Er, um, I wasn't going to stir the pot...but the California state constitution STILL, TO THIS DAY, requires all academic employees of all campuses of the University of California and California State University systems to take the following loyalty oath as a term of employment:
Quote:
|
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.
|
The oath John's wife took in 1967 would also have included specific language prohibiting membership in the Communist Party, and obligating the signer to declare any such membership within the past five years; that portion of such loyalty oaths--but
only that portion--was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1967 (
Keyishian v. [New York] Board of Regents).
I find it entirely plausible that the person who hired John's wife could have strongly implied--or even flat-out stated--that expressing opposition to the Vietnam War might be considered treasonable or seditious, and therefore in violation of this oath.
(The person who hired me in 1993 went to the other extreme, insisting that this oath was an empty formality and didn't mean anything whatsoever...except that if I refused to sign, she would be legally prevented from hiring me. I told her that I don't make promises of any sort lightly, and needed to take a day to think about it. Which I did, before holding my nose and signing it. Doing so is one of the things I am least proud of in my life.)
As recently as 2008 two employees of the California State University were fired for not signing the oath as written. One of them, a Quaker, was reinstated when the oath was accompanied by this statement prepared by representatives of the university: "Signing the oath does not carry with it any obligation or requirement that public employees bear arms or otherwise engage in violence."
Also in 2008, the California state legislature passed a bill to update the State Oath of Allegiance to allow for religious exemptions, but Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it. (Surprise, surprise.)
Back in 1967, in his majority opinion in
Keyishian v. [New York] Board of Regents, Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., wrote:
Quote:
Our Nation is deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, which is of transcendent value to all of us and not merely to the teachers concerned. That freedom is therefore a special concern of the First Amendment, which does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom. [...]The classroom is peculiarly the 'marketplace of ideas.' The Nation's future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure to that robust exchange of ideas which discovers truth 'out of a multitude of tongues, (rather) than through any kind of authoritative selection.' United States v. Associated Press, D.C., 52 F.Supp. 362, 372.
In Sweezy v. State of New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 250, 77 S.Ct. 1203, 1211, 1 L.Ed.2d 1311, we said: 'The essentiality of freedom in the community of American universities is almost self-evident. No one should underestimate the vital role in a democracy that is played by those who guide and train our youth. To impose any strait jacket upon the intellectual leaders in our colleges and universities would imperil the future of our Nation. No field of education is so thoroughly comprehended by man that new discoveries cannot yet be made. Particularly is that true in the social sciences, where few, if any, principles are accepted as absolutes. Scholarship cannot flourish in an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust. Teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding; otherwise our civilization will stagnate and die.'
We emphasize once again that '(p)recision of regulation must be the touchstone in an area so closely touching our most precious freedoms,' N.A.A.C.P. v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 438, 83 S.Ct. 328, 340, 9 L.Ed.2d 405; '(f)or standards of permissible statutory vagueness are strict in the area of free expression. Because First Amendment freedoms need breathing space to survive, government may regulate in the area only with narrow specificity.' Id., at 432-433, 83 S.Ct., at 337-338. New York's complicated and intricate scheme plainly violates that standard.
[...]'When one must guess what conduct or utterance may lose him his position, one necessarily will 'steer far wider of the unlawful zone.' Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 526, 78 S.Ct. 1332, 1342, 2 L.Ed.2d 1460. For '(t)he threat of sanctions may deter almost as potently as the actual application of sanctions.' N.A.A.C.P. v. Button, supra, 371 U.S., at 433, 83 S.Ct., at 338. The danger of that chilling effect upon the exercise of vital First Amendment rights must be guarded against by sensitive tools which clearly inform teachers what is being proscribed. (Full document here.)
|
And yet the portions of these loyalty oaths not specific to Communist Party membership remain in force...and subject to the interpretation of individuals like, presumably, the person who hired John's wife. Hmmm.