Teacher Fired For Refusing To Sign Loyalty Oath
Cal State system ousts another instructor who objects on religious grounds to a pledge adopted by California in 1952 to root out communists.
When Wendy Gonaver was offered a job teaching American studies at Cal State Fullerton this academic year, she was pleased to be headed back to the classroom to talk about one of her favorite themes: protecting constitutional freedoms.
But the day before class was scheduled to begin, her appointment as a lecturer abruptly ended over just the kind of issue that might have figured in her course. She lost the job because she did not sign a loyalty oath swearing to “defend” the U.S. and California constitutions “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
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.
As a Quaker from Pennsylvania and a lifelong pacifist, Gonaver objected to the California oath as an infringement of her rights of free speech and religious freedom. She offered to sign the pledge if she could attach a brief statement expressing her views, a practice allowed by other state institutions. But Cal State Fullerton rejected her statement and insisted that she sign the oath if she wanted the job.
“I wanted it on record that I am a pacifist,” said Gonaver, 38. “I was really upset. I didn’t expect to be fired. I was so shocked that I had to do this.”
California State University officials say they were simply following the law and did not discriminate against Gonaver because all employees are required to sign the oath. Clara Potes-Fellow, a Cal State spokeswoman, said the university does not permit employees to submit personal statements with the oath.
“The position of the university is that her entire added material was against the law,” Potes-Fellow said.
In February, another Cal State instructor, Quaker math teacher Marianne Kearney-Brown, was fired because she inserted the word “nonviolently” when she signed the oath. She was quickly rehired after her case attracted media attention.
It is hard to know how many would-be workers decline to sign the pledge over religious or political issues. Some object because they interpret the pledge as a commitment to take up arms. Others have trouble swearing an oath to something other than their God.
Public agencies do not appear to keep a record of people denied employment over the oath. Union grievances and lawsuits are rare.
Some agencies take the oath more seriously than others. Certain school districts and community colleges have been known to let employees change the wording of the oath when they sign or to ignore the requirement altogether. Others, including the University of California, advise employees on how they can register their objections yet still sign the pledge.
All state, city, county, public school, community college and public university employees — about 2.3 million people — are covered by the law, although noncitizens are not required to sign.
UC Berkeley was the first to impose a tough anti-communist loyalty oath in 1949 and fired 31 professors who refused to sign.
After a version of the oath was added to the state Constitution, courts eventually struck down its harshest elements but let stand the requirement of defending the constitutions. In one court test, personal statements accompanying the oath were deemed constitutional as long as they did not nullify the meaning of the oath.
Now, the University of California advises new employees who balk at signing the pledge that they can submit an addendum, as long as it does not negate the oath.
UC even provides sample declarations, such as: “This is not a promise to take up arms in contravention of my religious beliefs,” or “I owe allegiance to Jehovah.”
The California State University system takes a firmer approach.
Kearney-Brown, the math instructor fired by Cal State East Bay, said she added the word “nonviolently” just as she had when taking previous jobs as a high school teacher. The university, however, told her she could not alter the pledge.
After her case attracted media attention and help from the United Auto Workers, which represents some Cal State employees, the university reversed course. The office of Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown drafted a statement declaring that the oath does not commit employees to bear arms in the country’s defense. Cal State agreed to let Kearney-Brown attach it to her oath and she was reinstated.
Kearney-Brown said she believed she was defending the Constitution by objecting to the oath and argued that signing a pledge should not be reduced to a meaningless formality.
“The way it’s laid out, a noncitizen member of Al Qaeda could work for the university, but not a citizen Quaker,” she said.
The 23-campus Cal State system has fired instructors over the oath at least twice before.
In 2001, Cal StateDominguez Hills dismissed geography lecturer Alejandro Alonso after he refused to sign. He said at the time that he identified with the Jehovah’s Witnesses and that swearing an oath to anyone but God violated his religious beliefs.
When his request for a religious exemption was denied, he proposed signing the oath and attaching a personal statement. That also was denied. Alonso, who went on to teach at USC, has become an expert on Los Angeles gangs and runs the website www.streetgangs.com.
In 1995, Methodist minister Bud Tillinghast was teaching a course on comparative religion at Humboldt State University, when he was pulled out of class by campus police and fired because he had not signed the oath.
Tillinghast said he believed that swearing an oath to the state helped establish the government as a religion.
“I was teaching world religions and I ran up against a state religion,” the retired minister recalled. “My concern was that this was breaking down the separation of church and state and making the state a religion you swear allegiance to.”
He filed suit against Cal State for reinstatement arguing that the oath violated the 1993 federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. But after a court found that law unconstitutional, his suit was thrown out.
In all, Tillinghast said, he went up against the loyalty oath three times. Before being fired by Humboldt, he taught a religion class at a community college for nearly a decade. For that job, the school allowed him to sign an alternate oath.
Last year, he was named to the Humbolt County Human Rights Commission. A potential problem was averted when officials decided he didn’t need to sign the oath.
Efforts to remove the oath from the state Constitution have been unsuccessful, although the matter came under scrutiny in 1998 when a congressional subcommittee held a hearing on religious freedom.
Among those who testified was Zari Wigfall, a Jehovah’s Witness who said she twice lost jobs at Sacramento City College in 1994 because of the oath, first as a student tour guide and later as a theater house manager for a children’s play.
“Citizens are entitled to certain rights, and also minorities, including religious minorities, are given certain guarantees,” she told the committee. “And I just didn’t think that . . . because of my religious beliefs I would have two jobs taken away from me.”
She is now a dancer, choreographer and teacher in Southern California.
For Gonaver, the oath came up unexpectedly.
She was offered the job at Fullerton teaching two classes last fall, Introduction to American Studies and Introduction to Intercultural Women’s Studies. She received two appointment letters and signed a contract. When she attended an orientation session for new faculty, she heard of the oath for the first time.
After researching the issue and learning that UC allowed its employees to provide personal statements, she submitted her own six-sentence declaration to Fullerton.
In her statement, she wrote that the oath violates the 1st Amendment and discriminates against religious pacifists, such as Quakers and Buddhists. She called the pledge an “instrument of intimidation.” And she wrote that employees who sign it “while harboring legitimate religious and political objections” could be exposed to a charge of perjury.
Margaret Atwell, the Fullerton school’s associate vice president for academic affairs, replied in an e-mail that Gonaver was not allowed to submit any statement, no matter what the practice at UC. Gonaver would have to sign the oath or lose the job, Atwell said.
Gonaver refused.
Potes-Fellow, the Cal State spokeswoman, said the university stands by its stricter interpretation of the requirement and is not affected by how UC or other public institutions handle the oath.
“The university concluded that state law did not allow her to attach her addendum,” Potes-Fellow said.
The attorney general’s statement that Kearney-Brown was allowed to attach her oath did not violate Cal State’s policy because it was not an addendum, Potes-Fellow said. “We think the circumstances are different in both cases,” she said.
Gonaver said the attorney general’s statement does not go far enough in answering her objections to the oath. But if she had been offered a chance to use it last fall, she said, she probably would have signed the oath and would have been teaching all year at Fullerton.
Now, she would like to see the oath eliminated for all public employees except those who deal with sensitive information. She also would like an apology and a job next year.
“It makes no sense that they do this to people,” she said. “It’s people who take it seriously who don’t get hired.”
© 2008 The Los Angeles Times
What is her problem?
She cited religious reasons for not being able to sign a loyalty oath to uphold the American and California State constitutions “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
She probably hasn’t heard of the establishment clause in these documents. Her religious and pacifist ways are not at odds with the constitutions… however she would be at odds with the ruling class in America… not the document herself. She probably deserved to be fired.
-James
www.thepoliticus.org
You can be sure that no raving pinko commie subversives will ever take the oath with their fingers crossed.
Would the current regime in Washington be a good example of ‘defending and protecting’?
I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag, and… Aren’t we all getting sick of these sick loyalty oaths to what?… lack of democracy and freedom in our land?
Well, Joe McCarthy and HUAC aren’t dead. Surprised? When does the dunking of witches begin? When does this arrogance and stupidity stop? The madness that is invading our society is spreading faster than the most agressive forms of cancer.
How insulting that this comes from yet another educational system supposedly dedicated to higher learning. A lot of wrong action going on here — and shameful, gutless behavior by its administrators. They sound suspiciously “un-American” to me!
Man there’s a lot of things you can’t do or be in The Land of Freedom! In fact, anyone who has sworn to defend the constitution should be marching on Washington right now.
Someone needs to hire a lawyer and sue the state of California for violation of their constitutional rights. IF the kids in public school cannot be forced to pledge alligance to the United States, then, maybe this oath is also unconstitutional? I have no problems with mandating an oath, but some exclusions or alternates need to be made for religious and free speech concerns. AND, if US citizens are required to sign, then non-citizens need to also sign an agreement, pledging to not work to destroy the state system in which they work. These individuals work for the state and are paid by the taxpayer and as such, should have some respect for those that provide them with opportunity.
Here’s a slightly diffenent twist to this issue that I just happened to be thinking about when this article appeared:
As a public servant (for a city planning department) I also had to take an oath to “defend” the U.S. and California constitutions “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
But here’s my dilemma; I truely believe that the current occupant of the White House has and is trying to destroy the U.S. Constitution (whether intentionally or not; or whether for security of oil) and therefore he - and several members of his group who have condoned torture, etc - ARE “domestic…enemies.”
So, how do I “defend” the U.S. Constitution?
Furthermore, as a decendent of one of the first signers of the Declaration of Independence, and the son of a man who was hit with a hand-granade on Iwo Jima in WWII - I feel very strongly about this oath!
Ha! There’s the argument! Sign the oath and file charges against the President to avoid being forsworn!
I had assumed this was a dead story. My father worked at UC Berkeley as a physicist in the 1950s and refused to sign the oath. I suppose his supervisors told the University that no one else was capable of keeping the aging cyclotron running because they didn’t fire him, but there was a vigorous investigation by the FBI with sometimes hilarious results. They turned up another couple in Sacramento with identical names as my parents who were registered members of the Communist Party, which must have sent them flapping and twirling, and when they asked my mother’s best friend if my parents were actually married, that troublemaker said “I don’t know, I’ve never seen a marriage certificate”. So my mother, having her own sense of humor, framed their marriage certificate and hung it in our dining room. The FBI went next door and wanted to talk with our neighbor, who actually despised us because of having moved up from West Berkeley (the wrong side of the tracks), but when they identified themselves, she said “I don’t talk to fascists!” and slammed the door in their faces.
I honestly didn’t know this loyalty oath crap was still going on. It feels like our freedom hangs by a thread.
kathyodat
Folks are only as loyal as their options, no matter how many oathes they sign or sing. Why not sign it with a smirk and keep the job? If all hell breaks loose later, who’s gonna recall that piece of paper in a dusty desk drawer somewhere? With something this petty, be the good German.
That said, the real problem here seems more like she decided to confront a bureacracy, rather than she decided to confront conscious, autocratic immoralities. Autocracies blow around like schizophrenic fog but bureaucracies are eternal …she didn’t stand a chance!
This may sound silly, but I would like to state here and now for the record - that I hereby place George W. Bush, and all members of the so-called “principals group” who condoned torture under “citizen’s arrest.”
Any law enforcement officials and/or lawyers who would like to assist in the arrest and prosecution of these “domestic…enemies” (and thereby live up to their oath)please report for duty below.
I no longer stand during the National Athem at sporting events. People look at me odd. Its also a good time for a bathroom break. I just can’t join in the lie anymore.
In the 60s at my State University we had to raise our hands as a group and take a loyalty oath. I raised my hand and said quietly “Twinkle, twinkle little star…”
Sounds to me like all the members of public service in CA are required by law to go to Washington and take matters into their own hands. All three branches of government in the United Sates are guilty of violating the constitution.
An oath of loyalty? To what? A country that tortures? For her to sell out and sign would mean just another lying American that can’t honestly face herself in the mirror. Yet another individual that has had their opportunity for truth and principal and blew it. You have a president that issues signing statements to the constitution in order to subvert the law and she is not allowed to make it clear that she is a conscientious objector. Bullshit. I hope she sues, I hope she wins and I hope all of the people who denounce her read about it here in the free press.
If by taking the oath one is required to “defend” the Constitution against all enemies foreign AND domestic then ALL those who have taken that oath are currently derelict in their duties.
If we are going to take this oath seriously then Bush and Company MUST be removed from office since they are in direct violation of the Constitution and pose the greatest threat to it’s viability.
So all those who sit in the Ivory towers and in the cubicles of bureaucracy, all public servants, all who have taken this oath to defend the Constitution, what are you waiting for????
When I went to work for a school district in CA in the early ’80s, I had to be fingerprinted, and take that loyalty oath before I could be hired. I never thought anything of it then. But I certainly would now.
rebelnow, I agree - and just placed GWB and his co-conspirators under “citizens arrest” (see post above).
All “oath” abiding law enforcement personel should now enforce my actions. Please let us know when you have taken the prisoner into custody.
I’m dead serious.
Wilmoor, I had to be fingerprinted as a teacher too, but I never had to sign a loyalty oath. That sounds like something from the Middle Ages.
What do they mean “defend the Constitution”? Does that mean unloading weapons into 3rd world people for the United States of Corporate America? Does it mean raping 3rd world women, killing their dogs, stealing their oil, and looting their archaeological treasures? I guess as a Hindu I couldn’t sign up for that either. If defending the Constitution means removing Bush from office, hammering the corporations back into place, and taking back the power of the people, I could sign up for that. Why do they have to know whether or not you are a loyal American? Why is that their job?
I’m with Turnoff. I’ll stand when the ‘pledge’ is recited as an homage to the founding principles of the country of my birth, but I will not recite or give allegiance to a colored cloth and the hypocrisy that it represents.
All of you are missing the glaring obviousness of this… she isn’t proclaiming an oath of loyalty to Bush Co. criminals… she is simply pledging to uphold the constitution.
All American’s should pledge to uphold the constitution.
-James
www.thepoliticus.org
There is a communist and a terrorist under every bed! Ask “Homeland Buffoonery” they will tell you its true. Remember the color charts for terrorism threats whatever happened to those? This is a country of frightened paranoid children it is an American tradition. Few people in the world care about Americans because they are anti social and anti human.
Well I certainly enjoyed reading all the statements about protecting rights . . . I do so hope that when the subject comes up again about the 2nd Amendment that you all chime in and protect that right also.
Here’s the contact info for the chancellor:
Charles B. Reed, Chancellor, C.S.U.
Office of the Chancellor
401 Golden Shore
Long Beach, CA 90802-4210
(562) 951-4000
His bio is here:
http://www.calstate.edu/administration/bios/system-officers/reed.shtml
His welcome page is here:
http://www.calstate.edu/Executive/
I phoned, but I didn’t get to speak with the schmuck–only with his secretary, Tony Mesa. I told him that they would eventually rehire the teacher, so they’d be better off doing so sooner rather than later. I told them that they could expect their phones to start ringing off the hooks. (Since the article appeared in the Los Angeles Times, maybe they’re already flooded with calls.)
We can’t let these jerks get away with this kind of thing.
jposty,
It doesn’t seem so “glaringly obvious” to me. I suppose Bush pledged to uphold the constitution, does that not make him guilty of perjury?
It does make him guilty of perjury.
This teacher not taking an oath of loyalty to the constitution, not congress, not American culture, not Bush, makes her anti-constitution. Nothing more.
-James
www.thepoliticus.org
No, it doesn’t make her anti-constitution. It means that she is anti-oath, as are all Christians. This comes from Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount (q.v.), in which He told His followers not to make any oaths:
“Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, ‘Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths.’ But I say unto you, Swear not at all: neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne; nor by the earth, for it is his footstool; neither by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by the head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, ‘Yea, yea’; Nay, nay’; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.”
The only oath Bush took was the Hypocritic Oath.
jposty wrote: This teacher not taking an oath of loyalty to the constitution, not congress, not American culture, not Bush, makes her anti-constitution. Nothing more.
We have been told by GWB that the Constitution is “just a goddamned piece of paper”. So the teacher doesn’t like to litter, whats the problem?
That they are both idiots… and in a sane nation of law the constitution is the highest rule of the land.
… and wise guy… that is why religion is for the feeble minded.
(note - do not misconstrue religion and belief in a god as synonymous)
What gang do you claim?
Some institutions just cannot stand the idea of freedom.
jposty
I know the difference between religion and belief in a god. I know that we were a lot better off when the Constitution was still in effect.
Are you saying that the U.S.A. is “a sane nation”? If so, I have a couple of very nice bridges for sale. I’m tired of repainting one, and I’m growing tired of the earthquake retrofit on the other. I’ll give you a good deal.
To sign an oath sets up a false dichotomy. Someone fearful of an ‘enemy’ seeks to be affirmed in that fear and demands that everyone fear as they do. It is a double bind because it implies that the interlocutor will abuse freedom and rights unless the asserted fear is subscribed to.
Where is the recognition that peace and reconciliation do not occur from the same perspective from which war is waged? To paraphrase Einstein - a problem cannot be solved from the same criteria from which it was generated.
California Gestapo mentality pretty much sums it up…Quakers & pacifists are to be feared…
Excellent points, old goat.
Isn’t it interesting the way “Loyalty Oaths” have taken the place of genuine loyalty?
“she isn’t proclaiming an oath of loyalty to Bush Co. criminals… she is simply pledging to uphold the constitution.”
Why, for crying out loud, should she “uphold and defend” (whatever that could mean) an old, document, seriously in need of replacement, that is arguably full of rules deliberately designed to keep black slave-and-land-owning rich white males in power.
The image that comes to mind is this woman brandishing an M-16 at anyone who comes too close to a tattered old piece of paper in a glass case.
And, what does upholding such a document have to do, in any way, with performing her job?
So, with thus argument for “upholding and defending” a piece of paper reduced to absurdity, we should ask what are we REALLY being asked to “uphold and defend”? I suggest consulting the wwritings of a certain George Orwell to answer this question. Also remember the purpose of this oath was to go after “Communists” - even though, last I read, the US Constitution, and it amendments have NOTHING to say about our current or proposed economic system.
GWB signed an oath and so did Cheney and Congress. None of them meant it. Obviously, this teacher takes promised and oaths seriously. Too bad, we don’t have more responsible people in charge of this country, like this teaccher. What a loss to the students!
Contrary to what some high-dudgeoners may have convinced themselves is the case, taking the so-called “loyalty oath” does not necessarily imply stupidity, docility, or a chuckle-headed refusal to get angry/alarmed at the patently absurd shenanigans of a benighted government. Those of us who have signed such silly things–obviously, I am one–may simply have needed or wanted a job that paid better and had a higher status than what McDonald’s or Wall-Mart offered. All the high-flown umbrage in the world will not pay the rent, folks.
I wouldn’t have signed the oath. I’ve taught at the college level, but I don’t teach now.
350 years ago no Quaker could go to an English college, because they all refused to sign loyalty oaths. The government knew this, and just to exclude Quakers they put loyalty oaths on going to college and on holding government offices. Most Quakers were also driven from their (confiscated) farms at the same time.
Strangely enough, the Society of Friends succeeded. They were driven into being merchants and then manufacturers. As manufacturers they believed fervently in helping all of humanity, so they plunged into research and development and invented better steel, the railroad, better banking, international trade companies, all sorts of useful innovations. It’s been written that the effect of Quakers on the Industrial Revolution cannot be overestimated. 100 years later, English colleges had to let the eminent Quaker scientists in.
dr_h,
Agreed. In order to avoid abject poverty, we are physically compelled to sign “Loyalty oaths”, and also pee into jars - sometimes with someone watching.
But never mind, everyone knows we are the most free people on earth - a shining example to the world!!!
Not like those socialistic Canucks, or ultra-socialist Europeans - who don’t sign loyalty to our leaders oaths and pee to in jars test for our off-job behavior our bosses don’t approve of.
As a child, I refused any oaths - they were too reminiscent of Nazi Germany (which the US now resembles in too many ways). And I refused to stand for that silly war-song as well. National Anthem my ass. Just a bunch of ‘good Germans’ - joining the Nazi (or Ba’ath) Party simply to secure a decent job. Then when decent people take over, it is difficult to separate the real criminals from those who just ‘went along’ to ‘get along’ - get a job, get ahead, or avoid persecution.
This is a vicious circle, and we should all be against any such oaths - for practical reasons. I owe my loyalty to my conscience and to my fellow man - no one and nothing else. Anyone who asks more of you has a sneaky plan up their sleeve - there is no reason for it, since liars have no problem ’swearing’ - as we now see - to anything and everything, without flinching.
Of course loyality oaths are still around they have been here since the conception of this great democracy. You remember from your high school history class that Ben Franklin wrote that democracy was “two wolfs and a lamb voting on what’s for dinner. Capitalist will never allow for a second or third lamb vote. Or in this case teach their children–the poor must remain poorly educated to produce cannon fadder for the military. Ah the beauty of American democarcy!
Thank you, Ms. Gonaver. Your act of conscience and personal sacrifice is the kind of teaching this country sorely needs.
The irony is that those who will really uphold the Constitution are the very ones who will likely refuse to sign such an odious oath. The jerks who are dismantling our freedom would have no problem signing this oath.
“You remember from your high school history class that Ben Franklin wrote that democracy was “two wolfs and a lamb voting on what’s for dinner.”
Ben Franklin never wrote that. In fact this saying only dates to the 1990’s.
What constitution, the one bush has stompt all over the one that supposed to protect us from our government,but instead protects the government,from us.People acting like god again,we’re living under a dictator,wake the fu-k up.
“Give everybody eat!” Major —— De Coverley
I believe the term is called, “Eternal Vigilance.” You have to sleep with one eye open with this crime-ridden administration. Yesterday was the start, thanks to the West Coast Longshoreman”s (and women’s) in protesting an end to American war crimes in Iraq and Afghanastan and a return to Constitutional Government with real oversight and the cherished “checks and balances” between the three branches of government. ALL of us most do our share in reversing the trend towards fascism and slavery. Time to step up to the plate, fellow citizens. Action speaks louder than words.
Boycotts, work stoppages, sick-outs, whatever it takes. Have some self-respect, for yourselves and posterity.
This great country belongs to We The People, not to a small group of gangsters. Otherwise, WW2 was a waste of lives, limbs, and ptsd, and our men and women suffered for nothing. That’s right! If we continue by doing nothing.
A truly eye-opening article on a very important issue.
I just would like to add, that pacifists are not the only ones being weeded out and that even “16 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union” the anti-Communist paranoia is still quite wide-spread in this country. How many of you know that till this day when one applies for the American citizenship one is asked if one has ever been a member of the Communist Party? And that answering “yes” can be grounds for denying one the citizenship? As improbable as it sounds, it really happens. It happened to me just last month: I applied for the American citizenship and was denied it because of my past affiliations with a Communist organization.
Quite frankly, I still find it difficult to comprehend. I did not delude myself about the proverbial American dream when I came to this country ten years ago, but I still believed that here was the place where one’s political and religious convictions were one’s own business and that one could never be persecuted or discriminated against because of one’s views (or at least that is how the American democracy is advertised around the world). Well, it appears that I was wrong. It appears that in the United States of America one’s political believes are only acceptable as long as their conform with the platforms of either of the two major American political parties.
A lawyer friend of mine tells me that the anti-communist clause was added to the Naturalization regulations back in the 1950s and that it would take an act of Congress to nullify it. Why won’t the Congress do it? Well, that is a really interesting question.
So in the manner of a modest proposal….if one signs that oath to defend the constitution…and one witnessed the harming of the constitution would we have to capture or kill the perpetrators in order to protect the constitution?
Silly oath; should be eradicated. And like real enemies wouldn’t be willing to take the oath and lie? Come on get real. The oath is there to squelch opinion, not to protect the US.
What’s next? Salem Witch trials? What the hell is going on here with this time warp? Communists? Still some under the bed ready to destroy the American Way of Life?
I just logged on. Thanks La Boca - Li’l bush & Co. are the biggest threats the US has ever seen towards our (and by our I mean We the People) constitution. I applaud Wendy Gonaver for what she’s done. She acted according to her morals. If everyone who disagrees with this corrupt administration would take a stand, I believe we would change direction and regain what America has lost. I wish you the best Wendy and don’t think you’ll have a problem securing another job.
I thought with the Jehovah’s Witness case “West Virginia vs. Barnette
jposty on May 2nd, 2008 at 1:52 pm wrote:
“[Ms. Gonaver} is simply pledging to uphold the constitution. All American’s should pledge to uphold the constitution.”
Could it be that Ms. Gonaver has come to the conclusion that your Constitution and amendments are not quite the shit-hot document so many of you seem to think (or have been brainwashed to believe) it is?
Wood_boot
Calgary, Canada
I thought I’d toss in my $0.02 about the Pledge of Allegiance.
I say the pledge when appropriate, and I even say “under God”, but I move that part to the very end. It even gives the whole thing a nicer flow… Follow with me for a second now.
I pledge allegiance, to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic, for which it stands,
one nation indivisible (no pause between nation and indivisible)
with libery and justice for all under God. (again, no pause between all and under)
I think it sounds nicer. As far as the State mandatory loyalty oaths, that’s just one more symptom of the fascism that will destroy this nation. It will go away with the bulk of the flotsam that we will soon be unable to enforce and support.
So why isn’t California firing all the military age eligible people that signed the oath and did not sign up for military service during this time of war (Iraq, Afghanistan, or so-called War on Terror)?
I thought that this was case law settled in 1943 by the Jehovahs Witnesses at the US Supreme Court it should have settled the matter. In “West virginia vs. Barnette (1943) during WWII while Hitler and Mussolini were still rampageing the globe, (the master terrorist in their day), the Jehovah’s witnesses won the above case that made it illegal to force their kids (or adults) to stand up or even to the further step of pledging allegiance to the US flag. They should take it to the federal level. Some lawyers are ignorant of this law.
So if I am reading this right, if you want to work for the state of CA’s university program all you have to do is take an oath and ,viola, you’re good to go. So, say for instance, you happen to be an attorney at the DOJ and some snarky, unelected, illegally appointed, criminal types ask you for an opinion justifying the torture of anybody they want to declare to be an ‘enemy combatant’ and you do that. You define torture as only occurring when the person you are doing it to suffers organ failure. You conspire to keep that opinion secret and further more you declare that the fourth amendment to the Constitution is invalid anytime the military is conducting domestic operations, (domestic operations?) You ,in fact, give the needed green light to the biggest criminal organization in American history to shred the Constitution of the United States and conduct all of it’s business in secrecy. Then after your work is done, you go to the University of California at Berkely, take your little oath to “protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foriegn and DOMESTIC” and you are allowed to teach and advise future lawyers being trained in that institution. Then, when the university is questioned about the wisdom of such an arrangement, particularly in light of the overwhelming evidence that the actions you’ve taken constitute, if not outright international war crimes, then certainly the aiding and abbetting of such crimes, the head of the law school declares you to be a fine and upstanding instructor with much to share with the student body. Then the State, with apparently a straight face, refuses to allow a real teacher and American citizen the right to work at it’s holy shrine of a university for refusing to take that same oath which has been shown worthless by the very institution in question. And we wonder what is wrong with higher education? And we wonder why the world fears America? Jesus, what next?
“loyalty oath swearing to “defend” the U.S. and California constitutions “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.””
All those who took such an oath should be in DC removing the enemy that is trampling on the constitution. They are obviously not taking their oath seriously. They being the enemy trampling on the constitution and those sworn to defend it.
She might consider renouncing her oath in advance, and see if that works for her.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kol_Nidre
This kind of Gestapo tactic is so easily solved. The legislature needs to pass an ammendment to the rule of loyalty oaths that allows addenda for any college or public school employee to state their philosophical, relligious, or other objection to such oaths. It also needs to specify that it will accept an affirmation (as is any American’s constitutional right–thanks largly to the efforts of colonial Quakers)in the place to an oath.
And, yeah, the ACLU needs to go to the Supreme Court on this one if necessary to pin back the ears of whichever administrative twits cause such grief for otherwise qualified employees.
It was only a few years ago–although it seems like another lifetime–when I was fond of saying to myself, “I could throw a good drunk and vomit up a better Constitution than the one that we have now”.
I thought of asking, “Who would deliberately take a long bicycle trip on a tire that had been patched 27 times (as the U.S. Constitution had been amended 27 times)? Isn’t it time for a new tire?”.
Now that the Constitution has been suspended–and not replaced by a superior one–I am reminded of the words of Mr. John Marshall, 4th Chief Justice of the United States: “The people make the Constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their own will, and lives only by their will.”
The U.S. Constitution HAS BEEN UNMADE, but not, I suspect, by the People, but rather by a group of neoconmen whose interest is to maintain and even increase the gap between the “haves” and the “have nots” (both within the borders of the U.S.A. and around the world). They have been able to do so because of a lack of will on the part of the People (within the U.S.A.–mainly the “have nots”). These neocon traitors have destroyed the balance of power, and they have done so most cleverly, in that it now seems impossible to restore that balance by Constitutional means. It appears that, given a de facto two-party system, in which the opposition party refuses to obey the Constitution and impeach, convict, and remove from office the executive branch usurpers, the People are powerless.
We The People are not powerless. We are the possessors of all of the power. It is up to us to exercise our collective will and restore the rule of Constitutional law. When we accomplish that task, we may choose to amend the Constitution of 1787-88 or create another Constitution. Until then we will continue to be ruled by thugs.
Once we’re thru with the Muslims, we gonna take on the Quakers!!
I thought this stuff was gone 50 years ago. How about selective enforcement? I cannot see how such a system can function with rules of this nature unless they are ordinarily ignored. Liars take oathes.
Here’s a question - does a believer in God owe allegience to God or to a man made constitution? Is it one and the same?
Answer
It is not the same. Only a person who puts his allegience to God first can see the true situation when the President violates the Constitution.
All others see the President as the embodiment of the Constitution and does what ever he says, even when it is unconstitutional.
What I am saying only makes sence when we realise that the Constitution is meant to be our protection against the abuse of power by the President and the Federal Government, nothing else. It is supposed to be a chain around their neck, not ours. When we swear by the Constitution and not God, the chain is put around our neck.
We are forced to do what the President decides is constitutional in terms of his interpretation (or misinterpretation), rather that what the framers of the Constitution had intended the Constitution to mean (and its limitations on power to the President and the Federal Government).
See the difference?
Quote: “She lost the job because she did not sign a loyalty oath swearing to “defend” the U.S. and California constitutions “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.””
She could take the oath and continue as she’s been doing, for it’s defending the Constitution even if it’s not her specific purpose; it may be consequential, by defending human rights, she is against war and therefore in accord with both the U.S. Constitution and international laws. She is being patriotic, even if it is unwitting.
When I enlisted in the USN in 1976, it was not for committing crimes; definitely not. And I was aware of what resulted with the Vietnam War, followed by Pres. Ford pardoning Nixon and bringing Cheney and Rumsfeld on board for their first time; although, I did not know about those two criminals until 2000.
The two articles linked in my following post are fitting to reflect upon in her and similar cases. She’s being persecuted and the perpetrators are getting away with this as far as the govts are concerned. She was passionate about the topic of the Constitution, and that’s good and important be. It was great that she cared to place focus on this in class, something I suppose most teachers do not and would not do.
There’s been a lot of persecution over the past eight years; much by Zionists, like AIPAC, against what they claim to be anti-semite university and college professors, and other anti-war and pro-justice activists.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/02/8663/#comment-267789
Note further, the only people who have to pledge to defend the Constitution are those who take public office, not the rest of us.
Why?
Because defending the Constitution is not in our power, but theirs. Our duty is to see that they do their job, and if not, vote them out of office. That is all the power we have.
It makes no sense asking ordinary citizens to take such a pledge.
In this issue of CD: teacher threatened for not signing oath; radio broadcaster fired for criticizing Monsanto; critic of Dow Chemical forced to resign. The goal is a completely docile, quiet and unthinking population. Be difficult!
jposty writes: “What is her problem?…She probably deserved to be fired.”
She deserved to be fired for doing what exactly? For raping a student? For assaulting a fellow colleague?
She deserved to be hired, not fired. This should be about whether she is a good teacher. A person’s private life and personal beliefs are none of the institution’s business.
America lives in a constant state of irrational fear. When was the last time a country blanket bombed America? When was the last time a foreign power orchestrated a coup?
To say America is dysfunctional doesn’t do it justice.
If America were a person, it would have been carted off to a psychiatric ward long ago.
It’s just a “goddamned piece of paper”. Ask GWB - he’ll tell you!
This oath is a holdover from the mass hysteria that gripped our nation in the early 50’s. The great ‘Red Scare’ of those days was likened to the great ‘Salem Witch hunts’ of yesteryear. It’s also similar to the great ‘9/11 Neocon Scare’ of 2001. Of seeing Arab terrorists behind every bush while they ignore the anti-government militia’s that roam in the west doing what they feel like doing! When I say the pledge of allegiance I do not use the language that became law in the 50’s. I still say ‘one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all’. Because that is the way I was taught to say it in the early 50’s and I don’t believe we are ‘under God’! So when it’s said I say the former version. The way I look at it! We have traitors in the White House who freely took this oath to ‘defend and protect the Constitution of the United States’! It was clear at the time those words meant literally nothing to George W Bush or Dick Cheney either one! Because they have done everything humanly possible to destroy the United States Constitution! Or at least rewrite it to suit their own corrupt agenda. So what earthly good does such nonsense do???????
How bizarre this country has become. By signing the oath and taking it seriously one would be required to ask the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court to resign to fulfill the requirements of the oath. Oh well, where do I sign? When that oath was cooked up the understanding must have been that the government by default is the defender of the Constitution. Not any more. Now only then people defend that document. Save all signers in California the trouble members of the Federal government. Resign now in order to save the Constitution that you have trampled on.
Our family moved to Canada last year. We could not bear what was being done in our name. We wanted a better future for our children.
My great aunts and uncles were blacklisted in the 50’s. My parents were fired from teaching positions for their public opposition to the Vietnam war in the 60’s. In the wake of the 9-11 attacks, I was afraid to speak out. My tires were slashed from the “Attack Iraq No!” bumper sticker on my car. I was tired of a cultural climate of fear, where political discourse is considered unsavory, and dissent is punished.
In Canada, children do not have to say a pledge at school. (Although my immigrant children reported being taunted at recess with the name “Bush-lover”.) The influence of the religious right is minimal. It is a relief the be away from the oppressive right wing media dominated social climate, though we miss friends,family, and the land we came from. It is ironic, though, that the “land of the free” has so many individuals and institutions who are willing to enforce conformity at such a cost. Socially and culturally, Canada is in many ways an incrementally kinder, gentler place.
My first impulse in reading Wendy Gonaver’s story was to tell her that it isn’t like that everywhere. It takes a lot of courage to risk being fired, marginalized, and labelled, and to stand up against the power of the state. Canada has its own challenges, but it does not feel as socially and politically oppressive as the United States.
I spill over with gratitude when I read stories like these. Stories where people fight with love, in powerful, courageous ways for a sane, human country. She seized an opportunity to say- this isn’t the land of free after all, it is the land of those required to sign oaths if they want to make a living. Instead, Wendy chose to live for a living, live in her truth, her real knowing heart, soul and mind. Now, injected into the public dialogue is the question Michael Moore so simply put in ‘Sicko,’…who are we? The more people like Wendy fight their battles wherever they can and however they can, the more WE CAN create a real culture of peace. The vision seems so distant under mainstream media’s daily banners, but so close when you read about people like Wendy. Every day, in every way, may we draw on eachother’s courage and strength and keep fighting, guided by our love.
Maybe I am a dinosaur, but I actually think the US Constitution, with its Amendments, is a fantastic document which should be preserved. I took an oath to defend it in 1958, and by so doing obviated my dual citizenship with Canada [my father was carrying a green card when I was born]. When I taught, briefly, at Cal State San Bern/o, we had to sign that oath. I was under the impression that our teachers union had taken care of that back then. I am opposed to any and all oaths, and I know that they are underscoring the strong movement toward fascism that permeates my country. I can relate to the comments above about how much less social ostracism exists in Canada. I live very close to the border, and a trip up there underscores that point every time, especially since the trip back is thru a border controlled by the Homeland Goons of GWB. I applaud Ms. Gonaver, and all others who stand up to the machine. We must all do it, every chance we get. And yes, we will pay a cost for it. Standing for freedom is always expensive for the person standing up. That just means you gotta do it.
This oath, and the many like it, seem so Sovietesque don’t they :). God has become an instrument of convenience and the best example of this is the Pledge of Allegiance (how quaint) and mentioning God on money (how ridiculous).
Geeezzzzuuusss! Is it 1984?
California has always been a White-Ultra Conservative State.
Calif. State University system has been “offing” faculty right and left, due to budget cuts, thanks to Der Gübernator. At the rate it’s going, I will not be surprised if CSU ceased to exist in a decade.
aw in CO said, “Then the State, with apparently a straight face, refuses to allow a real teacher and American citizen the right to work at it’s holy shrine of a university for refusing to take that same oath which has been shown worthless by the very institution in question.”
Just to clarify, the state of CA, has a dual University system, the UC system and the Cal State system. This is fairly common and exists in many states, although I on’t know about CO. They are separate systems so your comment about You, (Yoo), turns out not to be the “very institution in question.” As Yoo is at UC and Ms.Gonaver is in the Cal State U system. The rest of the comments about Yoo are right on target,
I think that Ms. Gonaver has a right to stand up for what she believes in and a right not to sign any sort of oath if she’s opposed on a philosophical level. Loyalty oaths are rather disturbing if one stops to think about them.
Also, I’m intrigued by the other Canadians posting here who somehow think that Canada can be absolved of guilt when it comes to our government’s behaviour. I mean, admittedly, we aren’t suffering the same sort of problems that our friends south of the border are with BushCo but Mr. Harper is still a threat and there are plenty of reasons why Canadians shouldn’t claim the moral high ground. There are lots of examples of the Canadian government trampling people’s rights, lots of examples of professors teaching ideas outside of the mainstream being persecuted and the longer Mr. Harper and his Conservative buddies stick around, the closer we get to a bad situation. We’re in danger of becoming America-lite and losing the socialized state we live in now.
This has to be the most backward thing I’ve ever heard. Don’t these governments realize they need good thinking people who would actually care about something like this oath? Our priorities are seriously out of wack.
Richard Nixon was a Quaker.
I do not think that anyone should be required to claim that they will defend the Constitution against “enemies”. Lets recall that many Americans who fought against the British in the Revolutionary War would later oppose the passage of the Constitution. Individuals who oppose the Constitution have been around throughout the entire history of the country. To discriminate against them in hiring is, obviously, not very democratic.
Why should teachers have to defend the constitution when the Presient of the US doesn’t….its “just a goddamned piece of paper”
State Religion is the issue. And that is why Rev. Wright is being attacked - beyond his affiliation with Obama. And of course, all major politicians are required to pledge themselves to a state religion. How crude and backward! No wonder we put incompetents and swindlers in power.
Richard Nixon was a Quacker (as in doubleplusgood duckspeak).
There’s a difference between Quakers and Quackers.
How about extending the oath to include all attitudes and behavior, like: I will defend my president’s rights to torture prisoners, to start wars, to ignore laws; and I will be loyal to whatever I am told by the government, especially to defend against–by violent action if necessary– any perceived threat to our government, including those by persons given to apparantly innocent acts or remarks, like voting for the wrong candidate, or expressing a view counter to the government’s. (Should also include the word “god” somewhere.) Let’s make it so real that anyone who refuses to sign thereby assets him/her self as ENEMY.
How ironic! A law added to help prevent the infiltration of communist into our system, does not apply to non-citizens.
How totally bizarre!
On Friday I posted to this discussion the contact information for Charles Reed, the chancellor of the C.S.U. system. It has been called to my attention that it would probably be better to complain to the president of C.S.U. Fullerton:
Dr. Milton A. Gordon, President
California State University, Fullerton
P.O. Box 34080
Fullerton, CA 92834-9480
(714) 278-2011
I don’t yet have an e-mail address for Dr. Gordon or anyone at the university.
Here is the link to Dr. Gordon’s welcome page:
http://www.fullerton.edu/president/index.htm
Here is Dr. Gordon’s bio:
http://www.fullerton.edu/president/biography.htm
Since the pacifist, Quaker teacher who was fired from the Hayward campus in February was rehired the first week of March after the president of that University received loads of complaints, I believe it may be effective for everyone in this discussion who believes that Ms. Gonaver got a raw deal to call or write Dr. Gordon. I doubt that anyone in the C.S.U. system reads these CommonDreams comments. We need to make their phone ring off the hook. I am doing my best to spread the word to like-minded friends.
Actually, by refusing to sign the coercive and nebulously-worded document, Ms. Gonaver was, in effect, defending the Constitution against two of it’s most sinister enemies: religious persecution and government itself. She is a first-class patrtiot, standing up for her and our rights using nothing more than good old-fashioned civil disobedience. The same goes for anybody who refuses to say the pledge of allegiance with it’s, “One Nation under God,” clause, which was added during the Red Scare, too.
So the Cal State system is against signing statements. I think that’s great! Well, no actually I think that’s shortsighted and contradictory, in ways that have been pointed out several times in the discussion. But as long as they have such a policy let’s all write and call the chancellor and president at the addresses and numbers above—several times, all day and night if that’s what it takes—and insist that if they’re going to stand by that policy they make official statements for Cal State condemning the use of signing statements by the president-select of the US* and demanding retraction of all such statements made so far, and repeal of all laws not supporting and defending the Constitution, on pain of instant dismissal, aka impeachment. Then how ‘bout if we all call Speaker Pelosi’s office and our own US Representatives and insist that they sign on to Rep. Wexler’s bill and then vote for impeachment of both George Bush and Dick Cheney? Seem like a plan?
And while we’re at it maybe we could tell them to stop being such petty martinets and get off the backs of honest, thoughtful committed citizens who want to teach students to be the same. Hire her back and pay restitution.
*(since he’s a role model for such troublemakers as Ms. Gonaver (well, not so much a model as a horrible example))