A remedial math instructor at California State University East Bay was fired for modifying the loyalty oath required of all state employees. Marianne Kearney-Brown, a Quaker and graduate student, pledged to “support and defend” the U.S. and state Constitutions “against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” but added “non-violently” in front of “support.” CSU-East Bay said no change are permissible.
I add to sign a loyalty oath to be a volunteer tutor in a California public school district.
Loyalty oaths are a Cold War relic that serve no useful purpose. They should be dropped.
California k-12 teachers are not allowed to be knowing members of the Communist Party.
I haven’t entirely fleshed out my thoughts on this topic; I’ve posted on it before, and of course I’ll post on this incident. When I contacted the state Dept of Ed Legal Office before, I was told to check with my union about the legality of loyalty oaths! One thing I *do* accept, though: no government agency should be compelled to hire or retain any individual who seeks seeks the destruction of that government. Communism is well-defined in K-12 ed code, and California shouldn’t pay teachers to indoctrinate students into something antithetical to our way of life.
In this particular instance, since the loyalty oath didn’t say anthing about violence, I don’t see why this instructor saw fit to modify it. If she wanted to make a point, she chose a poor method of doing so.
Given that the primary reason for the creation of our public school system, and making attendence in school mandatory, was to create an informed electorate, I fail to see how demanding that public school employees be loyal to our political system is so outlandish.
If swearing to preserve and defend our constitution is so distasteful, there are other options such as private schools.
“In this particular instance, since the loyalty oath didn’t say anthing about violence, I don’t see why this instructor saw fit to modify it.”
It seems that she *did* see the phrase ’support and defend’ as implying violence. From the article:
For what it is worth, *I* would have read ‘defend’ as implying shooting people if necessary. It seems, though, that both she and I would be wrong as the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled:
Sigh.
Maybe someone could make this clear to her and we could try again?
-Mark Roulo
You can’t “fire” a volunteer; but, you may turn down their help. In the absence of clarifying information, I’m thinking the administrators didn’t like the feel of this person’s motive for volunteering.
“You can’t ‘fire’ a volunteer; but, you may turn down their help. In the absence of clarifying information, I’m thinking the administrators didn’t like the feel of this person’s motive for volunteering.”
I think the Joanne was the volunteer.
Marianne Kearney-Brown was a Cal State employee.
[Unless I misread the article. Which is possible
]
-Mark Roulo
In my opinion, “Do you swear to defend the Constitution against foreign enemies?” strongly implies the use of violence. Maybe the Supreme Court has found otherwise, but if I were committed to non-violence, and someone posed that question to me, I’d think I was doing the questioner a service by not giving a simple “yes” or “no”.
Mark, Thanks. The clarifying information was in the article I did not read. I did not catch the link in Joanne’s remark prior to commenting. As such, I have no problem with the volunteer modifying the oath to suit a personal conviction. The state is responsible for its own feelings on the matter.
In my opinion, “Do you swear to defend the Constitution against foreign enemies?†strongly implies the use of violence.
Nels,
You can’t be serious. How many times has anyone who signed that loyalty oath being asked to take up arms in defense of the state? The answer is zero. In fact since we have an all-volunteer army, nobody is forced to take up arms to defend the country.
Maybe the Supreme Court has found otherwise, but if I were committed to non-violence, and someone posed that question to me, I’d think I was doing the questioner a service by not giving a simple “yes†or “noâ€.
She was given the option to put a separate response in her personnel file indicating her unwillingness to use violence. She declined to do so.
Since the current loyalty oath, as written, seems to cause consternation, and since Mark explained that the Supremes have already found that loyalty oaths “embody ’simply a commitment to abide by our constitutional system … [and] a commitment not to use illegal and constitutionally unprotected force to change the constitutional system’”, perhaps that’s the wording that should go into a new and improved loyalty oath.
Pacifists are of no use to anyone. A man that wouldn’t defend his own family, what good is he?
I wouldn’t work anywhere that would require me to sign a “loyalty oath.” Just the idea of one — regardless of its wording — is offensive to me. To argue that a person shouldn’t be allowed to teach communist beliefs (or any other kinds of beliefs) is a red herring. If a teacher is trying to indoctrinate his students outside the curriculum, he ought to be disciplined (including being fired if and when appropriate) whether he’s signed such an oath or not.
You can argue about whether it’s good to be a pacifist or not (and I’m not one), but none of that is germane to teaching. Signing ANY loyalty oath is way too close to goose-stepping to me.
“A man that wouldn’t defend his own family, what good is he?”
He could live and squawk in Berserkely or San Francisco, I think.
This loyalty oath is functionally no different than the Pledge of Alliegance that is recited in public schools every morning.
How about that other oath – “Do you take this woman…”
So, at one point in your lives you may have to give an oath declaring your allegiance to the country. The fact that so many would question that action explains a lot in in a society where most seem to have traded in their American identity for ones like Democrat, Republican, Anarchist, Minority, Pro-war, Anti-war, etc.
We expect every naturalized immigrant to give a similar oath for them to become citizens, yet there is no regulation requiring the same of those who are lucky to be born within our nation’s boundaries.
Personally, I would be ok with individual’s having to sign that oath for any and every job they wish to hold. It is because of our nation that we have the freedom and safety to work where we want.
As for the pacifist debate, there has been a long history of pacifists not only making significant contributions to our nation, but also serving in our military during times of war. My take on on the Cal State hiring incident was the applicant forgot that he/she felt it was more important to win this “great” victory over our “despotic” government than to get the job. This does not display sophistication, but instead foolishness.
So, at one point in your lives you may have to give an oath declaring your allegiance to the country.
I understand the applicant did not have any problems making an oath declaring allegience, she just wanted to clarify that she would defend the constitution non-violently.
This does not display sophistication, but instead foolishness.
Can not the same be said of the university? Is it really a terrible problem for the university if one of their tutors is not willing to swear that she will take up a gun to defend the constitution? How many university tutors have had to take up a gun to defend the constitution in recent years anyway? Is America so small a place that it cannot tolerate any difference of opinion on how to best defend a constitution?
I understand the applicant did not have any problems making an oath declaring allegience, she just wanted to clarify that she would defend the constitution non-violently.
Wrong. She was given the opportunity to place a separate statement in her personnel file but she refused to do so.
Can not the same be said of the university? Is it really a terrible problem for the university if one of their tutors is not willing to swear that she will take up a gun to defend the constitution? How many university tutors have had to take up a gun to defend the constitution in recent years anyway? Is America so small a place that it cannot tolerate any difference of opinion on how to best defend a constitution?
Why do you insist of repeating this nonsense when they know it is false? Nobody is asking her to pick up a gun to defend the state and anyone who says otherwise is being disingenuous. I have no problem with anyone questioning the need to sign a loyalty oath to teach. In fact I don’t see a need for it. However, do not claim that the loyalty oath forces her to take up arms to defend the state. That is false and you know it. Also, don’t blame the University for making her sign it. They have no choice but to follow the state law. Or do you think they should violate the law just because this religious fanatic (yes that is what she is) refuses to sign an innocuous oath?
It’s funny how the lefties who commented at the SF Chronicle support this “religious fanatic”–and a Christian at that!
Strange bedfellows, and all that.
Any fence can be breached, but the primary function of a fence is to demark. The oath is an affirmation of citizenship, acknowledging the general acceptance of the rules.
Joanne is right. It’s a cold war relic.
We aren’t any more secure because only teachers who sign the oath are allowed in the classroom.
When Communists were under a lot of beds, maybe. But not now.
It’s stupid, silly thing. It was even stupid and silly when I signed mine 33 years ago.
But there’s no need to throw it out.
Any new teacher who refuses to sign something that happens to be stupid and silly probably doesn’t have when it takes to last very long in the White Board Jungle.
Wrong. She was given the opportunity to place a separate statement in her personnel file but she refused to do so.
She didn’t want to swear to something she wasn’t willing to do. How does placing a separate statement elsewhere get around that? That method sounds rather dishonest to me.
Nobody is asking her to pick up a gun to defend the state and anyone who says otherwise is being disingenuous. I have no problem with anyone questioning the need to sign a loyalty oath to teach. In fact I don’t see a need for it. However, do not claim that the loyalty oath forces her to take up arms to defend the state.
As far as I know no one is claiming that. What the woman wanted to do was to make it clear that she *wouldn’t* take up arms to defend the state and wouldn’t take an oath to that effect.
Also, don’t blame the University for making her sign it. They have no choice but to follow the state law.
No. That’s wrong. From the passage: without commenting on the specific situation, a spokesman for state Attorney General Jerry Brown said that “as a general matter, oaths may be modified to conform with individual values.” The case the university referred to was rather different: “a gratuitous injection of the applicant’s religious beliefs into the governmental process.” Wanting to insert the words “non-violently” is hardly gratuitous.
Or do you think they should violate the law just because this religious fanatic (yes that is what she is) refuses to sign an innocuous oath?
They’d not be violating a law. And when did taking oaths seriously mean someone was a religious fanatic?
Why do you insist of repeating this nonsense when they know it is false?
What did I say that was false or nonsense?
I see loyalty oaths as similiar to those “user agreements” you get with software—
The actual wording isn’t really that important, and the whole thing is really a formality.
Just scroll down and click “Yes.”
Teachers demand tenure – so why not we demand loyalty? If teachers are unclear on the concept of loyalty they are unfit to teach.
I suspect this really is all about Kearney-Brown’s ego.
I suspect this really is all about Kearney-Brown’s ego.
Why do you suspect this?
Violently or Non Violently defending the Constitution…as my sainted mother would say, “Now we’re just seperating the flyspecks from the pepper. Who cares how this argument turns out?”
I kind of like the loyalty oath.
As long as one is place, perhaps nobody will suggest a loyalty portfolio.
A followup. From SFGate
“(03-07) 18:22 PST HAYWARD — A Cal State East Bay math teacher and practicing Quaker who was fired for refusing to sign a state-required loyalty oath got her job back this week, with an apology from the university and a clarification that the oath does not require employees to take up arms in violation of their religious beliefs.
…
In a grievance hearing Thursday conducted in a telephone conference call, an attorney for the California State University chancellor’s office presented Kearney-Brown with a statement saying in part, “Signing the oath does not carry with it any obligation or requirement that public employees bear arms or otherwise engage in violence.”
With that statement stapled to the loyalty oath, and a promise by the university to present the clarifying language to other new employees, Kearney-Brown said Friday that she felt comfortable signing the form and returning to work.”
I was astonished to find out that California has loyalty oaths, because I thought that Admiral Chester Nimitz had convinced people they were a dumb idea.
Nimitz was one of the regents of the University of California when the idea of having teachers take loyalty oaths was first bandied about. He opposed the idea for two reasons. Disloyal people would have no problem falsely swearing an oath, and people who were loyal would feel slighted by having their loyalty implicitly questioned.
I read about this in E.B. Potter’s biography of Nimitz (it’s on page 454 in the edition I own), and figured Nimitz had won out.
I am surprised to find that he didn’t, and disgusted by people who insist that anyone who questions the idea is a Communist or a Communist sympathizer.
Deirdre Mundy says:
I see loyalty oaths as similiar to those “user agreements†you get with software—
The actual wording isn’t really that important, and the whole thing is really a formality.
Just scroll down and click “Yes.â€
_________________________________
Wow, Deirdre Mundy condones lying. Deirdre doesn’t mind being dishonest and deceitful, because she’s too lazy to care.
Some of us take our own honor more seriously than that. I had to modify an oath that my college wanted me to take, because I am an atheist. My employer allowed me to delete the reference to god in my oath and didn’t threaten to fire me. I chalk this up to working with a better-trained HR representative than the ones who confronted Marianne Kearney-Brown.
Loyalty oaths are repugnant in a democratic society. What can members of a democracy be loyal to, other than the right of self-determination?