Skip to comments.Teacher fired for refusing to sign loyalty oath
Posted on 05/02/2008 11:46:40 AM PDT by EnigmaticAnomaly
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 from the California Constitution
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
If you want the job you have to follow the rules. We are not allowed to pick and chose the rules we follow and the ones we don’t. I see no difference in this and people who chose to speed.
I'd say she's out of luck.
How many people in Communifornia took the oath and lied?
And California having a loyalty pledge? That’s a little hard to believe.
I’d hire her to help me remember American history.
To root out Communists.
Uh-huh....the universities are full of them.
Sign it and get to work, or don’t sign it and get lost.
Please read the article before you post. She is a Quaker, and the University would not allow her to add an addendum to the oath clarifying her statement to solely include non-violent methods - she takes the oath seriously, and won't simply just sign her name. Other California agencies allow their employees with religious objections to add such addendums - she should be given the same consideration.
? How can you say that without seeing her picture?
Defending oneself is always non-violence.
As a college student here in GA I had to sign a similar oath to work part time in the labs. It also included a line that I swore I was not a member of the John Birch Society. LOL.
I saw it, I don’t think she’s ugly.
Let her get a real job in the real world then and stop hiding behind the taxpayers’ money.
There is a Democrat in the California Legislature who trying to get the ban on Communists in California schools lifted. Somehow I’d guess that these two stories are united.
I hope she cleans them out. This is a genuine case of religious discrimination.
“I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” (and you can leave off the God).
I don't see why California can not let her affirm her oath or say that she will only protect and defend ‘intellectually’ and not ‘by means of violence’ by way of addendum.
Seems that otherwise they will lose a qualified, religious and ideological candidate.
But as long as it makes the sheep feel better....
That is only in the INS loyalty oath for citizenship:
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God. In acknowledgement whereof I have hereunto affixed my signature."
A lot of professors must have lied. I guess the good of the oath is that violating it would constitute grounds for firing. But that won't happen, with the commies running the asylum.
It establishes procedural crime. Not just “intent to commit crime”. Association with seditious groups, like Communists, is considered a threat to the stability of our nation.
There is little effort made to sniff out Communists, but it can be sufficient grounds for termination with this oath.
The USSR may be gone but global socialists are as united as ever.
The Communists just held May Day illegal immigration rallies in the US.
Yeah, there is no domestic threat anymore. < /sarcasm >
Religious discrimination is prohibited. It is perfectly legal to discriminate on the basis of someone’s political ideology.
There is a domestic threat. However, requiring someone to sign a piece of paper does nothing whatsoever to combat such threats.
The threats will/would continue no matter what stupid piece of paper or oath one is made to sign.
Why I’m sure these professors would all be happy to fight. Of course, it would be for the other side!
California SB 1322:
“the bill would also strike the law that prohibits a teacher giving instruction in a school or on public school property from teaching communism with the intent to indoctrinate or to inculcate in the mind of any pupil a preference for communism,”
Fat lot of good that did!
I will say that given the recent California home schooling controversy, my conclusion being that California's home schooling codes are poorly written, I don't blame the person in question for not wanting to commit to upholding other poorly written statutes in that state's constitution. And on top of that, you've got California judges who interpret that state's constitution any way they feel like anyway.
Same problems with the federal Constitution.
Still, this seems to be a non-issue issue; a purely emotional reaction to not wanting to sign a pledge.
What am I overlooking?
Vowing to protect the US.
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.... oh AND Communists!
If it is true that the state allows exceptions in other state agencies, then I think she has a case. Otherwise, I'd say she should just look for a job elsewhere.
Although you may be correct, the problem is that the article provided no specifics. I wish that the article would at least have provided the statement that she wanted to attach to the pledge. But lack of details is why I am inclined to think that the person's decision not to sign the pledge was emotional.
Quakers are the biggest libs around.
There is no statement to attach.
Either you will defend America and or California or you refuse to!
Her objections to the oath are religious, so reasonable accommodations should be made.
By the way things are going in Sacramento, I doubt if any of our California legislators have signed it.
These days I'm surprised anyone would object, given the diverse interpretations floating around of any constitution. In an educational environment in particular, just take the document and put it through the deconstruct and reconstruct modes until you are channeling whatever you want in the shadows of the document. It is way square to be a stickler. Just redefine and then confirm it. I thought schools were way past worrying about the actual details of intent in constitutions. Make it what you want it to be and then promise loyalty to your own creation. It is so 19th century to refuse allegiance to a document that can so easily progress into anything a liberal mind can dream it to be.
Not according to some people - I think it is, but I’ve got no real qualms with Quakers and if they are sincerely pacifists, then I don’t think she should be excluded.
It doesn’t specifically say violent means, but if I said I will defend you against all enemies, most people would assume that includes violence in defense. If she is sincerely a Quaker and a pacifist, she should be allowed to clarify her statement.
Yeah, they are big libs, but I’m not gonna force them to disavow their religious beliefs.
She’s a pacifist. She will walk through if someone else opens the door.
If California has a loyalty pledge then I’m going to side with the woman here. It would be impossible to support both Kalifornia and the US since they are on opposite sides of everything.
Can we have B. Hussein sign this?
“one of her favorite themes: protecting constitutional freedoms.”
A Communist Goal is to abolish loyalty oaths and this is a camel-nose under the tent.
The pose is a bit much. The eyes are 'lost in space'. She was probably high at the time the pic was taken.
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
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.