Teacher fired for refusing to sign loyalty oath

Los Angeles Times ^ | May 2, 2008 | Richard C. Paddock

[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.

[ontap]

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.

[TommyDale]

"...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.

[ClearCase_guy]

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.

[rocksblues]

How many people in Communifornia took the oath and lied?

[wastedyears]

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.

[Ouderkirk]

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.

[thefrankbaum]

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.

[fella]

Not Guilty

? How can you say that without seeing her picture?

[Notwithstanding]

Defending oneself is always non-violence.

[rwlawrence]

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?

[kbennkc]

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 .

[doodad]

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.

[wastedyears]

I saw it, I don’t think she’s ugly.

[A_Former_Democrat]

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

[weegee]

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.

[Melas]

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

[allmendream]

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.

[gdani]

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....

[weegee]

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."