Academics forced to sign HS loyalty pledge

by **Morgan Wolf** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 8:20 am

Hi folks, I'm on an anthropology list sponsored through U of Buffalo - most of the posters are academics. I just saw a slew of mail with the subject line: "Like 1954." Here is the first one, from a professor I'll call DW. Thoughts? -Morgan Wolf <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Today when I went in to sign my contract I was asked -- ordered, really -- to sign a loyalty oath or lose my job. I am told that this is a Homeland Security requirement, and that all professors at my (public) college have been required to sign it. I have until tomorrow to decide whether or not I can swear loyalty to the government, whether or not it deserves it. Has anyone else been asked to do this? Any advice for an adjunct that, until a few hours ago, was pretty sure had a bright future in academia? Here is the full text of the oath, which I have to sign in front of a notary: "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; (in an affirmation) under the pains and penalties of perjury." <hr></blockquote>

by **dbeach** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 8:48 am

welcome MW and welcome to the that academic..to the reality of bushevakia in 2005 something related at PI about he bush legacy

by **Dreams End** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 10:16 am

If it's true, then this should be happening around the country. anyone heard other such accounts?

by **Ferry Fey** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 11:13 am

I think we do have a responsibility to defend the Constitution against its domestic enemies.

by **antiaristo** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 11:17 am

What does it say about government in the Declaration of Independence?

by **Morgan Wolf** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 7:26 pm

What seems to be at issue amongst the liberal professors on this list is that the loyalty pledge seems like another form of McCarthyism, hence the "just like 1954" subject line in DW's first post. Someone responded with this, as a point of historical reference: <a href="http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/uchistory/archives_exhibits/loyaltyoath/symposium/" target="top">50th anniversary symposium of the University Loyalty Oath </a>. Here is a snippet from that site: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>In 1949, during the Cold War, the Board of Regents of the University of California imposed a requirement that all University employees sign an oath affirming not only loyalty to the state constitution, but a denial of membership or belief in organizations (including Communist organizations) advocating overthrow of the United States government. Many faculty, students, and employees resisted the oath for violating principles of shared governance, academic freedom, and tenure. In the summer of 1950, thirty-one "non-signer" professors--including internationally distinguished scholars, not one of whom had been charged of professional unfitness or personal disloyalty--and many other UC employees were dismissed. The controversy raised critical questions for American higher education.<hr></blockquote> Deja vu all over again? Subsequent reponses were equally interesting. Some professors counted themselves lucky not to be part of the public school system. Others said they "crossed their fingers and signed." One suggested DW swear the oath because "as as been shown historically, over and over again, God doesn't a hoot about perjuries." One felt that the oath meant they could be called up for military service. Others felt the oath was meant to "limit [DW's] constitutional rights to free speech." Several, who were posting from Canada and points abroad, advised DW to emigrate. One person, AG, said she signed because: "In my own mind, I reserved the right to consider that the defending the constitution was a higher calling than defending the government (at least the particular administration in power at the time) and that it was possible that opposing the government was indeed defending the constitution." DW reponds to her: "In my 2-hour crash course on the legality of loyalty oaths, this seems to be the consensus -- the state can make you proclaim allegiance to the Constitution, but allegiance to the government has to be clearly spelled out or it is non-binding and generally unconstitutional. I honestly don't object to defending and upholding the Constitution, but taking an unconstitutional oath doesn't seem like to right way to go about it. [In the morning I am going to] call my lawyer and see if he knows any good civil rights attorneys." Another wrote: "The question is, are you a government employee? If your school is a public institution, they can require this and, it could be argued, they should require this. If you don't like it, find another job." RW wrote: "It happened to me in Florida. I had to sign one (may have been slightly different wording) when I got my UNF job in 1989. As I told DW, I just gritted my teeth, crossed my fingers, and signed." FYI: The Florida statute regarding this can be seen here: http://tinyurl.com/brjxl Another, missing the point entirely, wrote: "You could probably successfully challenge the 'so help me God' part of it." This one was funny: "Well, nothing like this exists (yet) in 'backward' Kansas!" This person advised DW call the ACLU: "I think this is unmitigated B.S. and you should call the ACLU about it.This is exactly the kind of baloney they're so good at taking to the mat and getting governmental agencies tonked for. I'm sure you're not the only state employee with reservations about this blanket oath 'requirement'. Feh." My favorite response was this one, an actual job ad posted on the AAA network (American Anthropology Association). (Frankly, I knew it would be a matter of time before the alphabet agencies started recruiting social scientists to join the [cough] war on terror.) <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Anthropologists, Sociologists, and Psychologists in Washington, D.C. Salary: $74,000 - $135,000 Type: Full Time Central Intelligence Agency Directorate of Intelligence The CIA's Directorate of Intelligence (DI) is actively seeking Anthropologists, Sociologists, and Psychologists to assess psychological, social, organizational, and contextual factors affecting the functioning of political, terrorist and criminal groups, as well as societies' responses to medical crises such as pandemics and mass migration. Working closely with other analysts throughout the Intelligence Community (IC), intelligence collectors worldwide, and social science experts in academia, you will produce papers and briefings delivered directly to senior policy-makers and military commands. Maintaining and broadening your professional ties through continuing education and attendance at professional meetings is encouraged, and you may pursue and be sponsored for additional studies in fields relevant to your area of responsibility. This career presents opportunities for foreign and domestic travel, language training, analytic and management training, and assignments in other offices within the Agency and the IC. Positions are located in the Washington, DC metropolitan area with salaries ranging from $74,000-135,000 (GS-13, 14, 15), depending on expertise and experience. . Minimum requirements include a PhD from an accredited university in a relevant academic program, at least 5 years of experience in post-doc independent practice or research, and excellent communications skills. The ability to formulate and convey complex concepts to a lay audience clearly, concisely, and rapidly, and to adjust presentations to different formats, consumers, and purposes, is also required. Additionally, you must show a high tolerance for ambiguity, a track record of making reasoned judgments based on incomplete or unconfirmed data, and comfort working under deadline pressure as part of a multidisciplinary team with regular peer review. For more information and to apply online, visit www.cia.gov. Click on "CIA Careers" in the left margin to explore Analytical and Psychological/Psychiatric Analyst positions. All applicants must successfully complete a thorough medical and psychological exam, a polygraph interview and an extensive background investigation. US citizenship is required. An equal opportunity employer and a drug-free work force. THE WORK OF A NATION. THE CENTER OF INTELLIGENCE. Requirements: Minimum requirements include a PhD from an accredited university in a relevant academic program, at least 5 years of experience in post-doc independent practice or research, and excellent communications skills. The ability to formulate and convey complex concepts to a lay audience clearly, concisely, and rapidly, and to adjust presentations to different formats, consumers, and purposes, is also required. Additionally, you must show a high tolerance for ambiguity, a track record of making reasoned judgments based on incomplete or unconfirmed data, and comfort working under deadline pressure as part of a multidisciplinary team with regular peer review. Required Education: Doctorate NOTES: (GS-13, 14, 15), depending on expertise and experience. <hr></blockquote> It turns out that the professor who originated the discussion thread, 'Like 1954', has a blog up, and has written about the loyalty pledge extensively. In case some of you might want to read his own words go here: <a href="http://savageminds.org/" target="top">savageminds.org/</a> Interesting to read responses from academic liberals, who are feeling especially challenged in BushCo's Amerika. Cheers, Morgan

by **robertdreed** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:43 pm

The ability to formulate and convey complex concepts to a lay audience clearly, concisely, and rapidly, and to adjust presentations to different formats, consumers, and purposes, is also required. Additionally, you must show a high tolerance for ambiguity, a track record of making reasoned judgments based on incomplete or unconfirmed data, and comfort working under deadline pressure as part of a multidisciplinary team with regular peer review. Bastards. They're getting all that from me already, free of charge. Most of it, anyway. I strive not to adjust my "purpose." I just want to know what the hell is really going on. I'd be wary of PhDs in anthropology, for intelligence work. Doctorates demand too much of a narrow focus, especially for counter-intelligence. But, I suppose that's what //GossNegroponte// is looking for...the easily channelled, the naive, and the malleable. "...20 years of schooling..." Actually, more like 30. That's the nature of paper chase for you, these days. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/4/05 8:28 pm

by **Morgan Wolf** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 10:21 pm

<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin"> high tolerance for ambiguity Well, that single phrase just slayed me. I'm still laughing. If it's any consolation, none of the profs on the U of Buffalo list were at all interested in working for the CIA. There is one neocon, however, who takes great pleasure in framing every topic in ideological terms. This is quite disconcerting when you're discussing the cross-cultural aspects of the Katrina disaster, for example. The guy actually said that being poor and black had nothing to do with their decisions to stay behind. I am amazed at how he manages to work in the field at all. I wouldn't be surprised if he joined up. Maybe he already did.

by **robertdreed** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 10:25 pm

"ambiguity"... Who was it who termed it the "wilderness of mirrors"?

by **PeterofLoneTree** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 11:07 pm

I sent a link of this thread to The Dark Wraith. Here is the response I received: "I'm going to find out tomorrow if this "loyalty oath" story is on the level. I'm going to call the school myself. If the story is true, I'm going to turn Hell into a vacation spot compared to what's going to be coming out of my blog. "May God help that university if it's doing this. "The Dark Wraith has found a burr in his ass".

by **dbeach** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 11:17 pm

who is dark wraith ?? got a few prof buddies also

by **zangtang** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 11:29 pm

'a high tolerance for ambiguity' its a mantra..... hiding in plain view......again

by **PeterofLoneTree** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 11:37 pm

The Dark Wraith..."is a college teacher and writer who specializes in economics, finance, mathematics, business administration, computer hardware and software skills, and English grammar and composition. His extensive writings have appeared on About.com in the avatar of the Selig Wraith in the Medieval History Forum, as well as on Shakespeare's Sister, Julien's List, and other blogs as the Dark Wraith, under which pen name he also contributes as a writer for Big Brass Blog. He is a member of the American Economics Association and a Master Mason. He also serves as the editor and publisher of the blogScream newswire service". His blogs can be found at: <a href="http://dark-wraith.com/">dark-wraith.com/</a> <a href="http://dark-wraith.com/bbs/">dark-wraith.com/bbs/</a> "Choose friends of intense loyalty over allies of great intelligence: in so doing, by your side in the battles to come will be soldiers who will die for you rather than generals who will think for you". -- the Dark Wraith

by **dbeach** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:02 am

thanks for info about Dark Wraith

by **morganwolf** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 8:41 am

I wanted to clarify that this topic is not an urban legend or conspiracy theory to be proved/not proved. It is true. My purpose in posting this thread was to illustrate what newly hired academics are being asked to do, and to point out the dangers of allowing McCarthyism to creep back into the educational sphere. The subtext was: (1) will this loyalty oath be used to control the off-campus lives of academics (for instance, if they attend anti-war gatherings, etc) AND (2) will the oath affect the course content offered by professors who have 'taken the oath.' Not every professor on the anthro list had a problem with the loyalty oath. Some just signed and went on with things. Others were private school employees who had not been asked. Further, not every state has chosen to enforce this loyalty pledge. One professor, working in Kansas, noted, that state has not yet chosen to enforce the pledge. In Dustin's (DW's )case, the loyalty pledge thing was a new wrinkle that scared him. He didn't mind swearing loyalty to uphold the constitution. But he was avidly against being asked to blindly support the government. Again, you can read his own comments: <a href="http://savageminds.org/2005/10/03/party-like-its-1954/" target="top">savageminds.org/2005/10/03/party-like-its-1954/</a> If it has not happened to everyone who reads it, they should count themselves lucky. Cheers, Morgan