 |
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
In the Comments
"I believe that the UC of Boulder department of ecology and evolutionary biology is changing its name to something less political. Reports have it that they are also looking for an endowed professor of creationism as well as a professor of pollution advocacy in order to create some balance. Meanwhile, angry trustees feel that peace and conflict studies is tipping the balance way too much in favor of peace. In order to hear more from those who believe that conflict remains a very viable, if old-fashioned, way to resolve problems, they are trying to identify little Eichmanns as possible candidates for another endowed chair. I, for one, applaud all these efforts." --David U. of Colorado at Boulder Wants to Hire 'Professor of Conservative Thought'
Recent Posts
Proposal Would Restrict Certain Gifts to Colleges That Hoard Endowments A Congressman wants to limit donations of funds from individual retirement accounts. Tension Over Title IX Shows Itself in Lawsuits A package of articles in USA Today describes a series of disputes in California and other states. U. of Colorado at Boulder Wants to Hire 'Professor of Conservative Thought' Which raises the question: Would an endowed chair in conservative thought bring intellectual diversity? Comment [23] N.C. Community Colleges Will Not Admit Illegal Immigrants After All North Carolina’s 58 community colleges announced today that they would no longer admit students who have entered the country illegally. Comment [20] Colorado Set to Fill Hole in Higher-Education Construction Gov. Bill Ritter signed a bill giving colleges at least $200-million to help pay for a dozen construction projects across the state. Comment [3]
Most Commented This Month
Cal State Instructor Fired for Refusing to Sign Loyalty Oath | 72 Princeton U. Press Recalls Typo-Filled Book and Says It Will Reprint | 57 Roman Catholic College Disinvites Pro-Choice Speaker | 44 U. of Florida Plans Layoffs and Enrollment Cuts as State Funds Fall | 41 Indian Students Protest Exam Question on Muhammad | 35
By Category
Athletics
Blog Archives
Keep Up to Date
Today's most e-mailed
Prior days' news: By date | Search This week's print issue Back issues: By date | Search May 2, 2008Cal State Instructor Fired for Refusing to Sign Loyalty OathA lecturer at California State University at Fullerton has been fired because she refused to sign a loyalty oath to “defend” the U.S. and California Constitutions “against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” the Los Angeles Times reported today. Wendy Gonaver, a Quaker and a lifelong pacifist, was set to teach American studies at the institution this academic year. She told the newspaper that she had offered to sign the oath if she could attach a short statement expressing her views, but Fullerton wouldn’t allow that. In February another instructor at Cal State was fired because she altered the oath by inserting the word “nonviolently” before signing it. However, the news-media attention surrounding her dismissal resulted in her being rehired. Voters added the oath to the state Constitution in 1952 to keep Communists from getting public jobs. —Audrey Williams June Posted on Friday May 2, 2008 | Permalink |Comments
Previous: 2 Biomedical Scientists Are First Women to Win $500,000 Prize in Medicine
|
This is idiotic. The first time Cal State Fullerton did this, the instructor (another Quaker) was reinstated. Now, they’ve fired another for the same ridiculous reason. The Red Scare is over, folks, and Quakers (also Bretheren and Mennonites) have been the three historic peace churches for hundreds of years. We’re not a security threat.
If Quakers and others are allowed to use “affirm” rather than swear in public statements and courtrooms by law, why is this so different?
Where is the AAUP on this? The ACLU? To paraphrase, have they no decency?
— QuakerProf May 2, 02:06 PM #
The bureaucrats at Cal. State Fullerton should realize that Joseph McCarthy is (thank heavens) long dead.
— Donald Winters May 2, 02:16 PM #
Her proposed solution of singing the Oath and adding an explanatory note as an addendum would seem to best serve the spirit of constitutional intent. I think it might also best serve the intent of quality education for students.
— Fred Hintermister May 2, 03:53 PM #
I am relieved. Those of us on the East Coast are hoping that Cal State would be the rampart to protect us from a communist invasion. Thank goodness the “west wall” of Cal State continues to be solid…
cg
— CSG May 2, 03:58 PM #
Seems to me that it’s a reasonable requirement for that govenment job. Whatever the original reason, I think that someone who wishes to take taxpayer dollars should be willing to follow the requirements of the law. If she objects to it, she can certainly apply for instructor positions in the private sector that don’t have such a requirement.
— Bill May 2, 03:58 PM #
Friend QuakerProf speaks my mind. This policy was wrong at the time it was instituted, and it is still wrong 56 years later.
Has the constitutionality of the oath ever been fully tested? I can’t imagine that it would stand rigorous judicial review.
As a fellow Quaker, whose church has a 3 1/2 century tradition of religious pacifism, it just boggles the mind that some administrator at Fullerton thought they could do this!
— Eric Kristensen May 2, 04:03 PM #
Excerpt from a story in the SF Chronicle on how the State of California views the Loyalty Oath:
Modifying oaths is open to different legal interpretations. Without commenting on the specific situation, a spokesman for state Attorney General Jerry Brown said that “as a general matter, oaths may be modified to conform with individual values.” For example, court oaths may be modified so that atheists don’t have to refer to a deity, said spokesman Gareth Lacy.
— Eric Grandstaff May 2, 04:11 PM #
I added a “non-violent” clause when I signed the same statement when hired by the Army Corps of Engineers as a civilian employee many years ago. The personnel officer did not object.
— WPP May 2, 04:12 PM #
President George W. Bush took an oath to defend the Constitution. How useless was that?!
— Amy May 2, 04:20 PM #
Incredible. This is absurd. So is someone who is pro-temperence supporting the constitution (Amendment 18) or attacking it (Amendment 21)? If all Cal State faculty have signed this thing, I trust that they have vigorously (violently?) opposed the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act, it being the greatest domestic threat to the constitution since the embarrassing era that inspired this loyalty oath in the first place. Please.
— Typical blame-America-firster May 2, 04:24 PM #
It is a shame that so many have blindly signed that statement over the years, while two conscientious women are punished for actually giving real thought to what they are signing. I applaud their convictions and wish them both well.
— GregS May 2, 04:24 PM #
Quakers were not just invented. They are not recent immigrants. American legal history must be littered with similar incidents. Is there not a practicing attorney on the Cal State payroll who could have advised the administration not to fight this losing battle?
— Jim May 2, 04:39 PM #
The point is not the content of the oath, which in and of itself may not have been objectionable. The principal is that signing oaths goes directly against Quaker values and beliefs. Quakers believe that they should tell the truth all the time, and signing oaths suggests that they are not always speaking the truth or upholding values they believe in. This decision is ridiculous and offensive, and I am disappointed that the CA State Attorney General upheld this decision. It’s wrong.
— Sarah May 2, 04:58 PM #
My officemate just said, “I’ll sign anything – just give me my paycheck.” Most of us just sign it along with W4 forms, parking permit forms, health insurance forms, and a zillion other things involved with starting a new job. The law should go away just because it is so much a non-issue. It would probably only be useful in attacking someone who was predetermined to be prey.
FYI, it is not only required of CSU employees, but also UC employees and anyone else employed by the state, including students.
— EW May 2, 05:00 PM #
Ms. Gonavor was an employee of the state of California. Bottom line. When she takes up employment with Quacker State U., then may she exercise her option to embrace all eneimies, foreign and domestic.
— davidk May 2, 05:03 PM #
I think Amy (post # 9) said it best – this should be even more embarrassing for the CSU system than all the crazy gender discrimination settlements in the various athletic departments within the system.
— TDD May 2, 05:18 PM #
A practical question is how this oath adversely effects the education of students at CSU Fullerton. They have apparently lost an educator and the university suffers because of that. The remark “davidk” made— “Quacker State U” —is profoundly offensive and disgusting. The point could have been made just as easily without being offensive.
— Paul May 2, 05:27 PM #
Is there a single soul anywhere who believes that signing such an oath (a) prevents an “enemy” from gaining employment or (b) encourages an American to be a more loyal citizen? By the way, what about all the non-citizen employees — do they have to sign, too?
— jc May 2, 05:32 PM #
At the time this McCarthyite policy was imposed, it was done by way of insertion into the California constitution (article XX)—that is why it has been so resistant to reform. A Volstead-type repeal amendment may be the only way to eliminate it.
— James Mc. May 2, 05:59 PM #
It shouldn’t have anything to do with religion. Atheists also should have the right to decline King Lear-ish requests for proclamations of loyalty without fear of reprisal. They’re pointless and they’re bullying.
— AG May 2, 06:04 PM #
As a follow up, I’ve asked the Friends Committee on National Legislation to investigate this case. Quakers, I ask you to do the same.
However, this is not just about Friends, Quakers, or whatever others might choose to call us (davidk). This is about the Constitution: Article VI, Section 3, which reads in part: “…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
Interrogate your conscience: is what has happened here right?
If not, do something. Contact the AAUP, the ACLU, your religious leaders, or others. Do not just web surf through this one. Act.
— QuakerProf May 2, 06:36 PM #
I think they should have fire all that don’t sign….I mean after all if she could not follow simple instructions then how would she be able to know who the “real” enemies are?
— O. Laden May 2, 06:39 PM #
Both my fathers died in service to a country that in WW2 was fighting to preserve the rights of people like the quakers to be pacifists. Shame on California
— Charley May 2, 07:22 PM #
Hummm, so that’s what Pogo meant when he said “we have met the enemy and it is us.”
— F.D. Capobianco May 2, 07:31 PM #
Cal State Fulerton should be lucky anyone applies to work or study there. Where the idea of academic and or civil freedom
— Aravind Slona May 2, 09:20 PM #
I thought that Elfbrandt vs. Russell (1966) and its kindred cases had taken care of all loyalty oaths. Surely some good attorney will take these cases and sue the State of California for lots of cash. Or, it might be easier to find a federal court and ask for a declaratory judgment that the oath is unconstitutional. Has anyone writing supported this nonsense?
Don Freeman
— Donald M. Freeman May 2, 09:33 PM #
People should be fired for refusing to promise to defend the Constitution when Bush/Cheney are fired for assailing it.
— Amy May 2, 09:35 PM #
I am a veteran. This is not what I fought for. I agree with “QuakerProf.”
— John Windsor May 2, 09:43 PM #
This is really pathetic. This is 2008 not 1952. Besides I am Australian and a monarchist. My ancestors were american loyalists who were persecuted and thrown out of america, so the last thing on earth I would do is defend your wretched 1789 constitution.
This is discriminatory because no-one with foreign citizenship and a green card can sign it. What then is a green card for? Where are EEO laws when you need them? I have never seen a statement on any Academic advertisement in the USA stating that only US citizens need apply. I have never seen a loyalty oath requirement either on any advertisement or application form. Why not? – because the EEO office would have a fit.
Finally another little problem: holders of dual citizenship (there are millions of them, particularly Israeli/USA passport holders) cannot possibly legally sign such a document.
— Raymond J. RITCHIE May 2, 10:31 PM #
As someone who grew up in the McCarthy era, I remember the tangible fear my father, a public official, had that he would get “turned in” for offhand remarks he made that might have sounded like opposition to the Korean War. There was never any question about his loyalty; he was a decorated WWII veteran. However, I remember his quiet comments to us about not repeating things he’d said for fear that neighbors who didn’t much like the way he was doing things in his public role would use this as a cowardly way to retaliate. This creepy reminder of those days is enough to make one’s skin crawl.This is not what he took fire in South and Southeast Asia to defend.
I think we also shouldn’t forget what Communist Party members revealed after the “Red Scare” ended: Many would loudly rail against loyalty oaths and urge their colleagues not to sign them, while their own quiet agreement was that they would themselves sign them and go on their merry way. Their “cause” needed martyrs, and many were quite pleased that loyalty oaths offered a way to provide them without having to be the martyrs in question themselves.
— Bob M. May 3, 06:56 AM #
In the words of the Chad Mitchel trio: “If Mommy is a commie then you gotta turn her in.”
— Donald Winters May 3, 10:54 AM #
Whoever made this decision should be fired for violating the oath they presumably took to defend the constitution (see first amendment).
— John May 3, 12:25 PM #
If you want the job, sign the oath. If you don’t want the job, go somewhere else. How hard can it be?
— Mark Arroyo May 3, 02:36 PM #
Mark- you can insert almost any violation of civil rights into that statement.
“If you want the job, use the colored people’s water fountain. If you don’t want the job, go somewhere else.”
“If you want the job, you’ll ignore the comments from the guys in the office about your figure. If you don’t want the job, go somewhere else.”
If we can’t defend a freedom promised in the 1st amendment and Article 6, section 3 of the Constitution, what will we defend? “How hard can it be?”
— QuakerProf May 3, 06:06 PM #
Mark: How long did it take you to become so unbelievably short-sighted. You sound like a painfully opportunistic reactionary.
— Donald Winters May 3, 06:29 PM #
Unfortunately, when I was hired at a Georgia university four years ago, I, too, had to sign a loyalty oath. I objected at first, but I had already accepted the position, and it was the very last piece of paper I had to sign just before beginning the new job. Now, I am leaving this university and will work at a private one without such loyalty oaths. This article reminded me what a coward I was (and still am) for not objecting more strenuously. At the least, state universities/colleges should better inform candidates in the job descriptions that they have to sign these types of documents. In the meantime, we, as professors, have to do everything in our power to end the onerous practice of loyalty oaths.
— JH May 3, 07:06 PM #
There is no loyalty oath for professors in Hawaii. The reason? ~My constitutional amendment reserved the oath for certain high office holders. I authored the amendment when Edward Seidensticker, famous translator of Japanese novels and an Iwo Jima veteran, refused to sign. I’m glad I did because botanist Beatrice Krauss, it turned out, had worked for the state for 30 years w/o pay because she had likewise opted out. Those wonderful scholars are both dead now, but I’d never had known them unless I eliminated the so-called oath of office. Myself, I’d have signed it in a trice, but nobody offered me a ladder-rank gig.
— Richard Thompson May 3, 10:33 PM #
The fact that a professor at a state university is paid by the state does not mean he or she should have to give up essential Constitutional rights. Arguments such as “If you don’t want to sign the oath, don’t work there” are insipid, because the situation is not that simple—taxes are paid by all kinds of people, including those who are horrified by the so-called loyalty oaths. It’s as ridiculous as saying, “I pay taxes that support road work. If you put your NRA bumper sticker on your car, you shouldn’t be allowed to drive on the highway,” or “No one who votes Republican should be allowed to work on road crews because I paid taxes and I don’t like Republicans.” Quite simply, the state does NOT have the right to limit employment to those whose political views may differ. In fact, the Constitution asserts that it is the responsibility of the state to PROTECT the rights of those whose views may differ. The larger question is about who authorized the continued use of the so-called loyalty oaths, and why don’t voters have something to say about them?
— Jill Silos, Ph.D. May 4, 12:11 AM #
QuakerProf makes a good point, however, it is good only within the context of that logic. If California was to come under military attack, I doubt very seriously that Cal. St. Professors are going to be the first ones mobilized!! When I joined the Army in 1987, I signed all kinds of paperwork; it felt like I was signing my life away. Does that mean I would have murdered innocent children if ordered to do so? I think not. When one considers the fact that many academics use their platform for anti-American purposes, the oath signing seems like an entirely meaningless exercise. In that sense, perhaps they should not require it but come on now fellas; let’s at least be boys about it!!
— Mark Arroyo May 4, 01:22 AM #
“In that sense, perhaps they should not require it but come on now fellas; let’s at least be boys about it!!”
If I’m a girl, do I still have to be a boy about it?
— Confused May 4, 10:07 AM #
Besides the obviously reactionary nature of the “my country, right or wrong” comments by a few on this page (seriously, do you really want to defend every law that this country makes? Has it never in its history made unjust laws?), and aside from the longstanding positive contributions of the historical peace traditions (being Mennonite myself, I take this seriously), there’s another problem – not everyone working for a public university is American. I, for one, am a non-American working in an American university. Agreeing to this oath essentially means that I agree to be drafted by a foreign (to me) army. I’m not doing it, sorry.
— bbj May 4, 11:16 AM #
Indeed, where is everybody while the smouldering and violation of basic rights unravels? we are at a stage where we must wake up and smell the roses- no one is safe, least of all those in academia, cloistered in their intellectual halls. In my foggy memory, I remember some guru arguing that we are now witnessing the proletarianization of intellectuals. Pardon my attachment to some version of Marxism- I don.t mean to spook anyone.
— jason pawuma May 4, 02:38 PM #
I would not attribute this debate to a social movement, Jason, unless the social movement is the one that formed this nation. Recognition of religious freedom has been codified in British law since the late 1600s, and is protected in two distinct sections of our nation’s founding documents (1st Amendment and Article 6 Section 3 of the Constitution). Quakers founded Pennsylvania and had major roles in Rhode Island and other colonies, and were largely left alone (with some exceptions) when they opted out of the Revolution. Once the Mennonites and Bretheren arrived, they too were viewed as being entitled to their pacifism as a core element of their religious faiths.
This is not new, it is very old, and it shocks me that California lawmakers have so little respect for such basic rights that they have not repealed this 1955, Red Scare policy. It scares me even more that someone in the employment office at a major state university thought that it was necessary to fire two professors for asserting their Constitutional rights.
— QuakerProf May 4, 06:40 PM #
I don’t think that California is actually denying this person the right to practice her religion. I imagine that she’s free to practice her religion as she pleases. On the other hand, the great state of Texas does appear to be denying the good folks of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints at Zion Ranch in El Dorado their religious freedoms… nuptials with multiple, young wives. And how about the old “I divorce thee, I divorce thee, I divorce thee.” Try that one out in California and see how far you get. Hummm, freedom of religion vs. the Constitution…
— Jester May 5, 06:10 AM #
My university requires a signed notarized loyalty oath from every faculty member upon hiring. Now what happens to them, where are they filed, what would happen if the university suddenly enforced it — who knows.
— anonymous May 5, 07:43 AM #
Gee, Jester, if the Fundamentalist Aztec Church still performed human sacrifice, would it be a violation of their rights to stop them? The Great State of Texas has every right to stop multiple rapes of young children. A man can have sex with as many women as he wants if the women are stupid enough to tolerate it, but a 16 year old with 4 children is a clear case of a sexual predator raping an underage girl. That’s quite a different thing than is being discussed on this thread.
— RM May 5, 07:56 AM #
One great irony of this silly issue is that anyone intent upon harming the state of California would certainly sign a loyalty oath. What, then, is its purpose or use?
— Bill May 5, 08:09 AM #
Does it strike anyone else as ironic that the first step in actually doing what the oath requires (“defend the U.S. and California constitutions against all enemies, foreign and domestic”) is to refuse to sign it?
— Michael May 5, 08:42 AM #
This person should look for a job in the private sector.
— EC May 5, 09:06 AM #
Loyalty oaths are like flag pins; outward manifestations of something usually least understood by those who require them. It’s similar to the ‘just say no’ mentality, an understanding that is all on the surface of the issue. These are the favorite tools of the ‘you are either with us or against us crowd requiring loyalty that’s a mile wide and an inch deep.
— Michel Pariseau May 5, 09:12 AM #
Following Up On Eric (#7) and WPP (#8):
Last Line Insertion:
“This document when being signed hereunder shall render the aforementioned null and void in its entirety in order to support the Constitution of the United States of America.
— zahid May 5, 09:16 AM #
If the president of the United States, duly sworn to defend the Constitution, is at liberty to make widespread use of “signing statements” that nullify the intent of the laws he is endorsing, why not the rest of us citizens?
— John R. Jones May 5, 10:14 AM #
Is this still the age of “witch hunting”? Loyalty To What? To the “leaders” of this country and the “defenders” of the constitution who continue to sell out the needs of the hard working middle class American people to all of their political cronies and their lobbyists in the Oil Industry, the Pharmaceutical Industry, the “no bid” Corporate Giants and the Military Industrial Complex so that they can ALL make BILLIONS of dollars of profits
each quarter, during “wartime” doesn’t that really make ALL of the above War Profiteers … So, again I ask: Loyalty To What?
DW
— David Worth May 5, 10:18 AM #
John R. Jones (#52)
Right On —- See My Comment # 51
— zahid May 5, 10:48 AM #
Russians eat oatmeal.
Quakers make oatmeal.
Case closed.
— first marci May 5, 11:24 AM #
1) Joe McCarthy happened to be correct in many of his assertions; Communists were, in fact, infiltrating the State Dept and other US agencies;
2) if she doesn’t want to work for a taxpayer funded institution, she doesn’t have to — let her work in a private college that is not supported by the citizens of the U.S.
— Bob Sarbane May 5, 11:27 AM #
This oath is completely nonsensical. There is no justification for it, as there is no connection to teaching. Any requirement to sign such a document is nothing more than pandering to a political point of view.
— Al May 5, 11:37 AM #
Understanding the “complex” illogic of loyalty oaths in the context of American freedoms often requires too much critical thought for the simple conservative mind. That’s why they scratch their heads and butts and respond with a single sentence, “They don’t have to work there.” Anything more, I swear, is utterly painful for these poor souls. And the more the rest of us try to explain it, the more they glaze over and further entrench into their us-against-them bunker mentality. It’s not their fault, they’re born that way.
— darrell in dallas May 5, 11:52 AM #
Hurrah for Amy! The most sinister types are those who, like President Bush, sign loyalty oaths while covertly dedicated to violating them.
— Paul R. Cooper May 5, 12:08 PM #
What! A loyalty oath without the appropriate accompanying scarification and ritual finger amputation! What’s this world coming to!?
— WB May 5, 12:21 PM #
The problem is not really the oath. The problem is all of you who feel, deep down, that loyalty itself is optional or even objectionable.
— Mike May 5, 12:30 PM #
Wouldn’t somebody who opposes the principles of the First Amendment be an enemy of the Constitution?
— Kevin May 5, 12:49 PM #
ACLU and AAUP should be involved, ultimately to have this dumb law declared unconstitutional or have it overrriden by new legislation.
I was a professor in a California public college during the 1960s and don’t recall ever having signed such a thing.
— non-signer May 5, 03:12 PM #
I contacted the AAUP and spoke with the person investigating the case. I helped him find relevant contact information for the professor in question, and he said that he would follow up and offer the AAUP’s help if the story is what it appears to be from the media accounts.
If anyone has ties to the ACLU, I encourage you to contact them and ask that they do the same.
— QuakerProf May 5, 07:47 PM #
I see that not all of the nuts and communists have left California. I think they just bunched up around Cal-State Fullerton. Most of what I have read so far tells me that there are too many people left in California that would not defend the Constitution and must be, in some way, associated with Cal-State Fullerton-all except the Administration and they are trying to be good citizens by upholding the law. Of course we could implement something like Jury Nullification like OJ’s Lawyer did. Or we could just go with
good ole’ anarchy.
— School's Out May 5, 11:20 PM #
Loyalty oaths? President Kennedy was once asked by the traitor McCarthy to sign a loyalty oath…Kennedy pulled up his pants leg showing three wounds from a 50-Cal machine gun received in World War Two…President Kennedy Refused to sign, exclaiming to the World as he pointed to the wounds, “that is loyal enough.”
— Hans Montag May 6, 05:41 AM #
Update: The AAUP is now actively involved. I, for one, appreciate that they realize the gravity of the situation and are willing to act.
— QuakerProf May 6, 12:10 PM #
After you sign the oath do they teach you the secret handshake?
— Gary Brooks May 6, 12:27 PM #
I am not now and never have been a member of the John Birch Society.
— Donald Winters May 6, 01:43 PM #
Re: #56:
“1) Joe McCarthy happened to be correct in many of his assertions; Communists were, in fact, infiltrating the State Dept and other US agencies;”
So the end justifies the means? That other Joe, the one who ran the Soviet Union, was sometimes right also. For example, without his push to reinvent Russia as an industrial society, it might still be an agrarian peasant backwater. Of course, his methods, leading to the deaths of millions, might have left something to be desired. If we accept arguments like the one above as acceptable reasons for tossing the Constitution into the trashcan, then we’re going to end up on the same trashheap of history as Uncle Joe and his ugly experiment in state control of people and their thoughts.
— Bob M. May 8, 07:46 AM #
I had a required ethics class with a professor who asserted that there is no need for “privacy” if you have nothing to hide – that as a principle, privacy is therefore unethical because it means you are trying to cover up something wrong or illegal. You don’t deserve your rights if you choose to exercise them…
If you won’t sign the oath as written, you’re not loyal? If you exercise your religious freedom under the Constitution, you are not loyal to the Constitution? I expect better reasoning in this forum.
— Debbie May 12, 08:01 AM #
more ridiculous foolishness from the gestapo. this country has gone nuts.
— mike j. May 12, 03:18 PM #