKINS: Virginia Democrats, do not blow this up
By Joshua Hawkins | 4 days agoWith the turmoil at the federal level dominating much of the 2025 campaign, voters did not cast their ballot with an appetite for statewide left-wing activism — they cast their ballot hoping for some semblance of normalcy.
