228 ❯ STEP 5. Build Your Test-Taking Confidence
. . . the last thing that a constitutional amendment banning flag-burning strikes me as
is a slippery slope toward broader restriction on freedom of expression. There are two
reasons for this.
First, the flag is the flag; the only reason to accord it special status (if that’s what
you decide) is that it is, in fact, the singular national symbol. We are not even talking
about a ban on burning red, white, and blue things, such as bunting, nor of suppress-
ing the debate over whether banning the burning of the flag is a good thing. It’s not
hypocrisy but rather a pretty good philosophical point to say that the flag, as the symbol
of the freedom to burn, baby, burn, is the one thing you shouldn’t burn. For if you
burn the freedom to burn, you have no freedom. For more on the danger that lies in
this direction, see the collapse of the Weimar Republic in Germany.
On the other hand, the flag is not the freedom itself but its symbol. The freedom
continues even if a particular flag is consumed in fire. To burn the flag is not to burn
the only flag. There is no “the” flag, only flags; or if there is “the” flag, it is an idea of
the flag and therefore beyond the reach of the flames.
Except that a perfectly acceptable way to dispose of a worn-out flag, according to
the old Boy Scout manual Dad gave me, is by burning. The ceremony is to be at all
times respectful and somber. Here, one reveres “the” flag by seeing to it that “a” flag gets
decommissioned properly. So the symbolic content is always present. When someone
burns a flag in protest, it’s just not about the fire and the piece of cloth. The flag is
indeed a symbol of a political community, and I’m not sure that political communities
can get by without symbols.
The second reason I’m not worried about a slippery slope constricting expres-
sion once you ban flag-burning is that in the current environment, socially enforced
restraints on expression are far broader and more important than legal restraints.
In the case of flag-burning, if you do it now, most Americans will think you are an
ingrate jerk, as noted above. But even if a constitutional amendment passes, no one is
proposing the death penalty for flag-burning, nor life in prison. If you get busted, you
can probably look forward to a few days in the clink, plus adulatory editorials in the
New York Times.
So while I am not a great supporter of an amendment banning flag-burning, nei-
ther do I think that such an amendment would do harm if passed. If I were a member
of the Senate, I would have voted for it. That’s because as an elected officeholder, I
would feel more solicitous of the national symbol, as perhaps befits someone who has
chosen to hold office in accordance with the principles and procedures of the political
community in question.
Question 2Carefully read the following two passages on London fog. In a well-structured essay, com-
pare the two selections with regard to purpose and style. Consider such elements as diction,
figurative language, organization, syntax, and manipulation of language.
London was the first great city in history to be fuelled by coal. The combination 1
of ever greater quantities of coal being burned by an expanding population, and
London’s naturally misty situation in a marshy river valley, meant London was
plagued by regular fogs from Stuart times on. The worst lasted from November 1879 to
March 1880 without a break.
In 1936–7, 322 tons of solid matter per square mile was deposited on 2
Archbishop’s Park, Lambeth, which meant nearly 30,000 tons of matter a year