Skip to comments.Quaker teacher fired for changing loyalty oath
Posted on 02/29/2008 8:06:30 AM PST by SmithL
California State University East Bay has fired a math teacher after six weeks on the job because she inserted the word "nonviolently" in her state-required Oath of Allegiance form.
Marianne Kearney-Brown, a Quaker and graduate student who began teaching remedial math to undergrads Jan. 7, lost her $700-a-month part-time job after refusing to sign an 87-word Oath of Allegiance to the Constitution that the state requires of elected officials and public employees.
"I don't think it was fair at all," . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
I didn’t think Quakers took oaths at all . . . or is that Amish?
Who said life was fair?
She crossed out “oath” or whatever and put in “affirm.” Makes sense to me now.
it is fair... if she’s allowed to change the oath, others will need to be allowed to change the oath... she could defend the Constitution non-violently without spelling it out... the oath did not spell out that she must defend the Constitution by any means necessary... she just wants to make a statement, or point... unnecessarily... that’s my opinion...
I’m shocked. California requires it’s state employees to sign an Oath of Allegiance form?
I think both parties are being ridiculous about this oath. But isn't it odd that the article states the woman isn't currently qualified to do the job she was fired from? Maybe the school didn't want her teaching until she had her degree and found this as a loophole.
Life ain't fair, kid, so get a helmet.
Correct. Goes back to the Red Scare. There was a famous Sociologist (Blumer) who left Berkeley for the U of Chicago in the 1950s, because he refused to take the oath.
Yeah, but not to worry.
It gets overturned by the Ninth Circuit Court.
Quakers "affirm" rather than "swear" an oath because "swearing" would invoke God into a civil matter, as I understand it.
So, if they take part in communist/anti-American rallies, can they be fired?
“87-word Oath of Allegiance to the Constitution that the state requires of elected officials and public employees. “
Strange. I wouldn’t sign it either.
“Quakers “affirm” rather than “swear” an oath because “swearing” would invoke God into a civil matter, as I understand it.”
They get it from Matthew where Jesus says “Let your yes be your yes”
Maybe she took someone’s Quaker Oats
Such empty promises are just silly. The most traitorous and treacherous have no problem in lying on their oaths. Most likely, it just catches well-intentioned fools.
I remember one cagey individual whose employer not only gave him endless and underhanded “employment agreements”, of the lowest order, designed to cheat their employees, but foolishly countersigned them after demanding his signature.
Invariably, when presented with such forms, he claimed to have forgotten his reading glasses, and requested to take the form home and later return it.
He would then return a modified duplicate of the form with his signature on it, which they would countersign and then file, providing him with a copy which he very carefully preserved.
When they finally attempted to fire him, a few years before retirement, in hopes of cheating him out of it, they were truly shocked to discover the lavish early retirement and/or discharge benefits that they had years before promised to provide him, repeatedly.
His lawyer was prepared. The company first pretended to have lost all his paperwork, before being shown all copies with their signatures on it. Then they gave him everything his phony forms had promised, on condition he drop the lawsuit.
Not Blumer. Accordung to wikipedia he had previously been teaching at Chicago before heading the Sociology department at Berkley from 1952 to the 80s
Quakers have been around longer than california and founded Philadelphia. They should be given some consideration. My direct Quaker ancestor who was a sheriff, opted out of militia duty during the War of 1812 by paying $5 a month but was known to hang horse thieves without trial.
I thought it was Blumer. Thanks for the correction.
Well it is a condition of employment, but I fully support her decision to give up her job rather than agree to something that his counter to her faith.
I was out of work awhile and would’ve still refused to work on certain (mosque building) construction projects if
the opportunity presented itself. I also would refuse to work on a planned non-parenthood building project.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.