quakers: Quaker Teacher fired for changing loyalt

maybe_sparrow6 (

maybe_sparrow6) wrote in

quakers,
@ 2008-03-04 04:13:00

Quaker Teacher fired for changing loyalty oath. Short version, a math teacher at Cal State was fired for adding the word 'nonviolently' to a required loyalty oath. She had altered the oath in the same way at previous schools with no problem. For the record, this is the oath in question (PDF)

To make this a little bit longer, how do you deal with oaths? I've had to sign one or two of those silly things before, and I've always just circled the affirm option.

(Post a new comment)

look into Elfbrandt vs. Russell

nhpeacenik
2008-03-04 01:32 pm UTC (link)

Back in the 1960's Barbara Elfbrandt, a teacher and clerk of Pima Monthly Meeting where I attended, refused to take a loyalty oath. Her case went all the way to the US Supreme Court (on a shoestring) and was somewhat successful in striking down the requirement for loyalty oaths by public school teachers. I'm not an expert on this and my recollection is fuzzy, but this might be a good place to start . I'm surprised that you were required to take such an oath. US and state law do now permit affirmation as an alternative to swearing, but that wouldn't do any good, since affirming that you would "defend" the country or the constitution (by implication with warepons) is apparently just as unacceptable
as swearing it. If there is a lawyer on the list, could you discuss how
Elfbrandt vs. Russell, 384 U.S. 11, 19 (1966) is being applied these days?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: look into Elfbrandt vs. Russell

luguvalium
2008-03-04 03:58 pm UTC (link)

I am also surprised by the requirement of a Loyalty Oath. If one were required in Virginia, I think I couldn't could affirm to support and defend the current Virginia Constitution due to the addition last year to the Bill of Rights section: Not only does it prohibit same-sex marriages and civil unions but it also voids contracts made between persons of the same sex which produce "marriage-like" effects. This has not yet been tested in court.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: look into Elfbrandt vs. Russell flynd 2008-03-04 08:53 pm UTC (link)
	the addition last year to the Bill of Rights section ! (Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: look into Elfbrandt vs. Russell

sammka
2008-03-04 06:50 pm UTC (link)

It looks like the case law on this is spotty. In Cole v. Richardson, 405 U.S. 676 (1972), the court said that oaths to "defend" the constitution doesn't impose any obligation other than abiding by our current constitutional system and therefore it wasn't unconstitutional for people to swear such an oath.

That said, the lawyers in this case who say you can't add "nonviolently" in are relying on a precedent that's clearly stupid: a fundamentalist Christian couldn't add in an entire diatribe against how our Constitution doesn't acknowledge Jesus Christ as the foundation of our government. Somehow that kind of refusal to abide by the 1st Amendment of our Constitution strikes me as different from a refusal to engage in violence, esp. since CA and the federal government recognize conscientious objectors.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

bolli_bolshevik
2008-03-04 02:48 pm UTC (link)

Obviously as i am not in the USA and are not expected to sign anything like that for work, this may be daft but here goes:

The oath doesnt actually state "violently defend" as much as it doesnt say "non-violently defend" so it is down to semantics for you to define what you, personally, mean by defend. It doesnt appear to be legally binding that you are expected to bear arms at their behest :)
I pesonally would sign it as i am a generally law abiding citizen, but would keep in mind the notion that as a pacifist and Quaker i do not wish to be involved in any aggresive act, and if that means going against a law i will consider it, then act acording to belief.
I can appreciate how one might want to have it made clear before signing what the expectation of such weighted words mean to those asking you to sign.

(Reply to this)

	mareserinitatis 2008-03-04 05:30 pm UTC (link)
	I actually just wrote a post on this. I've taken them, but they cause me a lot of cognitive dissonance. From a strictly rational point of view, oaths are a bit ridiculous. I guess I've always taken them with the notion that I'm not going to do anything against my religion. But by taking them, I already have. I wish they'd just get rid of them. (Reply to this)

	cruel_sausage 2008-03-06 11:29 pm UTC (link)
	What did you have sign an oath for? The nearest I've come is signing Non Diclosure Agreements. (Reply to this)(Thread)

stori_lundi
2008-03-08 02:51 pm UTC (link)

The US Federal Government requires you to swear an oath similar to the CA oath if you are a federal employee. I'd assume that some state governments like CA have a similar oath. I used to be a city employee and didn't have to swear an oath.

I don't think it is a loyalty thing so much as a legal way of holding you responsible for state and federal laws. Sort of like how swearing to tell the truth in court is to hold you legally responsible for telling the truth otherwise you couldn't be charged with purgery if you lied.

That being said, as a Quaker, I find the language excessive and think a simple "I promise to follow the laws of my state and country and report anyone who breaks them under penalty of law," would suffice.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	Instructor fired over loyalty oath reinstated luguvalium 2008-03-09 01:11 pm UTC (link)
	http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-loyaltyoath8mar08,0,6976917.story (Reply to this)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…