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.
Defending oneself is always non-violence.
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."
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.
Quakers are the biggest libs around.