A Cal State East Bay math teacher and practicing Quaker who was fired for refusing to sign a state-required loyalty oath got her job back this week, with an apology from the university and a clarification that the oath does not require employees to take up arms in violation of their religious beliefs....
In a grievance hearing Thursday conducted in a telephone conference call, an attorney for the California State University chancellor's office presented Kearney-Brown with a statement saying in part, "Signing the oath does not carry with it any obligation or requirement that public employees bear arms or otherwise engage in violence."
With that statement stapled to the loyalty oath, and a promise by the university to present the clarifying language to other new employees, Kearney-Brown said Friday that she felt comfortable signing the form and returning to work.
For more on this story, see our earlier post.
Related Posts (on one page):
- College Teacher Fired Over Loyalty Oath:
- "Pacifist Cal State Teacher Gets Job Back":
- "Quaker Teacher Fired for Changing Loyalty Oath":
Seems like it's time to retire the loyalty oath.
So what's the difference now?
Other than, you know, she go a lot of publicity for her stunt?
The original news story said she was allowed to include a note in her personnel file but not attach the note to the oath itself. These are different.
I realize that you may not see them as different, but modifying the oath, or attaching a document directly to the note is not precisely the same as including an entirely separate document in a file folder.
For her, these were, evidently differences.
In addition, having a representative state specifically state, in writing, that the language does not mean what it seems to say in normal spoken English, and informing her of this fact also can make a tangible difference if one feels one cannot affirm a falsehood for religious reasons.
Religion is funny like that. A person can think some point is very, very important. Outsiders can thing it's the tiniest nit living on the top of another gnit. And yet, to the religious, this nit of a nit matters.
So, the difference was the staple? The staple? Really?
language does not mean what it seems to say in normal spoken English
There is no language that seems to say that violence is required to fulfill the affirmation. That was a pure inference on her part.
Her option, then, was to falsely swear the oath and then sign this other piece of paper saying that she didn't really intend to obey the oath she swore? I mean, I know Bush does it all the time, but some people really do take their word and their signature seriously...
I actually would buy this. To use an analogy from the legal field - a separate note would be like legislative history bearing on the interpretation of the oath, or parole evidence bearing on a written contract.
Whether the staple is just a nit of a nit, however, is irrelevant. The new deal has a much greater compromise from the University: "a promise by the university to present the clarifying language to other new employees." Thus, even if you dont think the staple changes anything in the case of the individual teacher, this teacher can now safely sign having made the oath safe for all candidates of her religion (i.e. not just a note in her file).
"... but I will be happy to allow others to take up arms on my behalf."
She, and all other pacifists, need to read this essay by Steven den Beste: http://denbeste.nu/essays/pacifism.shtml
Now where are they going to get the conscripts for the Cal State East Bay army?
Seriously, a sensible solution. But government ever being sensible? Go figure.
The Constitution only requires an oath or affirmation "to support this Constitution. . . ." It says nothing about "defend." Do you know when that was added? Also, are math teachers really an "executive officer[]" of a state?
Here's the key language from Article VI:
There's no reason for loyalty oaths for ordinary state employees. A terrorist would happily sign such an oath anyway, since it's merely to a secular authority.
Ditto applying for Christmas help at the post office.
Long time ago. Maybe things have changed.
I'm quite sure you no longer have to swear an oath to get a passport. If this did not used to be the case, I wonder when it changed.
And no reasonable person would ever read "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" to mean "unless the religion wants to use some drug we don't want them to use".
And no reasonable person would ever read "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" to mean "this is an inkblot".
And ... I don't need to go on here. No reasonable person could fail to understand what I'm talking about -- except those that do.
Here are the acts and conditions you swear to in your passport application.
(If any of the below-mentioned acts or conditions have been performed by or apply to the applicant, the portion
which applies should be lined out, and a supplementary explanatory statement under oath (or affirmation) by the
applicant should be attached and made a part of this application.) I have not, since acquiring United States
citizenship, been naturalized as a citizen of a foreign state; taken an oath or made an affirmation or other formal
declaration of allegiance to a foreign state; entered or served in the armed forces of a foreign state; accepted or
performed the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or political
subdivision thereof; made a formal renunciation of nationality either in the United States, or before a diplomatic or
consular officer of the United States in a foreign state; or been convicted by a court or court martial of competent
jurisdiction of committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms
against, the United States, or conspiring to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force, the Government of the
United States.
The kind of terrorist that's most often invoked these days when the government is trying to make us feel scared. You're right that there are other terrorists who wouldn't care about a religious oath either, but they're a minor factor in the US.
I was told it was optional. But, out of habit, I straightened up and swore. Didn't get me in as much trouble as an earlier one.
Well, these guys don't seem all that happy about letting others take up arms on their behalf. Neither do these folks.
And, in front of the Berkely Marine recruiting office, Medea Benjamin had a potentially violent confrontation with a passerby. She, naturally, screamed for help from the Marines.
It isn't necessary to showcase hypocrisy like this. We all know all about it.
Were the folks you mention in any sort of real threat, they'd save their scruples for after the dust settled. As if that's not clear.
BTW, can anyone explain the difference between "swear" and "affirm"?
Jeez, lady, get a grip.
As per the American Heritage Dictionary:
Swear: 1. To make a solemn declaration, invoking a deity or a sacred person or thing, in confirmation of and witness to the honesty or truth of such a declaration.
Affirm: 1. To declare positively or firmly; maintain to be true.
From what I understand Quakers don't believe it's right to take a vow, etc in the name of G-d, which is why they won't swear on something.