Quaker Teacher Fired for Changing Loyalty Oath

[Stone Island]

From the San Francisco Chronicle (Nanette Asimov, Chronicle Staff Writer Friday, February 29, 2008):

California State University East Bay has fired a math teacher after six weeks on the job because she inserted the word "nonviolently" in her state-required Oath of Allegiance form.


Marianne Kearney-Brown, a Quaker and graduate student who began teaching remedial math to undergrads Jan. 7, lost her $700-a-month part-time job after refusing to sign an 87-word Oath of Allegiance to the Constitution that the state requires of elected officials and public employees.

Full Story at San Francisco Chronicle.

The Volokh Conspiracy's take.

 

[kerikiwi]

Do people who want to force an oath on others really think it has any meaning at all?
Like a god, it is a concept I have a great deal of trouble grasping.

 

[winnietheblue]

Aren't loyalty oaths a bit McCarthyish? Does anyone know if other states also require people to sign them?

 

[Ziggurat]

Aren't loyalty oaths a bit McCarthyish?

Not really. Shouldn't government employees be loyal to the constitution? If you're not willing to be loyal to the constitution, shouldn't you find employment from someone other than government?

As for the argument made in one of the links that adding the word "nonviolently" doesn't change the meaning substantially, there's two problems:
1) if it doesn't change the meaning substantially, why did she require it? I don't see how the oath as is constitutes a promise to commit violence under any circumstance.
2) making a test for whether or not an individual's personal modifications qualify as substantial or not is asking for trouble, because someone's going to try it with substantial changes.
If Californians feel like this law is wrong, then scrap it completely. Allowing alterations to the oath seems like a back-door attempt to do the same thing, but without having to get the public at large to agree.

 

[kerikiwi]

Shouldn't government employees be loyal to the constitution? If you're not willing to be loyal to the constitution, shouldn't you find employment from someone other than government?

Yes they should, but will people who choose not to be loyal to the constitution have any qualms about breaking an oath?

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes they should, but will people who choose not to be loyal to the constitution have any qualms about breaking an oath?

Sure, but that goes to the question of whether or not to have the oath at all, not the question of whether or not to allow exceptions for individuals to tailor their oaths as they see fit. And the value of the oath isn't only in whether or not the people who take it really feel bound. I think there is value in ritual which establishes expected values and behaviors. A civilization not willing to even state its values firmly will not be able to hold onto them.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Given a choice between a Quaker teacher who sticks to her beliefs and a teacher who mindlessly signs whatever she is told to sign, I'll take the Quaker every time.

 

[69dodge]

As for the argument made in one of the links that adding the word "nonviolently" doesn't change the meaning substantially, there's two problems:
1) if it doesn't change the meaning substantially, why did she require it? I don't see how the oath as is constitutes a promise to commit violence under any circumstance.

I don't follow your argument.

You seem to be claiming simultaneously that the original oath does and does not ask her to commit violence.

She just wanted to make it clear that she wasn't willing to commit violence. If the oath doesn't even ask her to, great, no harm done. If it does, that's why she wanted to change it.

She's 50. She has taught for a long time. She has signed the same oath more than once before, always with her changes. No one minded until now.

 

[Ziggurat]

You seem to be claiming simultaneously that the original oath does and does not ask her to commit violence.

Not so. I'm saying the original oath doesn't specify the form of defense she commits herself to, and so she is free to choose nonviolent defense.

She just wanted to make it clear that she wasn't willing to commit violence. If the oath doesn't even ask her to, great, no harm done.

Not so. The harm is in setting a precedent that the oath is negotiable in any form. Such an allowance is fundamentally dishonest. Either the oath should not be negotiable, or it should not be in place at all. And even if you think her changes are not substantive, it is foolish to think that allowing them will not pave the way for changes that are substantive. This is the camel's nose in the tent.

 

[OneShotKi11]

Not so. I'm saying the original oath doesn't specify the form of defense she commits herself to, and so she is free to choose nonviolent defense.



Not so. The harm is in setting a precedent that the oath is negotiable in any form. Such an allowance is fundamentally dishonest. Either the oath should not be negotiable, or it should not be in place at all. And even if you think her changes are not substantive, it is foolish to think that allowing them will not pave the way for changes that are substantive. This is the camel's nose in the tent.

Thus being the reason she wanted it to be known that she would defend it non-violently.

It just stated the word "Defend" which by definition has several meanings. One of which happens to involve violence, and she wanted to assure everyone knew that she wasnt going to abide by that part of the definition.

Whats wrong with that??

 

[davefoc]

I tend to agree with Ziggurat's view on this generally. I like the idea of play by the rules as written and if there are problems with the rules the legislature should change them.

But in this specific case, and maybe I'm letting the fact that I've voted for Democrats in the last few elections addle my brain, I am not so sure.

Suppose that an individual has a religious objection to the oath. Is a law that bars state employment of an individual on religious grounds constitutional?

Clearly, if a person's religious beliefs prevented him from doing a necessary element of the job, the state is not required to hire that individual. But if the law requires something unrelated to the job that unnecessarily prevents an individual of a particular religion from being eligible for that job, the law itself might be found unconstitutional, I suspect.

So a few questions:
1. Is the state law requiring this oath constitutional based on current supreme court rulings?

2. Are the current supreme court rulings with respect to this kind of law correct in your opinion?

3. Was the decision to require such a completely explicit interpretation of the law correct if the law itself was not unconstitutional?

4. Regardless of the constitutional issues is this law as explicitly interpreted here a good law?

The only one of the above issues that I am not ambivalent or uncertain of is item 4. The law seems wrong and should be changed to allow an individual to insert the word non-violent if they want to. It would be nice to think that the state legislature could break away from picking the state insect or some such stuff to actually address something like this on an emergency basis, but I guess that's not going to happen in my life.

 

[Ziggurat]

Suppose that an individual has a religious objection to the oath. Is a law that bars state employment of an individual on religious grounds constitutional?

But it's not on religious grounds - the state doesn't care about her religious beliefs, and did not consider them.

Clearly, if a person's religious beliefs prevented him from doing a necessary element of the job, the state is not required to hire that individual.

Indeed. And the state has decided that one of the required functions of employees is to be ready to defend the constitution, and to declare such readiness in an oath. You can argue that this shouldn't be a required part of the job, but it is, and will be until the law changes.

 

[davefoc]

Indeed. And the state has decided that one of the required functions of employees is to be ready to defend the constitution, and to declare such readiness in an oath.

For the purposes of this discussion I accept this notion, although I doubt that the lawmakers really intended this law to bar an individual from state employment as a teacher that wanted to limit herself to nonviolent defense of the state and national constitutions especially for religious reasons. They probably didn't think much about what defend the constitution meant.

You can argue that this shouldn't be a required part of the job, but it is, and will be until the law changes.

Your sentence just restates what appears to be the situation without addressing the issue of whether it is the situation. My uninformed guess is that the state law would be judged unconstitutional because it would be determined that the law unnecessarily discriminates against a particular religion. No part of a teacher's job requires a violent defense of the constitution. On the other hand I would expect the courts to sustain the state law as written for policemen.

I am ambivalent as to whether the courts should intrude in this particular case to reverse the decision. I see arguments for and against the action. But I do think the legislature should revisit the issue quickly and amend the law so that the woman could get her job back.

 

[Kopji]

I fail to see the virtue of the law when it is used this way. It steps beyond being a traditional affirmation of meaningful individual values in favor of a rigid state dogma.

The religious aspect for a Quaker is a basic aversion to taking oaths:

Matt 5:33
“Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, ‘YOU SHALL NOT MAKE FALSE VOWS, BUT SHALL FULFILL YOUR VOWS TO THE LORD.’ 34 “But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is THE CITY OF THE GREAT KING. 36 “Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 “But let your statement be, ‘Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no’; anything beyond these is of evil.

 

[latent aaaack]

When the oath was made it was illegal for women to violently support and defend the constitution. Women are still barred from the vast majority of forms of military engagement in the US even today and aren't drafted.

What a great example of spinelss, thoughtless beareaucratic henchmen capable of performing any insane task because they see it as an authoritative order.

 

[Ziggurat]

For the purposes of this discussion I accept this notion, although I doubt that the lawmakers really intended this law to bar an individual from state employment as a teacher that wanted to limit herself to nonviolent defense of the state and national constitutions especially for religious reasons. They probably didn't think much about what defend the constitution meant.

Laws frequently have unintended consequences. The solution is to rewrite those laws, not simply ignore them whenever they are inconvenient.

My uninformed guess is that the state law would be judged unconstitutional because it would be determined that the law unnecessarily discriminates against a particular religion.

I don't think so. Laws against polygamy aren't considered to unnecessarily discriminate against Islam or early versions of Mormonism. The law itself does not deal with religion at all, so the bar on whether or not it's discriminatory has to be higher than just what her personal feelings on the matter are. You cannot simply claim religious exemption from whatever law you want, that's not the way the system works. And that's pretty much the only argument she's got.

No part of a teacher's job requires a violent defense of the constitution.

And no part of the oath as written requires violence.

I am ambivalent as to whether the courts should intrude in this particular case to reverse the decision.

They should most definitely not.

But I do think the legislature should revisit the issue quickly and amend the law so that the woman could get her job back.

I've got no problem with that.

 

[Complexity]

I would not sign the oath and regard the requirement to sign the oath in order to be employed an abomination.

 

[casebro]

I wonder what the back story is here?

If the principal wanted to keep her on, nobody would have raised the issue. Seems like a convenient way to dump a poor teacher. You know how hard it is to fire a civil servant?

But then, the school hired her, with that contract. Is it OK to fire her after she was employed for almost two months, because the school unilaterally considers the contract void?

Hey, has anyone ever been fired for violating that oath?

 

[Sunni Man]

Not really. Shouldn't government employees be loyal to the constitution? If you're not willing to be loyal to the constitution, shouldn't you find employment from someone other than government?

The Constitution and the government are not the same thing.

In fact the Constitution is about limiting the powers of the government.

 

[Ziggurat]

In fact the Constitution is about limiting the powers of the government.

All the more reason to have government employees' loyalty to the constitution be above their loyalty to the government.