Our white nationalist Pledge of Allegiance? College trustee nixes problematic pledge at meetings

The board of trustees for a California community college is ditching the Pledge of Allegiance due to its supposed ties to white nationalism.

Santa Barbara City College Board of Trustees President Robert Miller made the unilateral decision to remove the pledge from public meeting agendas, stating that he has “discovered that the Pledge of Allegiance has a history steeped in expressions of nativism and white nationalism.”

According to an email obtained by the education watchdog Campus Reform, Miller wrote:

I decided to discontinue use of the Pledge of Allegiance for reasons related to its history and symbolism. Our flag is a powerful symbol of freedom and our system of government, but I prefer to pledge allegiance to our constitution, instead of a physical object. Indeed, when sworn in, each Trustee takes an oath to support and defend the U.S. and California constitutions.

I also object to the phrase ‘one nation under God.’ The First Amendment not only protects freedom of speech and religion, it also expressly prohibits laws that establish a religion. The U.S. Supreme Court has expressly extended those rights to those who express no belief in God. Thus, I disagree with the 1955 act of Congress to add this phrase to the Pledge of Allegiance.


But those familiar with the actual text of the Pledge of Allegiance may notice that it has nothing to do with race whatsoever:

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 creed, created to unify all Americans under the mantle of faith, liberty, and justice, the American way, has no discriminatory characteristics. If anything, the phrase “indivisible with liberty and justice for all” is the opposite of racism, since liberty and justice is available to people of all races.

Miller, however, pointed to the pledge’s original author, Francis Bellamy, who wrote the pledge in 1890 and was concerned with the influx of immigrants coming into the country. “In support of the Pledge,” Miller wrote, “Mr. Bellamy expressed concern about the ‘races which we cannot assimilate without a lowering of our racial standard.'”

This is another case of finding fault in historical things of value, by viewing its creation through the lens of today’s morals. The pledge, on face value and in a literal word-for-word reading, has no divisive qualities. Yet, because the pledge originated in the past, individuals such as Miller who cannot grasp the context of history have moved to shed it.

The Pledge of Allegiance issue is up for discussion at their next meeting on Feb. 14, according to Miller. At their last meeting on Jan. 24, one attendee recited the pledge while protesters interrupted her with shouts while others kneeled.

Santa Barbara City College did not return my request for comment.

Lauren Cooley (@laurenacooley) is a free speech advocate and higher education contributor to Red Alert Politics.

Related Content