If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.

We think the action of the local authorities in compelling the flag salute and pledge transcends constitutional limitations on their power and invades the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official control.

In 2005, Emily Brooker, a social work student at Missouri State University, was enrolled in a class taught by a professor who advertised himself as a liberal and insisted that social work is a liberal profession. At first, a mandatory assignment for his class was to advocate homosexual foster homes and adoption, with all students required to sign an advocacy letter, on university stationery, to the state Legislature.

When Brooker objected on religious grounds, the project was made optional. But shortly before the final exam she was charged with a "Level 3," the most serious, violation of professional standards. In a two-and-a-half-hour hearing -- which she was forbidden to record and her parents were barred from attending -- the primary subject was her refusal to sign the letter. She was ordered to write a paper ("Written Response about My Awareness") explaining how she could "lessen the gap" between her ethics and those of the social work profession. When she sued the university, it dropped the charges and made financial and other restitution.

But there's a big difference between people who believe that a nation's population ought to be all dedicated to a common cause in order to be a part of it—"Love it or leave it"—and people who believe that a "nation" consists solely of a set of arbitrary borders and the people that happen to be born inside them.

It's the latter model that says "diversity" is the most commendable thing in a nation, that there should be multiculturalism rather than a "melting pot", and that nationalism is an embarrassing relic of the past. A world built of this model ends up being homogenous, an endless litany of dysfunctional parliamentary democracies with state-funded health care and human-rights guarantees that are hardly worth the paper they're "granted" on. It's mediocre, but at least it's something everyone is too apathetic to be dissatisfied with.

But for those who believe in the former model, where the pull of the Constitution is in and of itself enough to make you want to change your nationality, there's something better to aspire to. It's not perfection, it can be destructive, but it's a belief that humanity can do better than the status quo.