|
||
Loyalty Oaths and Un-Americanism
Last week, the State of California avoided a possible constitutional confrontation over its requirement that all public employees sign an oath affirming that they will "support and defend" the United States and California Constitutions "against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
A mathematics teacher named Marianne Kearney-Brown, who is a Quaker and a pacifist, declined to sign the loyalty oath because it might later be construed as committing her to take up arms to defend the nation, which would violate her religious beliefs. The State finessed the situation by agreeing that the oath would not be interpreted in that manner.
But the real question is why California requires public employees to sign an anachronistic and relatively meaningless loyalty oath at all. Certainly, a truly disloyal employee poses risks to the government. She might (if she were doing something other than teaching remedial math) disclose secret information to an enemy; destroy important government files; make decisions intended to harm the public interest; and recruit other employees to engage in subversive activities. But just how does a loyalty oath guard against such dangers? After all, anyone who is truly disloyal will simply take the oath falsely. No dangerous subversive will be deterred by the requirement of an oath.
The origins of the California loyalty oath, which all state, city, county, public school, community college, and public university employees are required to sign, can be found in the era of McCarthyism. Added to the state constitution in 1952, the oath was designed, like so many other legal measures of that sorrowful era, not to protect the nation against real subversion, but to frighten, intimidate, and punish individual citizens for exercising their constitutional right to question and criticize the government.
In the 1930s, during the Depression, many Americans questioned both the capitalist system and the political leadership of the nation. On urban breadlines and devastated farms, Americans asked hard questions about the need for economic and political reform. Among the many organizations to which they turned was the Communist Party, which was then a legal political party that regularly ran candidates for public office.
After World War II, with the beginning of the Cold War, most Americans who still had ties to the Communist Party or to organizations with connections to it quickly severed them. But, by then, it was too late. The most infamous question of the next two decades - "Are you now or have you ever been . . . .? - had entered the American lexicon.
Political leaders like Senators Richard Nixon and Joseph McCarthy quickly seized on the opportunity to leverage fear to their political advantage. As Americans worried about the prospect of nuclear war with the Soviet Union and accusations of Soviet espionage spread throughout the nation, right-wing ideologues launched a campaign charging that thousands of Communists had secretly infiltrated the government, the military, the unions, the schools, and the media.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce demanded concerted action to drive subversives out of these and other positions of influence. Francis Cardinal Spellman warned that Communists are "digging deep inroads into our nation" and are "trying to grind into dust the blessed freedoms for which our sons have fought, sacrificed, and died." In 1947, Congressman J. Parnell Thomas, the new Republican Chairman of the House Un-American Activities Committee, pledged to "ferret out" all those who sought to destroy the American "way of life."
President Harry Truman charged that such "scaremongers" had "created such a wave of fear and uncertainty that... people are growing frightened -- and frightened people don't protest."
But Joseph McCarthy persisted. "I say one Communist in a defense plant is one Communist too many," he said in 1952. "One Communist on the faculty of one university is one Communist too many." The Republican Party platform charged the government with shielding "traitors."
Within a few years, a plague of loyalty oaths had spread across the nation. By 1956, forty-two states, including California, and more than two thousand county or city governments had enacted loyalty oaths for public employees. As Truman had warned, a cancer of fear had swept the nation.
The very concept of "loyalty" is painfully elusive. It is defined entirely by a state of mind. Does it mean "my country, right or wrong"? Can a citizen oppose government policies - including a war - and still be "loyal"? Can a citizen be a pacifist and still be "loyal"?
Loyalty oaths reverse the essential relationship between the citizen and the state in a democratic society. As the Framers of our Constitution understood, the citizens of a self-governing society must be free to think and talk openly and critically about issues of governance. In a regime of loyalty oaths, it is the government that defines which thoughts and which ideas are permitted.
Dissenting views, nonconforming views, are deemed "disloyal." The very existence of such oaths reflects an utter lack of confidence in the American people. Nothing so dangerously corrupts the integrity of a democracy as a lack of faith in its own citizens.
Loyalty oaths serve no legitimate function. The government can and should investigate and punish unlawful conduct. But it should not attempt to intimidate American citizens who express "disloyal" beliefs. It is time for California to recognize that its requirement that public employees swear an oath of fealty to their government is a relic of a shameful past and, quite simply, un-American.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
A "Loyalty Oath" is offensive -- or should be, to anyone.
If an organization can't solicit "loyalty" as a direct result of its charter and its actions, one has to wonder if it is really worth showing "loyalty" to.
Interesting piece, Prof. Stone, as always.
Is it a coincidence that the issue of a loyalty oath has raised its ugly head again when we are engaged in “a war on terror” in which the “enemy” is ill-defined and politicians have deliberately nurtured fear in the body politic and used it to acquire and retain power? If the use of loyalty oaths to intimidate and to diminish debate occurs most notably during periods in which the perceived threat to the nation is an ill-defined ideology rather a clearly identifiable enemy, it would explain why, for all the vicious rhetoric of the Vietnam war era assailing the patriotism of those who opposed the war, there was no wide-spread agitation for loyalty oaths. (Because I was living abroad during the last three years of that war, I’m not sure that this is correct, but it seems to me that the loyalty oaths of that period were vestiges of the McCarthy/HUAC period. If I remember correctly, the loyalty oath that I had to take in the late 1970s to teach in a state university in the deep south specifically required me to swear that I was not then and never had been a member of the Communist Party -- and that I had never had a venereal disease. Honest. Could I make that up?)
If this analysis is correct, then the inability to define the ideology that is the perceived threat (Islamofascism? What the hell is that?), much less to identify persons who subscribe to that ideology (Arabs? Muslims? only members of certain Muslim sects? only Muslims of certain nations? only Muslims of certain sects of certain nations? home-grown adherents?), may exaggerate the paranoia that demands loyalty oaths, and may suggest that we are on the threshold of a new wave of agitation for such oaths.
I am fine signing a loyalty oath to the Constitution. I am not fine signing a loyalty oath to a government made up of individual people. If everyone was loyal to the Constitution, we would be fine.
Being loyal to an administration that views the constitution as "quaint", that seems to be contemptous
of the freedoms it declares, and being loyal to the Constitution seem to be conflicting loyalties to me.
If the Constitution says you have the right to speak out at the regime says "shut up!" how can you be loyal to both?
President Abraham Lincoln required Loyalty Oaths to be signed by Southerners who supported the Confederacy before they could regain their citizenship. But I would say that was admissable because the persons in question were guilty of treason.
Requiring an oath BEFORE any illegal activity has been shown, or better yet, proven is an insult to anyone's integrity. I am to be punished for something I MIGHT do?
Of course the Oaths real utility was so the person could be prosecuted for perjury if they were found to be members of the Communist Party or some other outlawed group. (Not the Ku Klux Klan, they were 100% American.)
Some way for the " Land of the Free "to act. Can't have people "Too" Free. Or the wrong kind of " Free."
As Americans , or Californians, we are as Free as our government allows us to be.
This quote is one reason I like to watch Easy Rider over and over again. "They'll talk to ya and talk to ya and talk to ya about individual freedom. But they see a free individual, it's gonna scare 'em."
"And you know, this used to be a Hell of a country"
(or something like that)
Signing an oath is BRILLIANT. The Catholic Church should make Priests sign one about not molesting children, that will fix it! I cant belive we didnt think of this before. I am going to make my wife sign a loyalty oath to our marriage! wow, I feel better already that I know for a fact she wont cheat on me once she signs that form. I am also going to make my teenage son sign an oath not to exceed posted speed limits while driving my car. And while I am at it, pledge to get all "A's" on his report card. I can feel the pressure and stress menting away now, I cant belive how easy my life could of been, now I am mad I didnt think of this before..................WAIT, I will make myself sign an oath not to be mad at myself. Yes, this is for sure the way to go,
I think everyone might of signed an oath not to mock my post when they became a member of Huffpost, so be careful what you say.............................
I signed a loyalty oath when I went to work for the State of California many years ago. In it, as you pointed out, I swear to "defend and protect" the Constitution from all enemies, "domestic and foreign." Does this mean that I am empowered to place George W Bush under citizen's arrest? Or will the fact that I signed it "Leon Trotsky" in the Cyrillic alphabet nullify this?
hehehehe... I don't know about the state of California, but I, for one, approve!
Now thats funny !
thanks
"The State finessed the situation by agreeing that the oath would not be interpreted in that manner."
So her unwillingness to take up arms will probably be respected by California's Army, but is the U.S. Army bound by this agreement?
Seriously, did a California official really presume to speak for the U.S. Army? And she bought it?
Are the numbers really down that much that they're willing to shanghi Quaker math teachers into service?
"...is the U.S. Army bound by this agreement?"
Yes.
If you are a conscientious objector to war on religious/moral grounds, you can prove this by answering a set of questions that are outlined in a DOD regulation. In the United States, you can be CO and it is legally recognized by the government. There are two types: people who will serve in the military in non-combatant roles, and, people who reject any participation in the military. No Quaker math teacher will ever be conscripted in the time of war against her will. However, conscientious objection to tax payment because it will be used for military purposes is not legally recognized by the United States.
Loyalty oaths, if they apply to situations such as we found ourselves in during the post-WWII era, are not meant to kill dissent. However, your veiled assertion that only the poor unfortunate progressives were targetted by McCarthy is laughable. Both the Senate and the House were able to positively identify people who were actively aiding and abetting the Soviet Union in its attempts to undermine the USA and the West in general. The Venona Transcripts have affirmed the evidence of the House and Senate. Loyalty oaths, while no deterrent, are to cover people such as those, who actively wish to aid a foreign power.
Semper fi
While I'm not sure about the facts that you've stated, since I didn't study McCartyism very much, I will say that for the few actual "subversives" that they caught, how many hundreds of thousands of people were ruined, or even unnecessarily bothered because of the fact that their own government decided that they were evil?
Loyalty oaths are worthless, except that if you can prove disloyalty it will make for an additional criminal charge.
Only bullies and cowards demand loyalty oaths.
We could use some of that zeal now to feret out the Traitors in this Admin, Congress, SCOTUS and the Inc's.
Start with Protect & Defend - Bush/cheney etal have failed- derelciiton of duty. WE are less safe (war, torture and no dipllomacy), we have manufactured intell, we have wiretapping, Abuse of Power (Exec Priv my ass!)......
Adn who also takes this Oathe- the military who should be listening to US not the criminals who have seixed power. In fact all come home so we can regain our country we havebeen Betrayed and are being held captive!!!! Do your real Duty- protect & Defend US against the Domestic enemies sitting in the WH!
Good luck with that. Unfortunately, some people from veterans all the way to passivists see America as the contiguous U.S., a land area. America is the U.S. Constitution and the truly patriotic American citizens. keep going purple girl and don't let fear-based scared people influence you.
Loyalty Oaths?
Red flags are popping up all over my thought bubble...
Smells of Cheney assault my senses.
Do they really think that we are all thoughtless sheep?
We the people are now paying attention.
As a soldier I took a loyalty oath to defend our constitution. In light of that I cannot take a loyalty
oath to any political party, state or federal government. The constitution will always come first.
Dig it! Semper Fi baby:)
As a former sailor, I also took an oath of protect and defend the Constitution. That oath did not supersede any oath that I could have taken to any political party, or state or federal gov't. However, as the author of the post points out, there are concerns that the oath is too vague. I'm loyal to the constitution, and I feel that the POTUS needs to be brought down and tried for war crimes. You are also loyal to the constitution, and you may feel that the POTUS needs to be followed no matter what. Which one is correct?
Sure we're paying attention - of course we aren't thoughtless sheep. That's what got bush impeached for lying us into an unneeded war and acting in other illegal and unConstitutional ways.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
