May 5, 2008
California State U. Sacks Another Quaker Instructor Over Loyalty Oath
Yet another Quaker instructor has been sacked by the California State University system for objecting to a state loyalty oath that clashes with her pacifist religious beliefs, the Los Angeles Times reports.
Wendy Gonaver, an American-studies lecturer at California State University at Fullerton, was fired the day before the start of classes because she would not “sign an oath swearing to ‘defend’ the U.S. and California constitutions ‘against all enemies, foreign and domestic’” unless she was allowed to include a statement explaining her views, “a practice allowed by other state institutions,” the reporter, Richard C. Paddock, writes. The university refused to grant her request.
Earlier this year, California State University at East Bay fired Marianne Kearney-Brown, a Quaker mathematics instructor, for trying to add the word “nonviolently” to the state loyalty oath and for refusing to sign it when the university did not allow her to add the word. She was later reinstated.
See an item on The Chronicle’s News Blog for more details.
By Gabriela Montell | Posted on Monday May 5, 2008 | PermalinkComments
Commenting is closed for this article.
This is just twisted. What happened to academic freedom? Why should anyone be “required” to advocate violence? And we wonder why our kids are screwed up.
— Jeffrey Smith May 5, 04:27 PM #
Although I am in agreement with Jeff Smith’s sentiments (this policy IS twisted), this does not seem to be a matter of academic freedom. If I am incorrect about this, perhaps someone with more knowledge can provide enlightenment.
— Mark May 5, 09:16 PM #
This policy is just too funny. Are we to assume that the armed forces would possibly rely on legions of patriotic college professors to defend America? And we think we’re losing in Iraq now—just imagine!
— Eric May 6, 07:42 AM #
This has nothing to do with academic freedom. People are consistently applying the wrong use of academic freedom about as much as people misinterpret FERPA. We need to have a national discussion and get it right.
— Joe May 6, 09:06 AM #
This is shocking. I served in the military and took such an oath then but find the application of this oath to college professors ludicrous. I teach at a very conservative private university in California but no one has ever asked us to pledge anything so absurd. We are not soldiers; we are academics.
— Deron May 6, 08:49 PM #
Conscientious objection to military service is legal in this country—I and many others have been able to exercise this option and when I had finished my alternative service, I was allowed to opt out of a loyalty oath, then required for recipients of certain federally-funded fellowships. I’ve never had to face this problem again, not once in 40 years of my academic career, including teaching at two state universities. Why does the Cal State system think it has to control its faculty this way? Is it really about making sure that people with funny ideas are not allowed to teach in the system? Get rid of those pinkos and commies?
— Harold Schiffman May 7, 10:17 AM #
Procedural Components Higher Education Administrators Must Give the Greatest Attention
The Courts view procedural matters as very crucial in nonrenewal of employee contracts. Higher education administrators must be specific in their recommendations to the Board, taking into consideration the guaranteed protections afforded employees protected by tenure laws and seniority rights and any and all other statutory provisions. As indicated by court decisions, procedural components to which higher education officials must give the greatest attention when implementing termination decisions must include the following:
1. Higher education administrators must recognize that in procedural matters, notification to the employee of the termination of his contract must cover more than the fact of nonrenewal. Notification must fully inform the employee of the criteria used for selecting employees for nonrenewal so that if grounds for appeal exist, the employee will be alerted. (Thayer v. Anacortes School District, p. 157)
2. Where nonrenewal of teaching contracts is apparent, higher education administrators must be specific, detailed, exact, and concise concerning cause of termination, taking into immediate consideration any tenure act, seniority rights, and other stipulations in accordance with the law. (Bragg v. School District of Swarthmore, p. 64)
3. Where there is a reduction in teaching force, school executives
4. Higher education officials should recognize the importance of state certification as it relates to the grouping of employees for seniority purposes. (Jordahl v. Independent School District No. 129, p. 165)
5. Where the cause of the employee’s nonrenewal is not personal, it does not always require a strict adherence to procedures as prescribed by statute. (Funston v. District School Board for School District No. 1, p. 31)
6. University administrators must recognize the importance of a given statute in relation to procedure. Where specific restrictions and dates are included within statutes, any deviation tends to be interpreted as a violation of procedure. Courts will support procedure as stated. (Linden School District No. 24 v. Porter, p. 134; James v. School Township of Troy, p. 36; Ashby v. School Township of Liberty, p. 127)
7. Higher education administrators must recognize the fact that there are obvious inconsistencies among state laws relating to nonrenewal of contracts, seniority, and tenure rights, and these differences should always be considered when implementing a staff reduction decision. (Board of School Trustees v. O’Brien, p. 132)
8. Higher education administrators must set up definite objective standards for the employment and retention of employees and apply them equally to all regardless of racial origin, and in a manner compatible with the requirements of Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution. (Chambers v. Hendersonville City Board of Education, p. 139)
William Allan Kritsonis, PhD
— William Allan Kritsonis, PhD May 8, 10:47 AM #
Has the Governator of Kalifornia taken the oath?
— Owen May 8, 10:48 AM #
This is not an issue of academic freedom: That term is bandied about inaccurately, applies only in public schools (which, yes, I realize this is one) and as required by accreditors – and then only per what is taught in the classrrom. However, one has other First Amendment rights at a public institution, and I would sue like heck on that account: The loyalty oath is ludicrous. What if, aside from the nonviolence issue, I want to change – rather than “defend” – the Constitution?
— Linda Rawles May 8, 12:37 PM #
The major point in this discussion is missed entirely. What is demonstrated in this firing is the insidious nature of herd poisoning. As many of you point out, this issue is not one of academic freedom. Likewise, it’s not about this particular professor and this particular administration. Instead, this event demonstrates the either/or fallacy U.S. citizens have come to accept as correct—one is not American or patriotic or loyal unless one supports the so-called defense of this country without question. Underneath that ideation lies the more pervasive fallacies of Nationalism and Empire. We’ll see more of these types of attacks on individuals until we see less acceptance of political brainwashing.
— K. Ruth Seaber May 8, 01:34 PM #
Oh, come on! Words like “defend” are broad enough for lots of reasonable interpretations. While I can see a Quaker wanting to make his/her non-violence clear, it doesn’t seem entirely necessary.
The assumption that defending a constitution requires violence is wrong-headed. The last few years have taught us that a constitution is worth no more than the popular will. If the people don’t care about violations of the constitution, it will be violated. If the people care, it will be preserved. (Look at England: there is no single document “constitution” here, but the government is constrained at least as strongly as the US government.)
All that is to say that writing, speaking, blogging, and voting are the best ways to defend a constitution. You defend a constitution by making sure that most people are horrified if it is violated. You also defend it by working to be sure that the government actually obeys it.
Finally, don’t forget that the US and California constitutions contain mechanisms for amendments. So, it is easily possible to defend them while changing them.
Certainly it is a silly oath, but why is it an oath that cannot be taken with a clear conscience?
— Be.a.Lawyer May 8, 05:36 PM #