California’s archaic loyalty oath — required of state employees since 1952 — has cost Wendy Gonaver her job as an American Studies instructor at Cal State Fullerton. A Quaker and a pacifist, Gonaver wouldn’t swear to “defend” the U.S. and California constitutions “against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” unless she could attach a statement of her views. Though other state agencies allow this, Fullerton does not.
As I’ve written before, when a math instructor lost her job, the oath is a Cold War relic that serves no purpose. Disloyal people will lie. Only a small number of people who take their oaths seriously will struggle with what “defending” the constitution entails. A few will decide they have mental reservations they must honor. Are these the people we need to defend against?
“If your Mommy is a Commie then you’d better turn her in.” We used to sing that in elementary school. It’s time to grow up.
I don’t have a problem with the loyalty oath, but I do have a problem with pacifists and other people that would not defend his/her own country. Since people will lie to get around whatever obstacle oaths present, why not get rid of all oaths, like the one you take with your hand on a Bible in a court of law? While we’re at it, get rid of the Bible, too, although we’ve pretty much already accomplished that one.
Well, contra to both of you, I have a problem with both. Requiring a loyalty oath of a professor is absurd–it’s not the military, or law enforcement, or even comparable to reasons justifying the oaths taken by judges or attorneys. On pacifism, however:
“Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.”
–Robert Heinlein
“if your Mommy is a Commie then you’d better turn her in.”
Joanne, you bring back fond memories. The Chad Mitchell Trio was my favorite group in the 60s. I believe that I have all of their songs (on records!).
Wendy Gonaver has the right to refuse to work for an organization that sponsors something she doesn’t support. The organization has a right to not employ someone who doesn’t support its policy/doctrine. So, this isn’t about rights, it’s about wants.
I think it would help if people actually read the required oath before debating it.
Scroll to Section 3 for the oath
In a nutshell, it says you won’t try to subvert or overthrow the governments of California or the US. Is that such a horrible thing to expect of public employees?
Dave J:
Here’s my variation:
“Conservatism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay taxes - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.”
At least pacifists don’t send too few soldiers into combat with inadequate armor, and find excuses not to treat wounded veterans, so rich Republicans won’t have to pay taxes.
If we left defending the country to people like me, we would all be speaking Iroquois or whatever. The way most of us can help defend the country is by paying taxes. Yet the sort of people who make a big deal about loyalty oaths are the ones who whine most about taxes. Talk is cheap.
> Talk is cheap.
In a democracy? Demonstrably untrue.
Talk rendered the sacrifices of 50,000 American servicemen moot several decades ago and the effort to repeat the performance, using nothing more then talk again, has been under way for the past six years.
While I’m uncomfortable with government making distinctions among citizens on any basis but a criminal conviction a refusal to affirm the belief that you have a personal responsibility to defend this nation overcomes that reticence. If that precludes you from working for a government agency then you’ve just made a sacrifice of conscience but not much of a sacrifice. There’s no flag-draped coffin or artificial limbs in Wendy Gonaver’s future so all the whining’s about losing a cushy berth.
I assume, JJ, you would be happy in a marriage where your husband never expressed his love, and Allison would have been just as wonderful a woman had her mommy never said “I love you.”
Richard-
Not pay taxes? Those “rich Republicans” likely pay more taxes in a single year than you will in a lifetime. Do they have absurd amounts of money? Sure do, but that’s because consumers are willing to throw their money away on their products.
Note that there are plenty of “rich” Democrats too, and they pay the same taxes. Wealth has little to do with political affiliation. It’s not like once you make over $200,000 you automatically become a Republican.
Oh, and given the recent headlines regarding Wesley Snipes and Al Franken, you have two “rich” Democrats right there who have failed to perform their civic duties.
I’d bet that you’d find that more non-wealthy individuals don’t pay their taxes also. Not only that, but the reasons that we were forced to send too few soldiers, too little equipment, and cannot afford to support them after their sacrifice has more to do with money going towards benefits for those who pay no taxes at all.
And, if “talk” is so cheap, then what’s the problem with a so-called pacifist giving a loyalty oath? It means nothing anyway to you.
The only statement that you made that is anywhere near correct was that those who made the biggest deals about loyalty oaths were those who fail to pay taxes. In this case, though, the ones who “make a big deal about loyalty oaths” are those who refuse to give them because they are too selfish to look past themselves.
“Oh, and given the recent headlines regarding Wesley Snipes and Al Franken, you have two ‘rich’ Democrats right there who have failed to perform their civic duties.”
Please.
I’m not an Al Franken fan, but …
Al Franken paid all the taxes he was supposed to. And he paid at the time he earned the money.
The problem was that the tax code is/was so complicated that he paid some of the money to the wrong states. Now those states want (and are going to get) their tax money plus penalties.
Al had/has an accountant who is/was supposed to get this correct. The accountant blew it.
Expecting Al to be up on tax laws to the point where he can catch this sort of a mistake is unreasonable.
What is amusing is that I don’t expect Al to be trying to simplify the tax laws if he does get elected. There has to be a word to describe this. Irony isn’t it. Neither is Karma. But there has to be a word …
-Mark Roulo
Would there be a way to amend the loyalty oath to accommodate Quakers?
I’m cutting and pasting from wikipedia here: “There are two types of status for conscientious objectors. If a person only objects to combat but not to service in the military, then the person is given noncombatant service in the military without training of weapons. If he objects to all military service, then he is given “alternative service” with a job “deemed to make a meaningful contribution to the maintenance of the national health, safety, and interest”, see Alternative Service Program.”
It would seem that if the objection is based on implied willingness for military service or combat service, this could be addressed by the oath’s including, “withing current limitation for conscientious objectors” someplace in the oath.
Mark Roulo-
Ah, the incompetence defense. Isn’t Franken ultimately responsible for his own taxes? For hiring a competent accountant? For at least checking in to see if everything looks kosher?
I’m in my late 20’s, have been filing my own taxes for less than 10 years, and yet even I know that you must pay taxes in every state where you make a significant income.
Every citizen is responsible for paying the necessary taxes to the federal and state governments. In the end Franken failed to fulfill that responsibility, no matter who actually does the paperwork.
This looks like fun. Mind if I try my hand at it?
“Liberalism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group while demanding that the group force someone else to pay for him - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.”
Now can we get back to the topic at hand?
I think loyalty oaths for teachers are kind of silly but I also don’t see the harm in them. While I can appreciate a Quaker’s devotion to pacifism, its not like the state of California is going to be issuing M-16s to teachers and shipping them off to fight in a war. This isn’t a new development. This oath has been around since the 50s. Perhaps pursuing a job with an employer who requires you to do something you find objectionable as a condition of employment isn’t the wisest career move.
John Cole at Balloon Juice says it well: “The loyalty oath was added to the state Constitution by voters in 1952 to root out communists in public jobs. Now, 16 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, its main effect is to weed out religious believers, particularly Quakers and Jehovah’s Witnesses.”
Defending the loyalty oath is de facto evidence of being anti-American.
De facto evidence, you say? Well, I guess that ends the discussion.
Or it would, if I didn’t add “making such statements is de facto evidence of being an idiot.”
I’m not convinced either is true. Can we move on now?
I’m curious about this: what exact part of the oath does this pacifist Quaker find revolting (pardon the pun)? The “support and defend the constitution” part? Does she *really* interpret that part, did the legislature contemplate, requiring weaponry and combat? That seems a far stretch.
Asking people to be loyal to a government before accepting that government’s payment doesn’t strike me as excessively burdensome. As I wrote on my own blog, I didn’t see President Washington offer command of the army to Benedict Arnold–or to Cornwallis, for that matter.
Joannejacobs.com often points to teachers and public school folk acting like petty tyrants, enforcing absurd rules in absurd ways.
Anyone who has gone through the public school system knows that the stories that hit the news are the tip of the iceberg. As long as that’s true, why should we care when the shoe is on the other foot?
BTW - This is yet another example of how public school advocates get excited about teacher rights and benefits but not student achievement.
Wendy Gonaver has the right to refuse to work for an organization that sponsors something she doesn’t support. The organization has a right to not employ someone who doesn’t support its policy/doctrine. So, this isn’t about rights, it’s about wants.
Does however the State really need to have every single employee willing to take up arms to defend its constitution? Is there not some interest in the State having employees that are effective at doing their job, first and foremost? And perhaps, in the case of an educational institute, exposing students to instructors with a variety of philosophical ideas?
This is separate from rights, it’s about what’s sensible. The State of California may have a right to impose such an oath, but they don’t have an obligation to be silly.
Nowhere in that oath is there a requirement to take up arms. Did you even read the oath, Tracy W? I linked to it in a comment above.
Interpreting that oath as requiring taking up arms is what’s silly–especially for a college professor who’s supposed to be college educated.