The ACLU should be all over this one. And that's a good thing.

I'm from a religion that is very similar to Quakers (enough that we share the same meeting halls and sometimes it is easier to tell someone I'm Quaker than to explain that they were an offshoot and at this point it is more or less just a different name for the same thing).

But yes -- the employee was right. We are not forced to swear to anything. In court, we are not even allow to swear on a bible. We can affirm that we will tell the truth, but not on God or the bible...and this has been upheld for a LONG time. I should know this, but I don't know if Nixon was sworn in as President on a Bible or not as he was a Quaker (we don't judge....errr...try not to :-)

Anyhoo...WTF is up with Loyalty Oaths? Are we turning into a nation of brownshirts? Can't it be that we are trusted to do a good job and meritoriously judged accordingly? I wouldn't sign an eff'n loyalty oath for ANY employer...I had one try to get me to sign a morality agreement and I told them if my morality affected my job, come see me and we can work out the arrangements of my departure then.

Eff'n idiots is what they are.

Why the hell should any state employee be required to sign a loyalty oath?

@ #3 Iain Coleman: As a prelude to the RFID tracking pellet inserted rectally, of course. Schwarzenegger Uber Alles.

Now, the question is whether this is actually a state-mandated practice or just the university being spooky bastards, and whether the teacher attempted first to negotiate the terms of the pledge before simply altering it. If the university regards the pledge as a legally-binding contract, she ought to have consulted a lawyer before blithely writing in her preferred terminology, no matter how innocuous the change was. On the other hand, if the university just wants to see how high they can make their faculty jump, fuck 'em.

I worked for the federal gov't several years before 9/11 and everybody had to sign a loyalty oath. Was it the CIA? Nope. FBI? Nuh uh. The Library of Congress. I thought it was insane, but nobody but me even blinked.

This reminds me of a similar incident at Humboldt State University (also a Cal. State University school) in 1996.

A Methodist pastor and university lecturer was removed from his job when he objected to the requirement that he have "true faith and allegiance" to America. He saw "faith" as a religious term he could only reserve for God.

http://www.northcoastjournal.com/JUNE96/6_96_CVR.HTM#anchor437916

HOLD ON A SECOND. Nixon was a quaker? ??!!

It looks like the president's office number is 510-885-3877 (according to the phone list here: http://webapps.csueastbay.edu/public/staffdir/CSUEB_Phone_List.doc). Give a call and let them know what you think. Boing Boing effect over the phone.

I think we can all agree that no one is ever truly "forced" to sign a contract, and that the sensible thing in this situation would have been for her to negotiate the contract rather than just modify it and sign it. Then again, if she has been modifying and signing this same contract this same way over and over and no one ever gave her a hard time about it, it might be reasonable for her to assume that her employer agreed with her modification. If her assumption was incorrect, I don't see why her employer did not just invite her to renegotiate the contract, rather than fire her, assuming that they ideally wanted her to work for them.

Now, as a humanist, I am all for the separation of church and state. However, when one's religious practices get in the way of performing a job, I think it's ok for the employer to make the applicant choose between those religious practices and the job. You are free to believe you should not do X Y and Z, and I am free to not hire you for a job that requires one to do X Y or Z. That's not "discrimination", it's choosing the most capable applicant. This should not impact a Quaker applying to be a teacher, but it should impact a Quaker applying to be a security guard, nightclub bouncer, rugby player, law enforcement officer, soldier, etc.

And if some law or requirement or something dictates that all employees have to sign this agreement with no room whatsoever even for insubstantial changes, then that may sound crappy, but it's arguably the most cost-effective way for an organization to ensure a standard of quality. Negotiations can be expensive. Are they worth it? It's up to the employer to decide. Unlike many people (e.g. Cory) I do not think people have an inalienable right to negotiate all the contracts they are offered (e.g. by software companies, websites, media distributors, etc). I can see how sometimes it's reasonable for an organization to say "Here's the contract, take it or leave it, lawyers are too expensive for me to pay mine to sit down with yours to negotiate this". A negotiable contract is like one of those features that would be really expensive to develop but that only a handful of users would even notice.

Maybe she should have pulled a Bush and added a signing statement.

Airshowfan:

Her religious practices did not get in the way of her performing her job. They got in the way of her signing a loyalty oath that should not be required in any civilised country.

You're all for cost-effectiveness. Wouldn't it be even more cost-effective not to bother with this oath-signing business at all? Think of the saving in paper alone.

And this is why I give money to the ACLU. The University is going to get screwed for this, since it is very obviously in the WRONG. How nice that a place of higher learning is exhibiting the kind of blind dogma that a good ol'religious institution might. That good Friend needs to make one phone call and the case will be taken.

I had to swear to defend the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, etc., when I joined the US Navy, but I wouldn't expect a college teacher to have to do the same.

So does this mean that all Cal State University instructors are accountable to take up arms against any aggressors? What if another school shooting happens- will teachers be fired if they do not react accordingly and try to subdue an aggressor with a machine gun?

WTF is up with Loyalty Oaths? Are we turning into a nation of brownshirts?

Yes, there is a conscious, deliberate push to turn the US into a authoritarian state. We are on the brink as it is and have been in a constitutional crisis for some time.

You are free to believe you should not do X Y and Z, and I am free to not hire you for a job that requires one to do X Y or Z.

You would think so wouldn't you? Laws have been changed recently so that is no longer the case. Due to the horrible discrimination that certain Christians feel they suffer from, laws have been passed that restrict the employers in this area.

I do not think people have an inalienable right to negotiate all the contracts they are offered

Then you should been prepared to accept your enslavement because that is the natural end that belief will get you to. You may believe that you will always have the ability to pick and choose, that only reflects your narrow experience. Most working people do not have that ability. Allowing corporations, especially public institutions, to act as they please with no checks to their behavior is a sure path to a corporate dictatorship.

Capitalism =\= Democracy

Here's the director of HR. I noted in the story that she's the one who deemed it unacceptable and moved it up to counsel.

joanne.hill@csueastbay.edu
(510) 885-2264

The most effective way to target a University is to threaten to contact large donors and make this situation known to them. Also, since this seems to be a regional university you might want to also mention you'll be contacting local churches to let them know that the Uni does not support religious freedom. After Donors, enrollment is the most important thing most care about.

If you're going to contact anyone, be polite! Being an asshat will only make whoever you're dealing with less likely to change their mind. Find the absolutely politest way in your own words to call them an inhuman jerk without actually saying it.

Yes, there is a conscious, deliberate push to turn the US into a authoritarian state. We are on the brink as it is and have been in a constitutional crisis for some time.

I doubt these loyalty oaths are particularly new.  Chances are, the requirement dates back to McCarthyism, if not earlier.

Note: I'm not endorsing the agreements, just saying I'm not surprised by them and doubt they're new.

You have two choices. Sign this meaningless piece of paper (because of course, if you were a subversive traitor intent on destroying all that is good about the State of Oklahoma or USA or whatever, you would NEVER sign it) and have no repercussions, or don't sign it and not get the job.

The sane answer is to sign it incorrectly. In other words, misspell your name, or put an incorrect middle initial, or something like that. Don't draw attention to it, just do it wrong. Then if there is some ridiculous repercussion later, you're safe. It's obviously NOT your signature. It's not your fault they didn't check it.

This is how I deal with it.

The US seems to have had a fascination with loyalty oaths for many years; Joseph Heller captured the many ridiculous aspects of them in Catch-22 (apologies for the length, but it's pure gold):

Almost overnight the Glorious Loyalty Oath Crusade was in full flower, and Captain Black was enraptured to discover himself spearheading it. He had really hit on something. All the enlisted men and officers on combat duty had to sign a loyalty oath to get their map cases from the intelligence tent, a second loyalty oath to receive their flak suits and parachutes from the parachute tent, a third loyalty oath for Lieutenant Balkington, the motor vehicle officer, to be allowed to ride from the squadron to the airfield in one of the trucks. Every time they turned around there was another loyalty oath to be signed. They signed a loyalty oath to get their pay from the finance officer, to obtain their PX supplies, to have their hair cut by the Italian barbers. To Captain Black, every officer who supported his Glorious Loyalty Oath Crusade was a competitor, and he planned and plotted twenty-four hours a day to keep one step ahead. He would stand second to none in his devotion to country. When other officers had followed his urging and introduced loyalty oaths of their own, he went them one better by making every son of a bitch who came to his intelligence tent sign two loyalty oaths, then three, then four; then he introduced the pledge of allegiance, and after that "The Star-Spangled Banner," one chorus, two choruses, three choruses, four choruses. Each time Captain Black forged ahead of his competitors, he swung upon them scornfully for their failure to follow his example. Each time they followed his example, he retreated with concern and racked his brain for some new stratagem that would enable him to turn upon them scornfully again.

Without realizing how it had come about, the combat men in the squadron discovered themselves dominated by the administrators appointed to serve them. They were bullied, insulted, harassed and shoved about all day long by one after the other. When they voiced objection, Captain Black replied that people who were loyal would not mind signing all the loyalty oaths they had to. To anyone who questioned the effectiveness of the loyalty oaths, he replied that people who really did owe allegiance to their country would be proud to pledge it as often as he forced them to. And to anyone who questioned the morality, he replied that "The Star-Spangled Banner" was the greatest piece of music ever composed. The more loyalty oaths a person signed, the more loyal he was; to Captain Black it was as simple as that, and he had Corporal Kolodny sign hundreds with his name each day so that he could always prove he was more loyal than anyone else.

"The important thing is to keep them pledging," he explained to his cohorts. "It doesn't matter whether they mean it or not. That's why they make little kids pledge allegiance even before they know what 'pledge' and 'allegiance' means."

The particularly breath-taking part of this is that the requirement is not just a regulation, or a law -- it's actually part of the state constitution. It's section 3 of Article 20:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_20

Can't trump the US Constitution, but someone has to go to American federal court to get it knocked down, it would seem.

I am tired of lawyers who ignore the spirit of the law in favour of the letter-that-keeps-their-workload-down-yet-violates-the-rights-of-others.

There can be no religious test for governmental office. All verbally-administered oaths are now available in a manner that accommodates and preserves the religious values of the person taking the oath.

That university's lawyer made a decision based on what should be a question of law, which to my understanding is the exclusive purview of the judiciary - and violated a Constitutional law in the process.

That university's lawyer - undoubtedly having signed said oath themselves - has violated it, as well as their professional ethics and duty to the public good. /That lawyer/ should be fired, disbarred, and fined 120% of their yearly salary. For incompetence.

I hope she wins the case; I've signed that oath a few times to tutor at my local community college and cringed at the wording every time I do.

WTF? It's so deliciously pagan, this business, like the primal horde turning on someone who refused to worship their fetish.

In what way are loyalty oaths legally binding? I mean, you wouldnt actually have to defend the country against all enemies domestic and foreign would you? Because that seems like a lot more work then most people would be willing to do. At least on a teacher's salery. I would want expenses, at least.

Anyway, the section of the law requiring a loyalty oath is clearly illegal as taking it requires violation of federal constitutionally protected rights. But technically the university is right, as the law as it stands does not allow the oath changed.

Interestingly, no one cared when the first Bush illegally changed the presidential oath of office by adding 'so help me gd'. The constitution is very clear: in order to be president you have to say the oath exactly. So the first bush was never president, if anyone cares. Look it up.

#16 Dayv
Thanks for that. Not that it changes my feelings on the matter much.

#18 Michael Davies

The US seems to have had a fascination with loyalty oaths for many years

Don't know if that is how I would put it. I would say that there are always forces within society that are pushing in the direction towards authoritarianism. Just as there are other forces pushing in several other directions. Loyalty oaths aren't about loyalty, they are about dominance and submission.

The problem as I see it is that US society taken as a whole doesn't see the dangers these kinds of things pose. They have a very shallow and superficial understanding what it means to be a citizen. The way that a society comes to truly understand this down to it's core is by going through a period of dictatorship. Ask almost any German if they don't see with blinding clarity exactly where the US is headed right now. Most Americans on the other hand simply do not see that at all.

...I wonder if they make sure all of the present Professors and Adjuncts uphold that promise while teaching, given the large, diverse group of teachers that they have...
/just a thought...

I do not think people have an inalienable right to negotiate all the contracts they are offered (e.g. by software companies, websites, media distributors, etc).

Are you saying you think people don't have an inalienable right to say to someone offering a contract, "I don't like all the terms here. I'd like to amend this contract." May I write to Microsoft and ask them if I can have a license exception? May I write to Boing Boing and ask for some kind of special redistribution terms? It sounds like you're saying that people don't have an inalienable right to make a counter-offer, something which is pretty standard in business transactions.

I suspect you're trying to say that a company should have a right to turn down the counter-offer, but it's not clear from what you've written.

as #19 pointed out this is part of state law. It has been around a long time and is required of all state employees. I remember having to sign it when I was a TA and RA at UCLA back in the early nineties.

I generally added a signing statement along the lines of "Signed only as a condition of employment." I figured that was the moral equivalent of crossing my fingers.

I work for the DOI, had to sign a loyalty oath, and gotta say that I feel pretty good about it.

I'm not a spy or an officer or anything like that, but in my job it would be very easy for someone to ask me to break a law, regulation or rule. It would be difficult to ask me to do something unconstitional, but definitely there are smaller laws I'm responsible for upholding.

I take the "defending the Constitution" part of my oath quite seriously, but in reality mostly take it to mean that I won't enable people to do illegal stuff on my watch.

I equate it with being a mandated reporter for child abuse. Now, whether this particular job should have had this oath at all is definitely not clear, and it really is insane to ask people to sign something they don't intend to support.

What's the big deal? Just cross your fingers when you take the oath, and it's void. That's the classic oath loophole.

I ran into this as a prospective grad-student researcher at the University of Michigan, last september 11th, as it turned out. I initially declined to sign (I'm Canadian. Why do I have pledge to the US Constitution to do research in a university?). With considerable help from the university ombudsperson we eventually established that the requirement for the signing does indeed date back to McCarthy, and is now buried so deeply in the core operating guidelines of the university that there is no getting out of it under any circumstances. I blogged the whole deal here:

hughstimson.org/2006/09/13/succumbing-to-the-constitution-on-sept-11/

Funnily enough, back when I was working at UC Davis, I asked them if I could not sign because I wasn't American and they said "okay".

Well, it's a catch-22 of sorts, but I guess I at least understand why they got so upset with her over it-- what if a white-supremacist modified it to suit his own beliefs? (Like: "defend the US against the Zionist conspiracy" or something). She maybe should have OKed the changes (which I totally agree with, by the way) because otherwise she's opened a big can of worms where anyone can make their own loyalty oath. Of course, on the other hand loyalty oaths are BS anyway. I'm sure any would-be terrorist would have no problem signing any loyalty oath they gave him/her, knowing s/he would be strapping a bomb to his/her chest shortly anyway.

I think the answer as regards #30 was posted above: the changes made remained in the spirit of the law, even by a narrow definition, whereas adding "defend the US against the Zionist conspiracy" would not. The oath says against all enemies, not just Zionists, not that I'm saying Zionists are enemies. A court could find her alteration legal w/o declaring the oath unconstitutional, which would only be right, but also a massive pain. There is a pretty sizable difference between her addenda, which in the article the state attorney general seems to support, and the addenda in the case the uni lawyer cited, which was "I luv u Jesus" or something similar, since she doesn't seem to alter the intention of the oath in whole or part. The article itself seems to show the counsel to be a bit off, on the basis of a] the addenda being almost certainly legal and b] nobody would have noticed/cared anyway. I doubt the cops spend a lot of time looking through old loyalty oaths to make sure everyone did it correctly.

I sort of want to go on JSTOR and find precedents, because they almost certainly exist, but if you don't already know, I'm far far too lazy for that.

I had to sign the oath when I started at the University of California in 1981. It is non-negotiable. Since I was in the above ground arm of the Weather Underground at the time, I guess that I was being a little insincere. The oath has been around forever and has nothing to do with the current move toward totalitarianism. California has long led the nation in little fascist annoyances like requiring every adult to have an state issued ID card or license.

I'm all for taking principled stands, but I'm not all that supportive of principled stands that have no meaning. The state constitution isn't going to be changed while the SCOTUS is controlled by the current goon squad (which may be for decades).

Far, far easier to just cross her fingers or to ask her god for forgiveness for a moment of weakness. Sign the damn piece of paper and forget about it. She isn't going to get fired for refusing to shoot commies and hippies on sight if the time comes. It's a meaningless oath, and by amending it and refusing to sign the original, she is ascribing meaning to the document that it didn't have.

It's obvious she is really a Quaker because truthfulness is very high on their list. This prevented her from

" #17 posted by JamesMason , March 3, 2008 9:26 AM

You have two choices. Sign this meaningless piece of paper (because of course, if you were a subversive traitor intent on destroying all that is good about the State of Oklahoma or USA or whatever, you would NEVER sign it) and have no repercussions, or don't sign it and not get the job.

The sane answer is to sign it incorrectly. In other words, misspell your name, or put an incorrect middle initial, or something like that. Don't draw attention to it, just do it wrong. Then if there is some ridiculous repercussion later, you're safe. It's obviously NOT your signature. It's not your fault they didn't check it.

This is how I deal with it. "

because basically that is the same as telling a lie.
They also will not take an oath in court, main reason being that many people take the oath and lie anyway. Taking that oath is meaningless if you intend to lie. Their concept is that because truthfulness is so high on their list, they do not intend to lie and the oath is basically taking the Lord's word and name in vain.

I can see all of the difference this is already making now.

"um, guys sorry...... can't make it to the meeting to overthrow our bourgeois capitalist masters tonight."

"Why not comrade?"

"well, I got a new job today, and I had to sign this paper called a Loyalty Oath, so I can't talk to you anymore..."

LMAO

"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part."

Welcome to the future; we're glad you made it.

They should add an amendment to this oath mandating that employees wear a flag pin at all times.

Apparently, this is a crucial matter, according to the Republicans.

State mandated flair.

Sign the oath. Carry on with your life as you see fit. Do no more or less evil or good that you would anyway. If they drag you to war, bide your time and then shoot your officer in the back of the head when the chance arises.

I used to be very religious, and was not only a pacifist, but refused to take oaths - just affirmations - and got some strange looks at places like the Texas DMV. Now I'm not religious, so oaths and violence are not against my principles.

But I have a broad view of "defending" the Constitution, mostly via nonviolent means like exercising my rights and supporting others in exercising theirs, even if I disagree with them.

So even if I were still pacifist and unwilling to swear oaths, I would have signed the paper as-is, maybe underlining affirmation or doing the note-in-a-file the school suggested.

But this is a matter of conscience and conviction, and while I would not have done what Ms. Kearney-Brown did, I will defend to the death her right to do it.

Some people still take their word seriously. I think it has something to do with character and integrity. Remember?

Where were all these sworn defenders of the Constitution when we needed them?

Apparently, this particular oath is already just hollow words.

Being able to be truthful is frequently an aspect of privilege. She could get another job. Someone who needed that job to eat would have to decide between integrity and food. It's not always easy.

It is deliciously ironic that forcing someone to sign an oath to defend the Constitution is in itself unconstitutional.

You Americans are a source of endless amusement with your pledges and oaths.

Except where ethically required, (like in the military or for a high government office,) requiring a loyalty oath is an act of cowardice.

If you fear, that the BS that the “other side” is putting out, can't be countered by the well-told true light of your own beliefs; and that fear is so strong that the only reaction you can muster is a loyalty oath - then your actions are those of a coward.

Truly loyal Americans have no need for such oaths, because we don't model our characters, or our lives, on the examples of cowards!

life in China during the Cultural Revolution - under the Red Guard.

I'm thinking that the original contract was a proposal. And that the altered contract was her counter proposal. The university seems to have rejected her proposition outright rather than remain in the negotiation. As a new student to this school, I am very disappointed in this reaction.

The discussion on this issue highlights the basic idiocy of asking employees to sign a loyalty oath. Those who think about it and consider what they are able to sign up to are MORE likely to live by what they signed, than those who simply sign it as a formality and go through one of those rituals, like crossing their fingers, spelling their name wrong, or simply not feeling that putting your name or your oath means anything at all.

It has always seemed to be a nonsensical idea that someone who is able to square their conscience with murdering or raping another human being, might then show some fastidiousness about signing a loyalty oath or lying to a court. Obviously, if you don't have a conscience about killing, you're unlikely to have a conscience about anything else.

I'd like to know what is this loyalty oath ~*for*? Is it meaningful? Why is it required? Would University employees actually be made to make good their oaths? If not, what is the purpose to making them sign up to it? Why can't the law which requires this be revoked as meaningless?

Allowing your employees to sign oaths which are meaningless and which they do not intend to fulfil, damages the morality of the organisation and the people. And yes, I am a Quaker too.

I'd like to know what is this loyalty oath ~*for*?

It's for these guys.