Thursday
August 21, 2008
Advertisement
Advertisement
News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education
June 3
Loyalty Oath Compromise
While many people assume loyalty oaths died out with the McCarthy era, they remain on the books in some states — and after refusal to sign an oath cost two California State University instructors their jobs, civil liberties and faculty groups started to focus more on the issue. On Monday, People for the American Way and the university system announced a compromise that will restore employment to one of the employees and set a precedent that should theoretically help others avoid losing jobs.
Related stories
Under the compromise, Wendy Gonaver will be permitted to attach an explanatory statement to the state’s loyalty oath, and the system indicated it would be open to having such statements used by others too (provided they don’t undercut the oath). In addition, the agreement says that Gonaver will be assigned two classes in American studies and women’s studies in the fall 2008 semester — assignments she would not have been able to obtain without a resolution of the oath dispute.
The additional statement that Gonaver will be permitted to sign and attach states: “I support and respect the United States Constitution and the California Constitution, and I fully intend to abide by the oath that I have been required to sign as a condition of my employment by California State University (“CSU”). As an American, I do object, however, to being compelled to sign such an oath, and want to state my belief that such compulsion violates my right to freedom of speech. And, as a Quaker, in order to sign the oath in good conscience, I must also state that I do not promise or undertake to bear arms or otherwise engage in violence, and I have been assured by CSU that my oath will not be construed to require me to do so.”
The state’s loyalty oath, required of all employees, states: “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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.”
Generally, there are two kinds of loyalty oaths: “disclaimer oaths,” in which people are told to certify that they are not or have not been members of certain groups (the Communist Party is cited in many oaths of the Cold War). The second category is the “non-binding affirmative” oath, in which people are asked to pledge loyalty to the Constitution, to the United States, etc. The U.S. Supreme Court barred the first category in 1967 in a case called Keyishian v. Board of Regents, in which faculty members at the State University of New York challenged an oath that required them to state that they had never been members of the Communist Party and that, if they had been, they had informed the university president. But a series of other court rulings upheld affirmative loyalty oaths, like the one in California.
In states where loyalty oaths remain on the books, many aren’t enforced. And after the incidents came to light involving Cal State employees, others who work for education agencies in the state said that they had been permitted to make minor alterations or to append statements to the oath.
California State’s tougher approach became known in February when Marianne Kearney-Brown, an instructor and graduate student at the system’s East Bay campus, tried to add the word “nonviolently” before the phrase “support and defend the Constitution of the United States.” She was told this was unacceptable and was fired from her instructor’s job. She said that she needed to insert the word to uphold her Quaker beliefs. Eventually, the university agreed to rehire her if she would sign the oath, unaltered, but with an attached statement: “Signing the oath does not carry with it any obligation or requirement that public employees bear arms or otherwise engage in violence.”
In May, the Los Angeles Times reported on Wendy Gonaver’s case and several others over the years, and that attracted the interest of academic and civil liberties groups, such as the American Association of University Professors.
People for the American Way then said it would take up Gonaver’s case. The joint statement from that group and Cal State said that the university system was open to the use of explanatory statements to make people with some beliefs more comfortable signing.
“CSU is committed to working with individual employees to accommodate their religious beliefs in order to allow them to sign the oath,” said Christine Helwick, Cal State’s general counsel, in the announcement. “If an explanatory statement is needed to accomplish this, CSU must ensure that any such statement does not undermine or qualify the oath. In this case, we are pleased that this dispute ended in a positive resolution, and that we were able to work through the process together.”
Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.
Advertisement
Comments
Loyalty oaths
CSU is willing to work with employees to address their religious concerns as long as the employees are able to marshal the support of lawyers, newspapers and The People for the American Way. My eternal gratitude to the San Francisco Chronicle and the L A Times. Their reporters support and defend the Constitution. And they do it without signing an oath!!!
Marianne Kearney-Brown, at 10:15 am EDT on June 3, 2008
Unconstitutional and Stupid
I can’t fathom how any court could uphold these loyalty oaths. First of all, do they apply to foreign citizens? It would be very strange to require a professor from France to give loyalty to the United States. It would be even stranger to ban all foreigners from teaching in America.
But I also wonder in general about the requirement to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California.” The California courts have ruled that gay marriage is protected under the California constitution. Does that mean that anyone who opposes this ruling and wants to change the California constitution is violating their loyalty oath?
It’s time to eliminate these unconstitutional and idiotic loyalty oaths.
John K. Wilson, collegefreedom.org, at 10:30 am EDT on June 3, 2008
I had to sign one whiling visiting UNT. I changed it on the form and no one ever noticed. My changes included that I did not agree with parts of the Texas Constitution. These oaths are abominable. They may serve some function in the armed forces where you do indeed give up some of your rights in order to serve, but for other state jobs they should be eliminated.
Math Prof, at 11:05 am EDT on June 3, 2008
This Is Not a Loyalty Oath!
The term “loyalty oath” has long been associated with the era of McCarthy and the oaths which required individuals to disavow allegiance to groups that, rightly or wrongly, were deemed to hold views that undermined and threatened the security of the United States. The statement Ms.Gonavers is being asked to sign does not represent this kind of document. Therefore, it does not constitute a loyalty oath.
Ms. Gonavers is not being asked to disavow her faith or denounce communism, or afiliation with any other group for that matter. This statement, unlike most of those dubbed “loyalty oaths” during the McCarthy era, simply asks the signer to acknowledge loyalty to the the United States, and its laws; that she will not use her professorial position to inculcate views that undermine the Constitution or the laws that guarantee her rights as an American citizen.
Ms. Gonaver’s freedom to be a Quaker,to be a conscientious objector is all founded in the laws and documents that this statement asks her to acknowledge. Refusing to sign is not a violation of her constitutional rights but rather, is a rejection of the Constitution that grants her these liberties.
I do not agree with Ms. Gonaver’s position or religious views. However, I respect her freedom of conscientious and her right to hold such views. However, I am troubled by the idea that voicing loyalty to one’s nation, the nation that provides the very rights and privileges he or she joy enjoys, constitutes a violation of some individual’s personal right. Moreover, I am concerned by the increasing number of people who think that statements of patriotism are unconstitutional. Not only are such views misguided,but jeopardize the very freedom(s) that Ms. Gonaver is claiming (and that we all currently enjoy).
What if all Americans took Ms. Gonaver’s position? The Constitution, its laws, and the corresponding liberties become nothing more than meaningless ideas writtne on pieces of paper; of no affect. The liberties we all enjoy, and take for granted, will cease to exist. As a consequence, our rights and freedoms will be replaced by the dictates of whatever group happens to win control of the government.
Robin West, at 11:35 am EDT on June 3, 2008
Well, I swear......
I really doubt the value of a loyalty oath. “Loyal” people would sign it without reservation, whereas truly “disloyal” people (whatever that means) would probably sign it anyway, just to infiltrate the organization and do “disloyal” deeds. The whole concept of a loyalty oath was designed to garner votes by some politician.
On the other hand, it does generate a discussion of what is required of a citizen of a republic. So, maybe it does serve a useful purpose, though not as originally intended.
Justa Prof, at 12:15 pm EDT on June 3, 2008
Academic freedom means the freedom to question anything: the Constitution, the government, patriotism. Anything. We must even be free to question academic freedom itself. If you don’t believe that, then you should be a cop or a corporate cog, not an academic.
RJS, at 12:30 pm EDT on June 3, 2008
It is not just loyality
Justa, your comments are good but can be taken a bit further. Those who are both disloyal and dishonest will sign it. Not those who are merely ‘disloyal’ (as you put it). Like all oaths, including those taken in court, to a notary or upon accepting citizenship, the key element is honesty. Anyone who does not value their the worth of their word, or is deliberately seeking to deceive can sign it. Honest dissenters like that here, can refuse to sign it.
stm60, at 2:25 pm EDT on June 3, 2008
Maybe I’m Not For You ... Nor You For Me
“I am not an Athenian or a Greek, but a citizen of the world.”
Socrates, at 3:00 pm EDT on June 3, 2008
Incomplete outcome
I was the professor (or perhaps one of several) who pressured the AAUP to make their statement on Wendy Gonaver’s case (through direct contact with Jonathan Knight and the Friends Committee on National Legislation), and while I’m glad that Wendy Gonaver’s case has been resolved to her satisfaction, I believe that this is a temporary fix.
All loyalty oaths violate the religious freedom of Quakers and others who reject swearing oaths (it implies that feel free to be dishonest at other times). Loyalty oaths implying willingness to use force further violate the religious freedom of Quakers, Bretheren, Mennonites, and other religious denominations holding pacifism as a core religious belief. For all such groups, these oaths also violate the “religious test” clause of the Constitution if we view state university teaching positions as positions of public trust.
It’s time for these McCarthy era loyalty oaths to be reconsidered by the Supreme Court or eliminated through legislative action. Allowing amendments is a temporary fix and does not resolve the underlying threat.
QuakerProf, at 9:00 pm EDT on June 3, 2008
The Government Decides if You are Loyal
Inside Higher Ed has reported briefly on a related but more troubling situation. For the first time in American history, the Bush administration is requiring many thousands of federal contractor employees who do unclassified work, including faculty in universities (e.g. Penn State), to submit their fingerprints, answer a long list of highly personal questions, and authorize a security clearance. The latter includes contacting anyone to ask question on any subject. The data are stored in government files and can be shared widely, even with agencies abroad.
At the U.S. Department of Education, published criteria for judging whether contractor employees are cleared or not are incredibly vague. The Department simply judges people’s “character, conduct, and loyalty to the United States,” to quote their words. In effect, they save thousands of people the trouble of signing a loyalty oath! (Note tongue in cheek.) Instead, the government decides if they are loyal or not. This is to conduct plain vanilla education research in schools and do other kinds of work never before requiring clearances. It is absurd, has a chilling effect, and wastes millions of dollars.Although hundreds of people have objected (including the American Educational Research Association) the vast majority who are affected have said nothing. The provost of a major research university who I spoke with, for example, agreed this was unprecedented but in the end she really didn’t care. That is typical. As a history of “The California Oath Controversy” notes, there was “a massive indifference on the part of the faculty.” The great majority of people who today express concern or outrage about many civil liberties issues they read about, when faced with an issue directly affecting them and their colleagues do nothing, whether out of fear or indifference or ignorance it is hard to say. Sigh...
See http://employeeclearance.com, http://hspd12jpl.org, and http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/01/14/qt
Andy, Education Researcher, at 9:00 pm EDT on June 3, 2008
This whole “oath” business seems utterly unenforceable to me.
Since constitutions (most all of them, anyway) contain provisions for amendment, how can someone ever really be said to be in conflict with the constitution? If people disagreed with some provision, could they not answer some charge of “disloyalty” by asserting their ardent support of the amendment provisions??
P.Law, at 9:00 pm EDT on June 3, 2008
Definition of “enemies”
The part I’d worry about most is this — who gets to decide who the “enemies” are?
JRW, at 12:10 pm EDT on June 4, 2008
Advertisement
Jobs Related to Loyalty Oath Compromise
or search for jobs directly.
FT 12 Mo Faculty — 2020A
Saint Louis University
Saint Louis University is a Jesuit Catholic University. Through teaching, research, health care and community service, Saint ... see job
Assistant/Associate/Full Professor in Health Psychology/Program Evaluation
NC State University
Join the Pack! A community with nearly 8,000 faculty and staff, and 30,000 students. NC State is one of the largest employers ... see job
Assistant Professor
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job
Assist., Assoc. or Full Professor
NC State University
Join the Pack! A community with nearly 8,000 faculty and staff, and 30,000 students. NC State is one of the largest employers ... see job
Part-Time Faculty, ANT/SOC/SWK (PL)
Eastern Kentucky University
Eastern Kentucky University, located in Richmond, Madison County, Kentucky near the Heart of the Bluegrass, is a ... see job
Assistant Professor in Rhetoric and Composition & Associate Director
NC State University
Join the Pack! A community with nearly 8,000 faculty and staff, and 30,000 students. NC State is one of the largest employers ... see job
FT 9/11 Mo Faculty — 2025A
Saint Louis University
Saint Louis University is a Jesuit Catholic University. Through teaching, research, health care and community service, Saint ... see job
FT 12 Mo Faculty — 2020A
Saint Louis University
Saint Louis University is a Jesuit Catholic University. Through teaching, research, health care and community service, Saint ... see job
Counselor, Faculty — BELS Division
Lone Star College System
Located just north of Houston, Texas, our five campuses serve 1,400 square miles. Our student enrollment is nearly 50,000 in ... see job
Chemical Engineering Faculty Position, Tenure Track
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job
Home
| Sign up | Log in
| About us
| Work for Us
| Press Releases
| Rights and permissions
| Contact us
| Advertise
| Partners
| RSS 
| Podcasts
| Links
| Privacy
| My Account
© Copyright 2008 Inside Higher Ed
Loyalty
Arizona is another state requiring loyalty oaths — as I found out recently after having accepted a position there. Amidst all the HR paperwork I admit the loyalty oath gave me pause. But I did sign it — I wanted the job. It is a ridiculous piece of paperwork that isn’t enforceable. I even complained about it to the HR folks, who just had glazed over eyes, from all the paperwork I’m sure. I did find it offensive as an American (what NC trusts me but Arizona doesn’t?). And here I thought my home state of NC had some backward views. Welcome to the west....There is only mild comfort in learning that other states embarrass themselves so.
Elle, NC State, at 9:10 am EDT on June 3, 2008