Story: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-oath2-2008may02,0,6280956.story
To summarize in case the link doesn't work: Wendy Gonaver, a newly-hired University of California, Fullerton (in Los Angeles) teacher, was fired the day before class began. "She lost the job because she did not sign a loyalty oath swearing to "defend" the U.S. and California constitutions "against all enemies, foreign and domestic.""
The loyalty oath was added to the state Constitution by voters in 1952 to root out communists in public jobs. Now, 16 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, its main effect is to weed out religious believers, particularly Quakers and Jehovah's Witnesses."
Here are my questions to you: 1) What's your opinion about state universities requiring signed loyalty oaths from their teaching staff, employees and leadership? 2) Should loyalty oaths be more commonly used in other areas than they are now? Again, why or why not? 3) Do you feel loyalty oaths make society more secure?
Note: I'm not talking about NDAs (Non-Disclosure Agreements, which are a promise not to divulge sensitive information) or the type of loyalty oaths military, law enforcement, or non-private security personnel take.
My opinion is loyalty oaths are useless and evil. They will catch only those with strong moral convictions. Insincere people will sign without thinking about it. These oaths are useful during a political purge--inquisitors can attack anyone who didn't sign it as disloyal, yet also use any disobedience to the oath to punish those who did sign. It can also work well as a filter to screen out freethinkers and, as we saw in the article, those with strong personal or religious convictions. (Such an inquisition is not limited to 15th century Spain--it happens over and over again in corporate boardrooms. Ask anyone who's had to sit alone in front of a panel of authorities during one of those odious and intimidating "employee concern" or "performance meetings."
Posted: May 5, 08 1:13pm
A loyalty oath for professors? In California?
That's crazy.
In my opinion oaths aren't worth the paper they are written on.
Posted: May 5, 08 2:41pm
When I first started teaching in Texas, I was informed that I would most likely have to sign a loyalty oath. It somehow failed to materialize, but I think this law is probably still on the books in a lot of states. I was raised Quaker and would also refuse to sign such a statement. Quakers don't believe in swearing oaths, but are free to affirm that they will take certain actions. I agree that when things like that are required then everybody signs and the signatures mean nothing. Unwillingness to sign probably has nothing to do with loyalty to the institution that is in question.
Posted: May 5, 08 7:42pm
Oh joy, these things are still around? You are absolutely right, KenWritez. Useless and immoral, targeted at anyone with principles that diverge from those in power.
For (voluminous) background, check out "No Ivory Tower: McCarthyism and the Universities," by Ellen Schrecker.
Posted: May 6, 08 5:52am
The idea makes my skin crawl. It's another tool to promote injustice and exclusion.
Especially in the case of state univeersities, "loyalty oaths" don't sound consistent with academic freedom.
Has Ms. Gonaver been re-hired by another school yet? I'd like to know so I can send them a check...
Has
Posted: May 6, 08 8:26am
Vwomack - thus far she has not been hired as far as I can tell. Sje is petitioning to be rehired next year with an apology. Here is a quote that is particularly telling:
"The way it's laid out, a noncitizen member of Al Qaeda could work for the university, but not a citizen Quaker," she said. (Wendy Gonaver)
Posted: May 6, 08 8:56am
She could not have said it any better than that.
Posted: May 6, 08 8:57pm
I'd be content with a "teaching oath" in the vein of...
I swear to provide my best effort to educate the students in my class in the subject matter of my specific class. My sole goal will be to advance the education of my students to the degree necessary to make them proficient in the specific discipline of the courses field of study.
Unless it is part and parcel of the dynamic of the subject matter I will avoid any inclination to advance my own personal political or social tenets and re-direct those energies towards the task at hand.
So help me, me!!!
As for any allegiance oaths, I thought they had to sign an oath to the CTA or FTA. I think "oath" swearing is by definition oppressive method of the state and therefore much more akin to communism and hence should be rejected.
Posted: May 7, 08 2:29am
Holy smokin' bat guano! Wcbiv and I agree on something! LOL....
Posted: May 7, 08 10:07am
That the state of California (one of the most liberal states) would require this in this day and age scares the crap out of me.
Posted: May 7, 08 12:16pm
I think if employees must sign loyalty oaths, then the employer should sign one to. "I promise to be loyal to my employees, to value their input, to not fire them "just because", to support all of the freedoms afforded us under the Constitution, etc. : - )
Posted: May 7, 08 6:47pm
Many loyalty oaths have been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court but institutions that want to use them always seem to find a way.
I think it is good that she got fired because who would want to work for anyone that would require a loyalty oath. Now she can sue and maybe win some money. there are other jobs.
Posted: May 8, 08 5:43am
I don't think anyone should be sign any kind of oath at all. It is not right at all.
California and GOP goveror what do think would happen. One more way to get rid of someone they didn't like or want their at all.
But Proff. can't look at master papers because they are to bush going out in suffering....
Posted: May 8, 08 2:59pm
Anyone else think about "The Great Loyalty Oath Campaign" from Heller's "Catch-22"
It's just like "under god" in the Pledge. They had this quaint notion back then that a Commie's tongue would explode or the ghost of Lenin would appear and drag them to the underworld if they said "god".
Anyone with evil on their mind and no intentions of defending the Constitution would have no problem signing a paper like that.
Posted: May 8, 08 4:58pm
someone in HR is not doing their job. if the job offer hinges on signing the oath then how could she be hired, put in the system and scheduled for a class without finishing the paperwork?
that said, most employers need to have a company policy spelled out for new employees to agree to (this helps to discipline or fire them later) This is not an oath, it's an agreement to perform the work expected of you. Why would anything else be needed?