Teachers fired for refusing loyalty oath
Thursday, May 8th, 2008 - 3:40pm
California instituted a loyalty oath for public service jobs during the era of McCarthyism as a way of rooting out communists. Not only is it still on the books, but it is being enforced. Professors from Cal State Fullerton and Cal State East Bay have lost their jobs because they sought to amend the oath requiring them to
Quote:
support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic
by adding a statement of pacifism or nonviolence.
I've stopped being surprised by California's wackiness.
"I'm absolutely retarded. Not 100% sure why." - atom
"Dhelor + intarwebs = Great ideas." - wordsmythe
"Do I what I do: hate everyone." - Quintin_Stone
Yeah, but isn't California usually wacky in the other direction?
NOTE: This is not a doodle bug.
BF2142 Stats
Not SoCal.
“Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly.” Atty Gen'l John Ashcroft, on secret NSC torture guideline discussions.
What does this oath say? I mean, why would you refuse to say "I won't betray government secrets to the Soviets" or something like that? Does it include a condemnation of the Jews, or something?
"PEACE ON EARTH. GOOD WILL TO MEN. PUBLIC SHELTER. ADMISSION 50¢"
It says they must defend the US and California against all enemies, foreign and domestic. They want to add a note of non-violence to make sure they're not expected to kill student with a paper cutter if he goes nuts.
NOTE: This is not a doodle bug.
BF2142 Stats
Teachers are the last line of defense, people. If we can't count on them to stop the Russians, who can we count on?
Fedaykin98 wrote:
Maybe they feel taking an oath that requires them to incapacitate the chief of state (in itself a violation of the law), would be self defeating.
If you're not maintaining a daily regiment of body hair removal, you're not committed enough to the GWJ sorority. -Certis
To hell with the Russians, i'm still scared of the coming Thracian uprising. You just wait.
Quote:
XBL Tag: Prederick
Wolverines!
rabbit wrote:
1Dgaf wrote:
XBL: E Munnie
From Article 20 of the Constitution of California:
XBox Live: Croutonic | Bungie.net: Croutonic
Bacon is like monkeys - it makes everything better. - Bagga
Here's the Oath required for State Educational Board employees:
Here's the Oath of Enlistment in the US Armed forces (ground branches):
I guess people could be forgiven if they thought that they were then subject to call up, or prosecution for perceived loyalty issues. This strikes me as overkill for state employees, and I think they *should* complain. (Disclosure - I've taken similar oaths before, in circumstances that warranted the commitment. I don't think teaching in California does.) As noted, a Quaker should be allowed to modify this to reflect their beliefs, at a minimum.
“Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly.” Atty Gen'l John Ashcroft, on secret NSC torture guideline discussions.
What, just Quakers? Why not all pacifists? Can you only be a conscientous objector if you belong to a big enough club?
NOTE: This is not a doodle bug.
BF2142 Stats
No, just that the person in the original article was a Quaker, that's all.
“Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly.” Atty Gen'l John Ashcroft, on secret NSC torture guideline discussions.
Blah, there's nothing offside in that. It's not necessary, but really, I think it's fine to fire someone for being a pain in the ass. I'd be fine with trying to remove it as a requirement, but making some meaningless stand about it, making everyone's day that much more annoying, is just a sign of douchebaggery. Screw the loyalty oath, they're just contrarians who will be a huge nuisance at the slightest opportunity. Think of it as a test of how needlessly belligerent these people will be. I proclaim them whiners and hippies.
*gavel gavel*
"PEACE ON EARTH. GOOD WILL TO MEN. PUBLIC SHELTER. ADMISSION 50¢"
If you take a state job, Morrolan, should you be expected to swear to defend it against all enemies? Isn't that a bit above and beyond for the average citizen?
“Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly.” Atty Gen'l John Ashcroft, on secret NSC torture guideline discussions.
Like who? Mexico? Chinese DVD counterfeiters? "Mean people" or "Dudes that take my waves"?
Which is one of the reasons I'd be fine with removing the requirement. But any reasonable person knows that the oath as a whole and that part of it in particular is not a literal call to become John Rambo in the case of a Nazi invasion. These teachers are mostly just being a nuisance for the sake of stirring the pot, which is not what the education system needs. The requirement itself could be to sing Happy Birthday while wearing a green shirt, what annoys me is the willingness to jump at the chance to be high and mighty over something that is ultimately a nonissue.
"PEACE ON EARTH. GOOD WILL TO MEN. PUBLIC SHELTER. ADMISSION 50¢"
This particular issue isn't such a big deal, but the the educational system needs a lot more people with the capacity to point out inane buearacracy.
Danjo Olivaw Lives
I guess some people place more value in an oath than other people. If your personal moral values do not allow you to selectively interpret an oath you took, and the oath requires actions that contradict your code of ethics I think very highly of the person that takes a stand and proclaims that they will not lie to themselves or to their employer, even at the cost of their employment.
Good Guy Code: Always keep your promises.
Required Sub-Code: Never make a promise you cannot keep.
This falls right under the same category as reading the fine print on a contract... if you don't agree with the hidden clauses then don't sign. How is a verbal contract any different?
Politely rude. Briskly vague. Firmly uninformative.
Vegans should probably neither seek nor accept jobs in slaughterhouses. There doesn't need to be a moral superiority on either side of the issue for them to disagree.
It's a job with the government ... what do you expect, a songbook?
"His eyes were cold. As cold as the bitter winter snow that was falling outside. Yes, cold and therefore difficult to chew." -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich
I would think it is more like a vegan going to work for some huge corporation that happens to own some slaughterhouses in addition to whatever the vegan happens to be working on and having to give an oath saying that they will bathe in animal blood (or some other requirement that is against their moral standing) should, in a time of need, the company require it.
Just because you work for the government doesn't mean you should be expected to take up arms in a time of war (or rather I could understand not wanting to be forced to take up arms in a time of war due to your religious or moral beliefs). I understand that the oath doesn't exactly specify what your duties are and the oath would probably never actually be enforced, but that doesn't mean that you should make oaths that could potentially violate your religious or moral beliefs because there is a small chance anyone will hold you to it.
Fletcher wrote:
I started about three different replies and I just don't know where to begin. These were teachers working at a school... I don't think it is quite the conflict of moral values you imagine it to be! The teaching certificate does not require credits in small-arms or hand-to-hand combat. I work for the government. I should know.
Politely rude. Briskly vague. Firmly uninformative.
I'm puzzled by this assertion. How do you know this? The usual stance taken by Quakers is to stick to their positions as strongly as they can, not to "stir the pot" but because they have a tradition of not yielding their beliefs to the requirements of others.
Given that these people are Quakers, why do you ignore their tradition of civil disobedience and ascribe lesser motives to them?
“Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly.” Atty Gen'l John Ashcroft, on secret NSC torture guideline discussions.
On the issue of the nature of the oath, no, there is absolutely *no* reason to assume that when an oath is in essence identical to that taken by the armed forces, that the employee could not be required to actually defend the state in a time of crisis. People who break their oaths in Federal service with similar explanations go to jail. If someone presented such an oath to me, I'd want an explanation in writing of my responsibilities under it before signing.
“Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly.” Atty Gen'l John Ashcroft, on secret NSC torture guideline discussions.
Because there is no actual threat to their ideals. Why are we all taking it as given that "defending the constitution" is a military reference? Defending the nation might be, but defending the constitution seems like an ideological issue. But even if you do read violence into it, it's just not an actual call to military service. How many teachers have been prosecuted for not tackling the Columbine shooters? Sixteen? Nine? Or zero?
I think it would be perfectly reasonable to ask that this requirement be waived or removed completely. But if you're willing to hold everything up for the sake of a nothing issue like this, you'll be just as willing to hold everything up for every other nothing issue that comes up in the future. Pointing out beaurocracy is different from sitting in the middle of the road and declaring that the world will stop until you are heard. Sometimes the latter is justified. This is not one of those times.
"PEACE ON EARTH. GOOD WILL TO MEN. PUBLIC SHELTER. ADMISSION 50¢"
If there was a job requirement, spelled out publicly in advance -- in fact codified by law -- that you bathe in blood, and you're not into that, then don't take the job. Objections are fine and dandy, but the way to do that is to press to get the law changed in advance, not hope that your employer will break it on your behalf. Some people elect not to pay taxes because they object to how the government spends the money; I don't necessarily disagree with the ideal, but the method lacks sound reasoning.
That said, this situation is nothing so extreme as this imagery. Promising to defend the constitution is a far cry from drafting into military service.
"His eyes were cold. As cold as the bitter winter snow that was falling outside. Yes, cold and therefore difficult to chew." -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich
"I, _______________________________________________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California..."
"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same..."
Quite simply, because it's *exactly* the same thing that soldiers swear to, with the addition of the CA state constitution.
quakers are all about ideals, and to them, swearing to "defend" something in the same manner expected of the military is what they claim. They are pacifists. Isn't the simplest explanation the most likely?
“Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly.” Atty Gen'l John Ashcroft, on secret NSC torture guideline discussions.
Then why is it *exactly* what soldiers swear to do? I'm a little worried that you guys don't understand legal commitments... I've been in a similar situation and was counseled to think it over very carefully, because it's a life-changing oath. When the government has you swear this, they mean it literally, and very seriously - even if the reason for it is past.
I personally think it's a joke to make CA state workers sign some McCarthy-inspired loyalty oath just to teach or file tax papers or hand out licenses at the DMV.
“Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly.” Atty Gen'l John Ashcroft, on secret NSC torture guideline discussions.
Don't hate...
"His eyes were cold. As cold as the bitter winter snow that was falling outside. Yes, cold and therefore difficult to chew." -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich