So, after a "concerned citizen" asked whether we here at the institute had taken the State loyalty oath, we have been informed by "the lawyers" that we are all now required to speak and sign the state loyalty oath (since we exist as part of the state college system). It reads:
I, ........................................................................................, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States, and the constitution and government of the State of Nevada, against all enemies, whether domestic or foreign, and that I will bear true faith, allegiance and loyalty to the same, any ordinance, resolution or law of any state notwithstanding, and that I will well and faithfully perform all the duties of the office of ......................................................................................................................., on which I am about to enter; (if an oath) so help me God; (if an affirmation) under the pains and penalties of perjury.
There has subsequently been a institute-wide email discussion on what this means. Pertinent questions such as who are our enemies (is there a list we can look at?) and who will judge when we have broken the oath? My question was whether I get to carry weaponry now that I'm defending the state against all enemies. My boss asked if maybe we should all start wearing armbands so we know who signed the oath and who didn't (which was a sardonic response, of course). Probably the most pertinent point brought up was that this oath is a remnant of the McCarthy era, which certainly doesn't sit well with our largely Democratic faculty. I know Washington and California have both had state supreme court cases where the requirement for a loyalty oath was struck down, and that it was the academic faculty at institutions of higher learning that generated the original lawsuit. I certainly think it's an unnecessary and vaguely paranoid thing (only a commie wouldn't sign it!), but I don't know whether we're going to roll over and sign it so we can get paychecks (we all sign new contracts in a few weeks and we may have to speak the oath and sign the paper then) or whether we're going to make a stink over it. Should be interesting regardless. I'm also very curious as to what type of "concerned citizen" would bring it up in the first place. Anyway, submitted for intellectual interest.
I'm pretty sure that state/government workers in California can be forced to swear an oath (including students doing their grad research). Truthfully, I didn’t want to sign either, too much McCarthy/Big Brother. But why wouldn't we? They are paying our bills. It's like joining the army and saying, "I don't want to fight." Well then don't join the army. “But I want my cake and eat it too,” then go private sector.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure hazmatt has morality clauses built into his job too. And eric probably contracts for anti-competition/trade secrets. This type of oath is much older than the red scare, it goes back to at least 1800s here in California and probably earlier.
Anyway you should protect the Constitution it is a great document. It foresaw late term abortions by guaranteeing the right to bear arms (presumably the rest of the fetus is born later).
Well, I'm not all that riled about it. I kind of had the same feeling, that it goes with the territory. I think what has people bothered at the institute is the vagueness of the oath. An impassioned colleague argued today that it's unconstitutionally vague. I think part of the deal is that the oath was recently made more vague. The impassioned colleague argues that the only reason for anyone to be pushing this issue is to increase leverage to invalidate our work when it is in conflic with party-affiliated special interests. Besides, the researchers themselves are what keep this place running by bringing in large amounts of money for a relatively small investment by the state. My Boss brought in a million dollars last year. I think if the oath were a little less vague and more of just a standard "I promise to do a good job" type of thing it would be okay. Really, will signing an oath keep me from breaking a law? Speaking of which, doesn't the law cover what the loyalty oath specifies? Why do I need the oath to use against me in case of naughtiness when the law already exists to do the same?
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I don't think we'll be holding inquisitions here sometime soon. Despite some faculty urging us all not to sign, HR has said we will be fired if we don't. So. I need a paycheck. Faculty Senate meets on the topic tomorrow. We'll see how that goes.
Yeah, I was wrong about California, I skimmed what I read and it was eventually upheld. Oops.
I was wrong too. Turns out I was hallucinating about signing an oath up here. Though I do remember one at Solano County. And Sacramento County took my fingerprints. So there goes my life of crime. Here in California they can put you in jail from 1 to 14 years for violating the oath. Besides whatever sedition charges the Feds might file against you.
ReplyDeleteThe moral clauses that KVC mentions have generated a number of interesting conversations among friends here in WW. For instance: I'm not against drinking, generally. I don't mind when others do it (as long as they don't get too interested in my wife, or violent, or interested in getting behind the wheel) and I enjoy it myself from time to time. However, I don't enjoy it enough to stake my job on the issue.
ReplyDeleteThere have been some college faculty sighted at wine tastings and bottling celebrations around the valley. However, most of them have since left the college of their own accord, as far as I know.
The point is that, yes, we are expected, as employees of the college, to uphold the values of the college. The administration has been pretty hands-off about enforcing the issue, and I'd have to check my employee handbook to see if there are any clauses that state they can fire someone for non-compliance. I believe they tend to be more interested in employee retention.
So I agree with what KVC is saying about such things going with the territory. But I also agree that it is apropriate to be concerned about deliberately vague oaths of loyalty, etc. Then again, perhaps that vagueness could be an advantage with a sufficiently skilled defence attorney.
I think the thing that such events SHOULD trigger is a good soul searching. Do I really believe in this organization (mission, work, church, state, country) enough to be willing to swear loyalty to it? Does such loyalty include unswerving devotion to it's leaders, or is the (organization, state, etc.) greater than it's leadership? Would that loyalty include opposing the leadership in order to uphold the best interests of the organization?
I think that most people do not think about these things in any sort of organized or challenging way. It's more like, "I don't know about this. It feels wrong to me. Well, I need the job. What time does American Idol come on?" And THAT is my native pessimism coming through yet again.
No one here has a problem taking an oath that requires us to uphold the consitution and do our job well (although few of us see the point of it. These things are covered between the law and our contract). What's been deemed unconstitional in other states, and what bothers the faculty now is that we're being asked to swear to do something that is unclear. We need to swear to defend against enemies foreign and domestic but have not been told how to do that and so far they cannot tell us exactly what that entails. How can we even know if we've fulfilled the oath if they can't tell us what specifically the oath requires? As of the faculty senate meeting I attended yesterday, the administration doesn't know what that means and can't tell us how to comply with it. I'll have more on the meeting in a future post this week, it was very interesting. We all agreed at the meeting though, that if the oath just said "I swear to uphold the constitution and do a good job" we would be okay with it. Also, call me cynical, but I'm gonna have to argue that loyalty oaths are never a good thing. Requiring a loyalty oath so you can see the president speak at a campaign rally isn't particularly democratic. Requiring employees to sign oaths stating that they'll be on the lookout for enemies of the state has no benificial purpose as far as I can tell. Signing an oath won't keep you from breaking it later if that's your intent and the law covers that already. The real effects of the oath seem to be negative (who is my enemy? perhaps the professor down the hall who works with individuals in Kosovo. I should spy on him) rather than having any real benefit. Absent the enemies language, it seems like a pretty harmless formality. More like a traditional swearing in for any sort of public office.
ReplyDelete