Posted: May 5, 08 12:13pm
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."
