The good prevails
Mar. 10th, 2008 10:03 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumThe story I was talking about last week, where the teacher was fired for standing by her principles... she's been re-instated.
In a grievance hearing Thursday conducted in a telephone conference call, an attorney for the California State University chancellor's office presented Kearney-Brown with a statement saying in part, "Signing the oath does not carry with it any obligation or requirement that public employees bear arms or otherwise engage in violence."
Which is what I, who don't have a law degree, managed to find out in about five minutes. My tax dollars at work.
More interesting (because I didn't find it, so it was new) was the clarification (we'll ignore the excuse they made, "we were acting in good faith"; since the whole thing was only resolved because she filed a grievance. I suspect the cause ceèbre aspects helped to make the resolution more swift. I certainly think the up-front admission of error, and apology, is only because of that public outcry) is the case they found from 1946.
The article doesn't cite it (how hard would that have been?) but back in 1946 the Supreme Court said public employees need not violate religious convctions in defense of the constitution.
On that same note, I saw a rare thing on Saturday, a Colonel (full bird) in a full beard.
He was one of the few Sikhs in the army. The turban was the most apparent thing (at distance), but rendering him a salute was a pleasure.
As was hearing someone, at the dining in, when, "The Loyal Toast" was being offered, pointing out to the table, that everyone was to understand the toast was to the office, not the man.
Uff-da.
In a grievance hearing Thursday conducted in a telephone conference call, an attorney for the California State University chancellor's office presented Kearney-Brown with a statement saying in part, "Signing the oath does not carry with it any obligation or requirement that public employees bear arms or otherwise engage in violence."
Which is what I, who don't have a law degree, managed to find out in about five minutes. My tax dollars at work.
More interesting (because I didn't find it, so it was new) was the clarification (we'll ignore the excuse they made, "we were acting in good faith"; since the whole thing was only resolved because she filed a grievance. I suspect the cause ceèbre aspects helped to make the resolution more swift. I certainly think the up-front admission of error, and apology, is only because of that public outcry) is the case they found from 1946.
The article doesn't cite it (how hard would that have been?) but back in 1946 the Supreme Court said public employees need not violate religious convctions in defense of the constitution.
On that same note, I saw a rare thing on Saturday, a Colonel (full bird) in a full beard.
He was one of the few Sikhs in the army. The turban was the most apparent thing (at distance), but rendering him a salute was a pleasure.
As was hearing someone, at the dining in, when, "The Loyal Toast" was being offered, pointing out to the table, that everyone was to understand the toast was to the office, not the man.
Uff-da.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-03-10 06:27 pm (UTC)