March 3, 2008
California State U. Sacks Quaker Instructor Over Loyalty Oath
California State University at East Bay has sacked a mathematics instructor for trying to add the word “nonviolently” to a state loyalty oath to make it conform with her Quaker beliefs and for declining to sign the oath when the university refused to allow her to amend it, the San Francisco Chronicle reports:
Marianne Kearney-Brown, a Quaker and graduate student who began teaching remedial math to undergrads January 7, lost her $700-a-month part-time job after refusing to sign an 87-word Oath of Allegiance to the Constitution that the state requires of elected officials and public employees.
“I don’t think it was fair at all,” said Kearney-Brown. “All they care about is my name on an unaltered loyalty oath. They don’t care if I meant it, and it didn’t seem connected to the spirit of the oath. Nothing else mattered. My teaching didn’t matter. Nothing.”
A veteran public-school math teacher who specializes in helping struggling students, Kearney-Brown, 50, had signed the oath before – but had modified it each time.
She signed the oath 15 years ago, when she taught eighth-grade math in Sonoma. And she signed it again when she began a 12-year stint in Vallejo high schools.
Each time, when asked to “swear (or affirm)” that she would “support and defend” the U.S. and state Constitutions “against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” Kearney-Brown inserted revisions: She wrote “nonviolently” in front of the word “support,” crossed out “swear,” and circled “affirm.” All were to conform with her Quaker beliefs, she said.
The school districts always accepted her modifications, Kearney-Brown said.
But Cal State East Bay wouldn’t, and she was fired on Thursday.
By Gabriela Montell | Posted on Monday March 3, 2008 | PermalinkModifying the oath “is very clearly not permissible,” the university’s attorney, Eunice Chan, said, citing various laws. “It’s an unfortunate situation. If she’d just signed the oath, the campus would have been more than willing to continue her employment.”
Comments
Commenting is closed for this article.
What does it say about the practice of having employees sign this oath when the university’s attorney, speaking, I presume, on behalf of the university, claims that the university doesn’t care if she believes it, it just wants the signature?
What is the point of asking for the signed oath if the powers-that-be don’t care if it accurately conveys the beliefs of the signee? Looking for more paperwork? Looking to show how “patriotic” the school is? (“all our employees are willing to defend the constitution against all enemies”).
Is the first and best line of defense against terrorism a well-trained cadre of adjunct math instructors?
Has no one challenged this oath as being unconstitutional? If that is the case I hope Ms. Kearney-Brown is the first.
Freedom of speech, anyone?
— Socrates Mar 3, 03:25 PM #
Interestingly, this oath predates 9/11. I was asked to sign it before taking on a part-time job with a California Community College. When I asked the HR representative to explain to me exactly what was meant by “support and defend [the Constitutions]”, she said she didn’t know.
— Pippin Mar 3, 11:17 PM #
These oaths have probably been around since the 1950s for many state employees. I’ve queasily signed them in both California and Arizona (I think the Arizona one pledged me to defend the State of Arizona, if California tried to come over there and take any more water). They are of course completely meaningless, yet still manage to be demeaning and offensive.
It is highly unusual that a school objected to a Quaker crossing out “swear” and circling “affirm.” That is why they put “swear (or affirm)” on the form – because even the loyalty-oath-mongers recognized that some religions prohibit swearing a secular vow.
— G. David Moonschine Mar 4, 12:06 AM #
Unfortunately, I have learned as a current student, that the policies of the university do not necessarily promote either education or scholarship, nor do they necessarily uphold long-standing and widely professed civil principles, such as those in the First Amendment.
— Chris C Mar 4, 01:51 AM #
I ran into the Oath as a PhD student at Cal. It turns out that the UC system, apparently uniquely, has an official policy allowing for amending the Oath. http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~jendres/oath/
— James Endres Howell Mar 4, 07:41 AM #
This is hilarious, because the U.S. military permits affirming rather than swearing for precisely this reason (that some Christians believe it is wrong to swear an oath). But of course I can see why it’s more important for a teacher to swear it.
— b Mar 4, 08:10 AM #
California post-secondary education has “bigger fish to fry.” Rather than worry about loyalty oaths, let’s focus on how the state can make space for more students in the system and expand spots of students-of-color and low-income students.
— Brian Mar 4, 08:15 AM #
Years ago LSU had a similar oath. I don’t know if they still do. I wonder how wide spread this is?
— GL Mar 4, 08:59 AM #
Brava Marianne! Such one-sided loyalty oaths have no place in a real democracy. Has Uncle Sam sworn loyalty to the American people? If so, why is the Bush regime allowed to destroy our economy and reputation?
— werner Mar 4, 01:21 PM #
The oath has nothing to do with teaching. People should not be forced to sign an allegiance in a country where free speech is a basic right.
— CGD Mar 4, 01:30 PM #
I think it is interesting – I for one don’t believe I understand the US constitution, let alone a state constitution, well enough to say I would defend it – what am I defending?
— cfox Mar 4, 01:54 PM #
I guess I’m lucky to work in a no-loyalty-oath state?
Where’s the AAUP on this one?
— QuakerProf Mar 4, 05:49 PM #
State schools in Florida require oaths both to the state and to the nation, which raises the very practical question of which is binding in the event of secession.
In any case this is absurd. ACLU anyone?
— Sam Mar 5, 07:35 AM #
I still have a document of protest ca. 1950 by Ernst H. Kantorowicz, History prof at U.C. Berkeley: “The Fundamental Issue: Documents and Marginal Notes on the University of California Loyalty Oath.” Ms. Kearny-Brown’s case reminds of a time we should have left behind: witch-hunting period of McCarthyism.
— Rod Mar 5, 09:41 AM #
They administer the oath because the State Constitution requires it. From the language, I’d guess it was added in the fifties.
The UC/CS system, and the State AG (Jerry Brown) seem to have misread Smith v. County Engineer of San Diego County, 266 Cal.App.2d 645, 72 Cal.Rptr. 501(1968) which they cite; as justification, and failed to read COLE v. RICHARDSON, 405 U.S. 676 (1972), which says such oaths are legal, only insofar as they don’t oblige action.
Since her amendment was just such a statement, about action, it’s non-substantive, and so causes no problem.
I’ve written it up, with more detail at my blog.
http://pecunium.livejournal.com/305114.html
— pecunium Mar 5, 03:50 PM #
State Attorney General’s Office
Affirms Oath of Allegiance Requirement
California State University, East Bay has received a statement from the state attorney general’s office affirming its decision to terminate an employee based on her refusal to sign a state-required oath of allegiance.
According to the attorney general’s office, “the California State University acted appropriately” in requiring the employee “to affirm the Oath of Office that is required by Article XX, section 3 of the California Constitution as a condition of employment.”
The official statement noted that “The language of the present oath has been upheld against constitutional challenge, and it simply requires employees to agree to uphold and defend our democratic and peaceful process of self-government.”
“The oath does not compel an employee to take any violent action and, in fact, requires an employee to work within the system of government to resolve problems and achieve change. Such a requirement is consistent with the goals of all law-abiding persons, especially those entrusted with governmental responsibilities.”
The attorney general’s office concluded that the “California State University acted appropriately in requiring (the employee) to sign the oath as written.”
“In addition,” the statement noted, “it also appears that California State University made diligent, good faith efforts to engage (the employee) in an interactive process designed to address her concerns and accommodate her beliefs regarding the oath while at the same time pursuing its legal responsibility to ensure that she signed the oath as require by law. That is the course we advise state employers to take, and it appears to have been taken in this case.”
Previously, the University had expressed regret at having had to terminate an employee based on her refusal to sign the state-required oath of allegiance and announced it would welcome the employee’s return to her position if she were willing to follow the employment requirements of the CSU and the State of California.
The oath of allegiance is a requirement of California law enacted by the State Legislature as a condition of employment. Cal State East Bay offered the employee the option of adding a statement of her personal convictions in addition to signing the oath and was disappointed that she declined to do so.
During the course of several weeks, the University’s human resources office worked with the employee in hopes of finding an alternative that would satisfy her personal convictions while complying with state law. The University extended the deadline for filing the paperwork to allow her more time to consider all the alternatives. The employee was also informed that the University would, by law, have to terminate her from employment if she was unwilling to sign the document unaltered, with or without a personal statement of conviction.
Signature of the oath of allegiance is required by California law (Government Code Sections 3100-3109 and California Constitution, Article 20, Section 3). Cal State East Bay and the CSU have no discretion to waive or modify this requirement.
—30—
— Barry Zepel Mar 5, 06:44 PM #
Instead of looking at the big picture – the “bigger fish to fry” – and indeed making a difference in children’s education, Marianne has poorly chosen to stubborn over a simple legal procedure.
— Ana Fishman Mar 6, 11:15 AM #
The oath as written doesn’t require her to swear, nor does it require her to use violence to uphold the constituion. As such, her changes were meaningless and did not alter the intent of document at all. Therefore, is seems that both sides are being rather silly about this, and are placing formality ahead of substance.
— J Hall Mar 6, 11:49 AM #
I work full-time at a CSU and I have never been asked to sign an oath of any kind. I would and have in other states, but I also would support the right of others not to sign based on sincere beliefs. Most who sign don’t take is seriously and in that sense are insincere.
— jpm Mar 6, 11:45 PM #
I think back to what JFK said when McCarthy demanded he sign a loyalty oath…Good ol’e JFK told MCarthy “I’ve been @ the Front and was wounded…that is loyal enough!!!” Imagine firing a nice lady from her job because of her religion..the State of California should revisit the 1943 West Virginia v. Supreme Court Case…u cannot put people (ten years old) in prison cause of their religious beliefs…a young gal in that case cause of her religion could not sign or say the pledge of Allegiance…the Supreme Court allows that when loyalty oaths go agin someones belief in God..
— bruce j. edmonds III Mar 7, 04:47 AM #
I was surprised that an allegedly progressive state like California still used a relic from the 1950s red scare. Ohio, which is hardly a bastion of innovative thought, outlawed Loyalty Oaths years ago.
— Mark Smith Mar 9, 09:51 PM #
J. Hall—The oath did require me to swear.
Ana Fishman- I take my constitutional rights seriously. I consider freedom of expression and freedom of religion as very big fish to fry. My students are adults and much to my surprise, wholeheartedly supported my “standing up for my beliefs”. I spend my life teaching and tutoring math, most of the time for free. All those students had my phone number and my email address and knew how to reach me for help. I have been in countries (including Burma!) where people are not free to speak and it is terrifying. I do not know how that happens to a country, but if it ever happens here I want to be able to remember that I exercised my right to dissent when it was still a recognized right.
— Marianne Kearney Brown Mar 11, 10:42 PM #