Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Teacher fired for refusing to sign loyalty oath
Los Angeles Times ^ | May 2, 2008 | Richard C. Paddock

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: communismkills; communistgoals; idoctrination; littleredschoolhouse; nakedcommunist; wendygonaver

1 posted on 05/02/2008 11:46:41 AM PDT by EnigmaticAnomaly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: EnigmaticAnomaly

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.


2 posted on 05/02/2008 11:51:06 AM PDT by ontap (Just another backstabbing conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EnigmaticAnomaly
"...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."

BS.

3 posted on 05/02/2008 11:51:10 AM PDT by TommyDale (I) (Never forget the Republicans who voted for illegal immigrant amnesty in 2007!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EnigmaticAnomaly
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.

I'd say she's out of luck.

4 posted on 05/02/2008 11:52:33 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Et si omnes ego non)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale

How many people in Communifornia took the oath and lied?


5 posted on 05/02/2008 11:52:39 AM PDT by rocksblues (Folks we are in trouble, "Mark Levin" 03/26/08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: EnigmaticAnomaly

Not Guilty

And California having a loyalty pledge? That’s a little hard to believe.

I’d hire her to help me remember American history.


6 posted on 05/02/2008 11:53:47 AM PDT by wastedyears (The US Military is what goes Bump in the night.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EnigmaticAnomaly

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.


7 posted on 05/02/2008 11:53:55 AM PDT by Ouderkirk (Hillary = Senator Incitatus, Clintigula's whore...er, horse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EnigmaticAnomaly
Everyone:

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.

8 posted on 05/02/2008 11:53:56 AM PDT by thefrankbaum (Ad maiorem Dei gloriam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears
Not Guilty

? How can you say that without seeing her picture?

9 posted on 05/02/2008 12:00:25 PM PDT by fella (Is he al-taquiya or is he murtadd? Only his iman knows for sure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: thefrankbaum

Defending oneself is always non-violence.


10 posted on 05/02/2008 12:02:44 PM PDT by Notwithstanding ("You are either with America in our time of need or you are not" - Hillary from Senate well 9/12/01)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: EnigmaticAnomaly
They will lose if they take her to court. What if I was to make my employees take an oath that will never vote for a Democrat? Would that stand up in court?
11 posted on 05/02/2008 12:02:49 PM PDT by rwlawrence
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thefrankbaum
Some accommodation should have been made . We have Quakers , Jehovah's Witnesses , and many others whose beliefs conflict with swearing oaths and pledges . The fact we have a long history of such accommodations makes me wonder .
12 posted on 05/02/2008 12:07:56 PM PDT by kbennkc (For those who have fought for it , freedom has a flavor the protected will never know)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: EnigmaticAnomaly

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.


13 posted on 05/02/2008 12:09:26 PM PDT by doodad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fella

I saw it, I don’t think she’s ugly.


14 posted on 05/02/2008 12:09:36 PM PDT by wastedyears (The US Military is what goes Bump in the night.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: EnigmaticAnomaly

Let her get a real job in the real world then and stop hiding behind the taxpayers’ money.


15 posted on 05/02/2008 12:13:59 PM PDT by A_Former_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale

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.


16 posted on 05/02/2008 12:14:24 PM PDT by weegee (Vote Obama 2008 for a bitter America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: EnigmaticAnomaly

I hope she cleans them out. This is a genuine case of religious discrimination.


17 posted on 05/02/2008 12:14:26 PM PDT by Melas (Offending stupid people since 1963)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EnigmaticAnomaly
The U.S. Military oath is...

“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.

18 posted on 05/02/2008 12:15:01 PM PDT by allmendream (Life begins at the moment of contraception. ;))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EnigmaticAnomaly
The existence of such oaths is pathetically stupid & accomplishes absolutely zero in making is safer.

But as long as it makes the sheep feel better....

19 posted on 05/02/2008 12:15:17 PM PDT by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thefrankbaum
Where in the California oath does it say that she would be called on to use VIOLENT means?

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."

20 posted on 05/02/2008 12:17:51 PM PDT by weegee (Vote Obama 2008 for a bitter America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: rocksblues
How many people in Communifornia took the oath and lied?

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.

21 posted on 05/02/2008 12:18:26 PM PDT by Aquinasfan (When you find "Sola Scriptura" in the Bible, let me know)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: gdani

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 >


22 posted on 05/02/2008 12:20:45 PM PDT by weegee (Vote Obama 2008 for a bitter America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Melas

Religious discrimination is prohibited. It is perfectly legal to discriminate on the basis of someone’s political ideology.


23 posted on 05/02/2008 12:22:21 PM PDT by weegee (Vote Obama 2008 for a bitter America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: weegee
Yeah, there is no domestic threat anymore. < /sarcasm >

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.

24 posted on 05/02/2008 12:23:59 PM PDT by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan

Why I’m sure these professors would all be happy to fight. Of course, it would be for the other side!


25 posted on 05/02/2008 12:24:49 PM PDT by Oldpuppymax (AGENDA OF THE LEFT EXPOSED)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: EnigmaticAnomaly
"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."

LOL!


26 posted on 05/02/2008 12:26:19 PM PDT by familyop (No-vote)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale

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,”


27 posted on 05/02/2008 12:30:16 PM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: EnigmaticAnomaly
The loyalty oath was added to the state Constitution by voters in 1952 to root out communists in public jobs.

Fat lot of good that did!

28 posted on 05/02/2008 12:31:25 PM PDT by Clock King (The Oligarchy will make slaves of us all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rocksblues; All
I'm not even sure what the issue is here.

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?

29 posted on 05/02/2008 12:36:06 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
What am I overlooking?

Vowing to protect the US.

30 posted on 05/02/2008 12:40:43 PM PDT by rocksblues (Folks we are in trouble, "Mark Levin" 03/26/08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: EnigmaticAnomaly

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!


31 posted on 05/02/2008 12:48:53 PM PDT by SFC Chromey (We are at war with Islamofascists inside and outside our borders, now ACT LIKE IT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thefrankbaum
Other California agencies allow their employees with religious objections to add such addendums - she should be given the same consideration.

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.

32 posted on 05/02/2008 12:52:01 PM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall cause you to vote against the Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: rocksblues; All
Vowing to protect the US.

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.

33 posted on 05/02/2008 12:57:01 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: thefrankbaum

Quakers are the biggest libs around.


34 posted on 05/02/2008 1:05:40 PM PDT by Scarpetta (e pluribus victim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
I took this oath.

There is no statement to attach.

Either you will defend America and or California or you refuse to!

35 posted on 05/02/2008 1:12:11 PM PDT by rocksblues (Folks we are in trouble, "Mark Levin" 03/26/08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: weegee

Her objections to the oath are religious, so reasonable accommodations should be made.


36 posted on 05/02/2008 1:19:24 PM PDT by Melas (Offending stupid people since 1963)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears
And California having a loyalty pledge? That’s a little hard to believe.

By the way things are going in Sacramento, I doubt if any of our California legislators have signed it.

37 posted on 05/02/2008 1:27:47 PM PDT by Inyo-Mono (If you don't want people to get your goat, don't tell them where it's tied.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: EnigmaticAnomaly
Whose definition of them? I don't mind defending the U.S. Constitution according to its original intent. My problem is with the hip and progressive interpretations handed down by the activist judges.

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.

38 posted on 05/02/2008 1:38:17 PM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding

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.


39 posted on 05/02/2008 1:43:26 PM PDT by thefrankbaum (Ad maiorem Dei gloriam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: weegee

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.


40 posted on 05/02/2008 1:44:55 PM PDT by thefrankbaum (Ad maiorem Dei gloriam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Scarpetta

Yeah, they are big libs, but I’m not gonna force them to disavow their religious beliefs.


41 posted on 05/02/2008 1:46:18 PM PDT by thefrankbaum (Ad maiorem Dei gloriam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: EnigmaticAnomaly

She’s a pacifist. She will walk through if someone else opens the door.


42 posted on 05/02/2008 2:20:23 PM PDT by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears

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.


43 posted on 05/02/2008 5:00:30 PM PDT by festus (Fred Thompson '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: weegee

Can we have B. Hussein sign this?


44 posted on 05/02/2008 7:25:07 PM PDT by proudtobeanamerican1 (Media -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: EnigmaticAnomaly; weegee; wagglebee; Congressman Billybob; FormerACLUmember; neverdem; ...

“one of her favorite themes: protecting constitutional freedoms.”


Could be said of every ACLU lawyer too. NOT a commentary on their IQ—but Quakers, Wiccans and others are often “Useful Idiots” for making Test Cases for the ACLU.

A Communist Goal is to abolish loyalty oaths and this is a camel-nose under the tent.


45 posted on 05/02/2008 11:03:35 PM PDT by The Spirit Of Allegiance (Public Employees: Honor Your Oaths! Defend the Constitution from Enemies--Foreign and Domestic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jay777

^


46 posted on 05/02/2008 11:04:48 PM PDT by The Spirit Of Allegiance (Public Employees: Honor Your Oaths! Defend the Constitution from Enemies--Foreign and Domestic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: fella

The pose is a bit much. The eyes are 'lost in space'. She was probably high at the time the pic was taken.

verdict: GUILTY

47 posted on 05/19/2008 1:17:20 PM PDT by redstates4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: EnigmaticAnomaly
Shouldn't a 'Constitutional Scholar' have known about this?

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)

48 posted on 05/19/2008 1:20:56 PM PDT by LonePalm (Commander and Chef)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson