In the Comments "This sounds like a great idea. Honestly, how many communications majors does a country need?" — Darrin
British Universities Offer Cash to Get Students to Enroll in Unpopular Programs Recent Posts University President Arrested in Iraq's Restive Diyala Province An unnamed official in the Iraqi army accused the president of playing a role in the murder of several professors. Comment Pennsylvania Auditor Urges Governance Changes at Student-Loan Agency Among the changes sought are replacing eight of the 16 state lawmakers on the agency’s 20-member board with financial and academic experts. Comment 2 Professors Explain Why They Resigned From U. of Missouri at Kansas City The tenured academics, who were accused of sexual harassment, say their decision to quit was not an admission of wrongdoing. Comment [1] Drinking-Age Campaign Binges on Big Names, Big Media An initiative that seeks to lower the drinking age to 18 has gained the support of some college presidents, and drawn both publicity and criticism. Comment [8] Law-Schools Meeting Finds a Way to Deal With Boycott Threat The group had contracts with two San Diego hotels, including one whose owner had become controversial for supporting anti-gay-rights measures. Comment [8] Most Commented This Month New Mexico State U. Threatens to Revoke Fired Professors' Degrees | 69 Withhold 'Judgement' on Students When a Word is 'Misspelt' | 50 All U. of Iowa Professors Told to Undergo Training to Avoid Sexual Harassment | 49 Judge Rejects Christian Schools' Complaint of Bias in U. of California Decisions on Courses | 45 Student Put Ashore From Semester at Sea for Plagiarism | 45 By Category Athletics Community Colleges Government & Politics Information Technology International Money & Management Northern Illinois Research & Books Short Subjects Students The Faculty Blog Archives Search Keep Up to Date Daily news blog: RSS / Atom Daily news reported by The Chronicle: RSS Contact us Today's most e-mailed Prior days' news: By date | Search This week's print issue Back issues: By date | Search June 3, 2008 Reinstated Instructor at Cal State-Fullerton Reflects on Encounter With 'Loyalty Oath' Wendy Gonaver, a lecturer in American studies at California State University at Fullerton, won a major victory on Monday, when she and the university agreed on the conditions under which she would sign a “loyalty oath” required under California law. Ms. Gonaver was terminated last fall at the tail end of the hiring process, when she refused to sign the oath after being told that she could not attach a statement clarifying her views as a pacifist and a Quaker. Such attachments are routinely allowed by many state agencies in California, which has never repealed a 1952 amendment to the Constitution requiring state employees to swear an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” After approaching the American Civil Liberties Union about the case and not receiving an answer, the instructor told The Chronicle, she simply let the matter drop: “I decided to chalk it up to the fact that I stood up for my principles, and this was the consequence, and that’s the end of it.” Ms. Gonaver took up the case again after reading that another Quaker employee in the Cal State system had been fired for a similar refusal. Marianne Kearney-Brown, an instructor in the mathematics department at Cal State-East Bay, had inserted the word “nonviolently” into her copy of the signed oath. She was later rehired by the university. When Ms. Gonaver received an offer from People for the American Way to represent her case, lawyers for the civil-liberties group negotiated the new statement with the university. “I was always willing to negotiate the language of the addendum,” she said, adding that the university had taken the view that no additions were allowed. The language agreed to by the university, Ms. Gonaver said, reads as follows: “I support and respect the United States Constitution and the California Constitution, and I fully intend to abide by the oath that I have been required to sign as a condition of my employment by California State University (‘CSU’). As an American, I do object, however, to being compelled to sign such an oath, and want to state my belief that such compulsion violates my right to freedom of speech. And, as a Quaker, in order to sign the oath in good conscience, I must also state that I do not promise or undertake to bear arms or otherwise engage in violence, and I have been assured by CSU that my oath will not be construed to require me to do so.” Ms. Gonaver said her initial stance against signing the oath without a clarifying attachment had been spurred by preparations for the introductory American-studies course that she was to teach, including a section on civil liberties and McCarthyism that cited a U.S. Supreme Court decision about Arizona’s loyalty oath. “When I went in and found out that there was an oath [in California], I was shocked,” Ms. Gonaver said. But now that the agreement has been reached, she said, she is excited about teaching at Fullerton in the fall semester. —Richard Byrne Posted on Tuesday June 3, 2008 | Permalink | Comments As a fellow Quaker, I am pleased to see that Ms. Gonaver has reached an agreement with the Calinfornia State System. I believe that loyalty oaths should not be a requirement of employment in higher education, since it is not a requirement to work on Wall Street or Wal-Mart or many other places of employment. Since it is difficult to change the state constitution higher education institutions should always permit Quakers and others who have a religious objection to oaths to amend or attach and adenddum in order to be able to sign. — Stephen Nelson Jun 3, 04:05 PM # I’m not a Quaker or conscientious objector, but I strongly agree with the institution providing this accommodation. Other stories made it clear that CA state agencies often provide such an accommodation, but CSU was being a hard-ass about it. Glad to see they wised up. — Al Jun 3, 04:18 PM # Silly that the Cal State would require this; silly that some Quaker would give a damn. They’re both sides of the same coin, and therein lies the problem with the world as a whole. That, and over-simplification. — original marci Jun 3, 04:41 PM # What enemy of the U.S. would baulk at signing such an oath? Obviously many Cailifornia legislators realized this too. The legislation passed as a symbolic gesture of patriotism. What legislator would go on record against this patriotic gesture? Only legislators of strong conscience. The oath then triggers off another symbolic act of patriotism, for who would not sign this piece of meaninglessness to secure a job? The only people caught by the oath are pacifists or those who strongly object to coerced statements of ‘loyalty,’ i.e. men and woman of conscience. If it is claimed that many truly patriotic men and women were happy to declare their loyalty, I can only say the oath was devised not to ‘ferret’ out the loyal but rather the disloyal. Or so it was claimed. Thus does government make hypocrites of itself and the majority of us. (Yes, I signed such an oath for my first job at City University of New York way back when.) — arnold asrelsky Jun 3, 05:17 PM # For a comprehensive review and history of loyalty oaths from a Quaker, one should read a monograph (title forgotten) by Gilbert Kilpack, who was Director of the Pendle Hill School of Religion, a Quaker institution. It was written around the time of the California amendment. In the early 17th century, traitor paranoia led to loyalty oaths, then oaths of attestation that the loyalty oaths were true, then oaths of attestation that the oaths of attestation that the loyalty oaths were true were true. At least California has faith in loyalty oaths and does not go back to the Elizabethan era of obtaining three oaths just to be sure of whatever it is they are trying to be sure of. — Gordon Jun 3, 05:18 PM # Loyalty oaths, memoranda of agreements, to my mind, belong to marriages, civil unions and maybe secret societies, whatever those are. The application of such ancillary clauses to contracts, in institutions of learning, constitute an Ultra Vires circumvention of civil liberties and an undermining of academic freedom. — Konfor Masanje Jun 4, 07:32 AM # Loyalty oaths were commonly used — usually for teachers and other civil servants — even before World War II. The reason is simple: they are an easy way for state legislators to show their patriotism and they don’t cost any money. — Ellen Schrecker Jun 4, 08:17 AM # It is interesting that the states should resort to loyalty oaths as a measure of patriotism. The states have an arsenal of measures to control “patriotism”; states license every aspects of their citizens’ lives – all kinds of laws- marriages, births, deaths, burials, businesses, homes, medications, the right to drive, the right to vote, the right to die…etc… and just about everything citizens own is taxed, isn’t that enough to justify “patriotism”? Must the citizens sign a loyalty oath? Isn’t it inherent in these controls that the citizens are loyal? Those who are not are sanctioned and put in jail in certain cases, aren’t they? What is a “Loyalty Oath” good for then? — Konfor Masanje Jun 4, 09:01 AM # Loyalty oaths appeal only to the truly naive and the deeply hypocritical. Dr. Johnson defined “patriotism” as “the last refuge of a scoundrel”; Bierce went further: “with all deference to that learned (but inferior) lexicographer, I venture to suggest that it is the first.” Loyalty oaths for employees make as much sense as religion tests for politicians. They serve only to preserve and protect us from the ethically and morally scrupulous. — Dan Jun 4, 09:01 AM # You are right Dan. I will add that, one of these days, the “Patriot Act” will be administered as a test of patriotism, if citizens are not alert, the world of George (Bush) Orwell’s “1984” is here and loyalty oaths are only a small measure. — Konfor Masanje Jun 4, 09:10 AM # Quakers do not subscribe to an ideology that calls for the destruction of the United States; Muslims do, however. Since the koran provides justification for lying and breaking truces it is unlikely that require islamic adherents to sign anything. — Marty Jun 4, 09:52 AM # Patriotism, or jingoism. Hard to tell sometimes. — A true follower of Keir Hardie Jun 4, 10:23 AM # The comments above are right on. Loyalty oaths only annoy the loyal and do not phase those who are not. They are simply a cheap way for legislators and administrators to puff their chests out and proclaim patriotism. — Al Jun 4, 10:48 AM # What is the harm in signing? She and others made a big deal about it. They became famous. — kvc Jun 4, 11:06 AM # What is the harm? Then the rest of us wouldn’t have known just how exceptional and special she and other quakers are. Rules, laws, pledges and oaths are for suckers like me. God Bless America, still the most free nation in the world. — Ortiz Jun 4, 11:21 AM # You speak the truth, Ortiz. Free nation, indeed. Freedom bought and paid for with the blood of Americans who believed in our nation, despite its flaws, and took and OATH to defend it. I suspect most of the complaining comes from those who haven’t had to make any sacrifices for their freedom, merely accepting it as their birthright. The freedom we enjoy in this country is unrivaled anywhere in the world and is only leased to us as long as we are willing to maintain it and pay the often unimaginable cost of it. — Andrew H. Jun 4, 11:31 AM # Maybe someday the State of California will be forced to sign a loyalty oath swearing to protect their employees against all abuses of the constitution, foreign and domestic. — Tony B Jun 4, 11:31 AM # In saying, Marty, in Comment 11, that “Muslims do [“subscribe to an ideology that calls for the destruction of the United States”],” do you mean to say, “All Muslims subscribe to an ideology that calls for the destruction of the United States,” or “Some Muslims subscribe to an ideology that calls for the destruction of the United States”? — Richard Hennessey Jun 4, 11:57 AM # Now Ms. Gonaver can be shown the secret handshake. — Gary Brooks Jun 4, 12:01 PM # The harm, kvc, is in allowing the enemies of freedom to cloak themselves as the guardians of freedom. People sign such unconstitutional oaths either because they don’t mind being coerced to do so, no matter how obviously ineffectual such things are, or out of cowardice. There is nothing more un-American than loyalty oaths, religious tests, and House Un-American Activities Committees. — Dan Jun 4, 12:23 PM # No one is to be trusted. Everyone is trying to get me. The government is monitoring my toaster to see what kind of bread I buy. No one cares but me, no one understands but me. I am the arbiter of truth. I’m not buying what you’re selling, Dan. It smells like what my horses leave for me to clean up in the barn. Paranoia may destroy ya… — Ray Davies Jun 4, 12:44 PM # To Marty (#11): I am positive that you did not mean or believe that all Muslims subscribe to the ideology of the destruction of the U.S.A. However, in the interests of clarity, let me amplify that: Not all Muslims subscribe to the ideology of the destruction of the U.S.A. Islam has over 70 different interpretive groups —- akin to Christianities’ (Catholics, Baptists, Quakers, Etc.). For Instance, take the Sufi Muslims —- Mostly Pacifists, but Muslims nonetheless, who … Expounding Briefly: Consider the following from Encyclopedia Britannica (1961: V. 21., Page523): “The germs of mysticism latent in Islam from the first were rapidly developed by the political, social and intellectual conditions which prevailed in the two centuries following the prophet’s death. devastating civil wars, a ruthless military despotism caring only for the luxuries of this world, Messianic hopes and presages, the luxury of the upper classes, the … The terrors of hell, so vividly depicted in the Koran, awakened in them an intense consciousness of sin, which drove them to seek salvation in ascetic practices. Sufism was originally a practical religion, not a speculative system. It arose, as Junayd of Baghdad says “from hunger and taking leave of the world and breaking familiar ties and renouncing what men deem good, not from disputation” … “ Additionally Consider the role of Sufi Women vis-a-vis Women in other sects of Islam (Encyclopedia Britannica (1961: V. 21., Page523): “Toward the end of the 2nd century the doctrine of mystical love was set forth in the sayings of a female ascetic, Rabi’a of Basra, the first in a long line of saintly women who played an important role in the history of Sufiism. Henceforth the use of symbolic expressions, borrowed from the vocabulary of love and wine, becomes increasingly frequent as a means of indicating holy mysteries …” And, to elaborate a little further, there are many variations within the Sufis themselves (akin to Baptists, Catholics, etc.). From Encyclopedia Britannica (1961: V. 21., Page523; Under Subheading “Many Shades Of Opinion”): “The Sufis comprise many shades of opinion—from asceticism and quietism to pantheism. The pantheistic type … throw the transcendental and visionary aspects of Sufiism into undue relief, as the sayings attributed to Bayezid (d. A.D. 874), e.g., “I am the winedrinker and the wine and the cupbearer”; “I went from God to God, until they cried from me in me, ‘O Thou I.” Additionally, consider other aspects and variations (refer to works of Rumi, Sachal, Shah Latif, etc. Apropos, the Sufi Muslims, even in current times, in general are pacifist. —- The 70 plus sects of Islam ranging from Quaddians, Aga Khanis, Sunnis, Shias, etc.) Have wide variations in terms of beliefs, practices, mores, etc. (e.g. Islam forbids images —- Moslem graves in Sindh have images) —- Following the actions of some, generalizing, and then collectively lumping diversity as one, simply isn’t —- reductio absurdum —- it is also extremely dangerous, given the conditions of our times —- especially, in understanding, and hopefully resolving…. To Richard Hennessey (#18) —- Hopefully, the above amplifies your sentiment. To: All —- Refer to earlier Chronicle article and comments on the same subject —- many interesting perspectives are present in same. — zahid Jun 4, 12:45 PM # To: All ClarificationAddition To Chronicle Reference in Comment # 22—- The Article pertaining to the firing of Ms. Wendy Gonaver was in the May 2, 2008 Issue (Titled: “Cal State Instructor Fired for Refusing to Sign Loyalty Oath”). Kindly see the May 2 article, and the comments therein —- for earlier, similar (maybe not in some opinions) perspectives. — zahid Jun 4, 01:03 PM # As a graduate from another California state college I was very pleased to read of Ms. Gonaver’s victory. Loyalty oaths are a throwback to the McCarthy era and have absolutely nothing to do with loyalty. If I were a terrorist I would be very willing to take a loyalty oath, hiding beneath a cloak of loyalty. As Dylan sings (borrowing from an earlier sourcer): “patriotism is the last refuge to which a scoundrel clings/ Steal a little and they put you in jail, steal a lot and they make you king.” — Donald Jun 4, 01:11 PM # So, Zahid, what exactly is your point? That not all Muslims are murderers? We know that. I’m concerned, however, about Muslim groups and individuals who rationalize terroristic murder with their religious beliefs and the noticeable lack of Muslim voices criticizing such actions. One can see how many westerners could arrive at the belief that all Muslims seek the destruction of the U.S. I do, however, appreciate your considered posts in this regard—your solitary voice gives one hope. — John Jun 4, 01:18 PM # More wisdom from donald. You’re a legend in your own mind, sir. Might I suggest adding a few of your tried and true references to Hitler and the Nazis? They’re simple AND convenient AND require little thought. You know the type of post that you normally write: emotionally overwrought. — Schmonald Jun 4, 01:25 PM # The myth being upheld at every turn that Muslims have not and do not decry violence has got to stop. All Muslims decry violence, Islam itself forbids violence. “Because of this did We ordain unto the children of Israel that if anyone slays a human being-unless it be [in punishment] for murder or for spreading corruption on earth-it shall be as though he had slain all mankind; whereas, if anyone saves a life, it shall be as though he had saved the lives of all mankind. And, indeed, there came unto them Our apostles with all evidence of the truth: yet, behold, notwithstanding all this, many of them go on committing all manner of excesses on earth.” Quran 5:32 If you search the entire Quran you will not find the word sword. So how is it that others say Islam was spread by it? — WhiteAngloSaxonMuslim Jun 4, 01:41 PM # “Schmonald” I’m astounded by your obsession about every thing I write. Why don’t you just find another web site to spread your wrath. Talk about overwrought emotionalism! So far I haven’t heard a single rational comment from you. And by the way, what does Hitler and the Nazis have anything to do with what I’m saying. Why don’t you just lighten up a bit? — Donald Jun 4, 03:13 PM # Personally, I’d prefer the aroma of horse manure to the fumes emanating from loyalty oaths. It’s not true that “it can’t happen here.” It is happening here. And look up “ad hominem” while you’re at it, Roy. — Dan Jun 4, 03:43 PM # Oh boy! Our politicians (both local and national) have done a fine job of what it means to be “free.” — Jack Jun 4, 03:50 PM # Perhaps amused is a better description than obsessed, D-man. You anger so quickly and are so convinced that you’re right about everything. You seem to need a challenger. I am that hero, sir. — Donald McRonald Jun 4, 03:53 PM # WhiteAngloSaxonMuslim, I agree that the myth must stop. It is not a myth, but a fact: convert or die. What is happening in the Sudan? Muslims exterminating non-muslims and taking their land for their own. Myth? No. Save that “peaceful” nonsense for someone who hasn’t lived it. — D. Greenburg Jun 4, 04:00 PM # I fail to see any anger or emotional outrage expressed by my comment (#24) that have provoked the rage of you stalkers. I’ve got an idea for a project: try getting a life and get off my back. — Donald Jun 4, 04:05 PM # To: John (#25): Basically, what I was attempting to convey is that even inadvertent generalizations (as made in certain comments), could potentially result in creating possible ill-will, even among staunch well-wishers —- which in simplistic terms is undesirable; especially, when we are immersed in a struggle that is mired in ideological perceptions. At a bare minimum, we should be garnering the positives, and the potential positives in negating the negatives. In oversimplified terms just consider the dismissal of a voice of peace, not with reason, arguments, mutual coexistence requirements, or even the enemy’s own faith-based underpinnings, —- but by a sound bite (emanating from inadvertent generalization) such as: “Listen to him/her —- advocating for the enemy, have you my friend, not even understood the fundamentals involved here, or are you ignorant of the fact that they consider you one of us, they consider you the enemy.” In addition to the above, let us not ignore the fact that quite a few in leadership positions, or desirous of leadership positions, employ emotional, psychological, and especially faith and/or nationalistic patriotism as exploitative tools —- in attaining self-serving desiderata. This has been an age-old highly effective practice (the historians here could amplify —- in my opine, in the recent past Nazism had its roots in nationalistic patriotism, and the Khomeni Regime in Iran eliminated many of their own, by their own, by exploitatively employing faith —- even our own unfortunate Civil War, rationalized by many varying perspective, had in my opine, during the prewar phase, varying elements of the individualistic (or group collective) self-serving desiderata in play, which contributed to negating the forces of “conflict resolution”, whilst fuelling the forces of “conflict”). Ergo, on a personal level, —- in several comments herein I see validity, and intellect, but what I find somewhat lacking in general, is an enlightenment in granting validity to opposing views —- For instance, I see herein the importance of a “Loyalty Oath” and the use of the “Loyalty Oath” as an explotative tool. —- So does making adapting a postion the “Loyalty Oath” optional? Bye the Bye —- As a final note on the subject of Loyalty Oath, let me refer everyone to a the comments section of the May 2, 2008 Article in the Chronicle (Titled: Cal State Instructor Fired for Refusing to Sign Loyalty Oath): Therein —- Comment # 66, Made by Hans Montag (May 6, 2008), stuck in my mind —- for it referred to President Kennedy —- who also refused to sign a Loyalty Oath. — zahid Jun 4, 04:14 PM # Would “original Marci” (#3) please explain your opaque-as-mud remark? I can’t fathom how a Quaker objecting to a McCarthyist loyalty oath requirement makes these “two sides of the same coin.” Just wondering. — Dave Jun 4, 04:15 PM # To All —- Any Comment on the fact that stated by Hans Montag that: President Kennedy Refused to sign the Loyalty Oath? For details on above refer to the comment #66 Made by Hans Montag (May 2, 2008; Article in the Chronicle Titled: Cal State Instructor Fired for Refusing to Sign Loyalty Oath). — zahid Jun 4, 04:26 PM # I think it is patriotic to oppose your country when it is wrong (as in Viet Name and Iraq) The “my country right or wrong” position does not demonstrate patriotism but, rather, an authoritarian personality. — Edward Jun 4, 06:55 PM # Dear Dave, I don’t know if I can explain it. You render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, etc. I just don’t think of consciousness that brings you to Quakerism as being concerned with something so meaningless and earthly; to wit, if the company you wish to work for wishes you to sign a loyalty oath to which you object, then having them waive the requirement doesn’t change the nature of the organization that would require a loyalty oath. I mean, the loyalty oath is only one of thousands of spiritual compromises you’ll have to make in such an organization. Only you’ll make them, and you won’t even know that many are far far worse than signing the loyalty oath. And it’s the fact that you won’t know when you’re compromising that makes it so insidious and sad; and ironic, in that the loyalty oath was a sign to walk out the way you walked in, but seduced by what lay beyond, you step over one snake only to fall into the pit he slithered out of. You know? — original marci Jun 4, 08:07 PM # To D. Greenburg #32. As if Muslims were the only people guilty of such crimes. Witness the Inquisitions. Recall the expulsion of Jews from Spain after the Muslim Moors were tossed out by Christian forces. Remamber the massacre in Sabra and Chitilla in 1982. None of the three major monotheistic religions are inherently evil. Claims to the contrary show clear lack of knowledge and understanding. — jon Jun 4, 10:25 PM # Thanks, Original Marci. — Dave Jun 4, 11:35 PM # Patriotism is the last refuge To which a tyrant clings Steal a little and they put you in jail Still a lot and they make you king. — Dylan Jun 5, 09:30 AM # Donald, there isn’t any stalking going on, just heckling. There is an important distinction between the two. When one posts opinions in an open, online forum, one may not reasonably expect to have the final word on an issue being discussed. Are you advocating censoring the Chronicle blogs? I would be against your notion that the blogs be controlled so that only “right” comments are allowed. — Arnold Jun 5, 12:55 PM # Arnold: (or whatever your real name is). Why is expressing one’s view an indication of the belief that “only right comments are allowed.” Frankly, your hostility and your “heckling” baffle me. What are you trying to prove anyway This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list [email protected] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
