It seems the struggle never ends
May. 8th, 2008 12:07 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumAnother California school has fired a Quaker for not being willing to swear the 1952 Oath of Supremcacy Loyalty.
More amusing (for certain values of amusing) it's another CalState school which should have bee prevented with the resolution after the brouhaha from the last firing. But CSFullerton don't play that way.
It's a flip way to describe it; then again, they made the "bridge" argument about fairly applying the law ("The Law, in its majesty forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges"): California State University officials say they were simply following the law and did not discriminate against Gonaver because all employees are required to sign the oath. Clara Potes-Fellow, a Cal State spokeswoman, said the university does not permit employees to submit personal statements with the oath.
But the opinions of the State AG, and the Courts seem to be that it's not.
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. In one court test, personal statements accompanying the oath were deemed constitutional as long as they did not nullify the meaning of the oath.
Of course the real question is more often, who can afford to fight the system. An employer offers you a job. You come out from Pennsylvania (I'm making a slight inference, she is described as being from Penn., I am assuming it wasn't years ago) and then they say, Oops... you didn't play the game right; your principles aren't in keeping with what we insist you do, bye."
Doesn't really matter much that they are in the legal wrong; how are you going to pay to keep body and soul together, much less pay the lawyers. Unless someone makes a stink, you never hear about it.
Here's what the school says about it:
Potes-Fellow, the Cal State spokeswoman, said the university stands by its stricter interpretation of the requirement and is not affected by how UC or other public institutions handle the oath.
"The university concluded that state law did not allow her to attach her addendum," Potes-Fellow said.
The attorney general's statement that Kearney-Brown was allowed to attach her oath did not violate Cal State's policy because it was not an addendum, Potes-Fellow said. "We think the circumstances are different in both cases," she said.
I haven't read the addendum, but it seems a distinction without difference.
As I said before, loyalty oaths are an abomination; they only punish those who think about them, and are loyal. The "disloyal" will simply lie. If they are disloyal in the service of some cause they think worthy such a lie might been seen as a needful duty, in the service of the higher good (would a requirement to swear an oath not to place bombs in trucks have stopped Mcveigh?).
All the points I made last time around are still valid.
It was stupid then, and it's stupid now.
More amusing (for certain values of amusing) it's another CalState school which should have bee prevented with the resolution after the brouhaha from the last firing. But CSFullerton don't play that way.
It's a flip way to describe it; then again, they made the "bridge" argument about fairly applying the law ("The Law, in its majesty forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges"): California State University officials say they were simply following the law and did not discriminate against Gonaver because all employees are required to sign the oath. Clara Potes-Fellow, a Cal State spokeswoman, said the university does not permit employees to submit personal statements with the oath.
But the opinions of the State AG, and the Courts seem to be that it's not.
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. In one court test, personal statements accompanying the oath were deemed constitutional as long as they did not nullify the meaning of the oath.
Of course the real question is more often, who can afford to fight the system. An employer offers you a job. You come out from Pennsylvania (I'm making a slight inference, she is described as being from Penn., I am assuming it wasn't years ago) and then they say, Oops... you didn't play the game right; your principles aren't in keeping with what we insist you do, bye."
Doesn't really matter much that they are in the legal wrong; how are you going to pay to keep body and soul together, much less pay the lawyers. Unless someone makes a stink, you never hear about it.
Here's what the school says about it:
Potes-Fellow, the Cal State spokeswoman, said the university stands by its stricter interpretation of the requirement and is not affected by how UC or other public institutions handle the oath.
"The university concluded that state law did not allow her to attach her addendum," Potes-Fellow said.
The attorney general's statement that Kearney-Brown was allowed to attach her oath did not violate Cal State's policy because it was not an addendum, Potes-Fellow said. "We think the circumstances are different in both cases," she said.
I haven't read the addendum, but it seems a distinction without difference.
As I said before, loyalty oaths are an abomination; they only punish those who think about them, and are loyal. The "disloyal" will simply lie. If they are disloyal in the service of some cause they think worthy such a lie might been seen as a needful duty, in the service of the higher good (would a requirement to swear an oath not to place bombs in trucks have stopped Mcveigh?).
All the points I made last time around are still valid.
It was stupid then, and it's stupid now.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-05-08 07:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-08 11:38 pm (UTC)I hope the ACLU takes up her case. Some of their lawyers are bloody brilliant, and I do think this is a terrible attack on first amendment rights and due process.
To borrow the words of a friend, this makes me feel very Hulk smash!
no subject
Date: 2008-05-08 11:40 pm (UTC)Remember, if you will, that Robert E. Lee and John S. Mosby fought not because they supported slavery and/or the goals of the Confederacy, but because neither would fight against Virginia.
I could swear to support and defend the Constitution -- but I'm not certain I could make the same oath to the Commonwealth and not be in conflict at some point.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-09 12:35 am (UTC)I could swear to support and defend the Constitution, but I could not swear to support/defend such as our Commander-in-Chief, and other elected officials of our government.
Very interesting quandary.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-09 02:43 am (UTC)There are circumstances in which I'd go one way, and some in which I'd go the other.
Cool quote
Date: 2008-05-09 01:55 am (UTC)The best things in life go on sale sooner or later.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://rosellakochlz.easyjournal.com
no subject
Date: 2008-05-09 02:08 am (UTC)We need a total overhaul.
i oughta know, i am born and raised here, and my education was pre-hell...what they don't teach now is 90% of what i learned when they DID teach it.
But the unions are all happy.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-09 02:46 am (UTC)One, the US does stupid things with how it funds schools.
Two, Prop 13 changed things a lot. We needed some changes to the tax structure (and the fallout from the expenses of Viet-nam weren't helping), but what we did was a form of slow death.
It takes 66 percent +1 to pass any increase in a statutory tax, but it only takes 50 percent +1 to pass a bond.
The painful thing is when we have tax measures, they fail with about 60 percent of the vote.
Bond issues pass, with about 51 percent of the vote.
Bonds cost more, dollar for dollar, than taxes, so the bond measures (for needful things) cause us to lose money for other needful things.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-09 02:53 am (UTC)