|
It is not the intention of the Unquiet Collective to hammer education in general, or teachers in particular. We like good educators. We recognize that training the little (or bigger) brats is usually a thankless job. I know teachers who make less money than does the big beefy guy who picks up my garbage once a week. (I do not have anything against sanitation engineers either so please sir, do not tear my Rubbermaid receptacle to shreds.) Actually, it is because we do assume that the majority of educators are both competent and cognizant of where their responsibilities end, and the rights of their charges begin -- that the exceptions stand out. Perhaps that is why I have noticed a recent story in the news… First, let us review some American history. It is pertinent to what follows.
Shameful past A national suspicion developed over the idea of domestic Communism and it was egged on by this fascist's sensational -- but baseless -- attacks. One consequence of this paranoia was requiring loyalty oaths as a condition of employment for certain jobs -- including education. Most of these oaths included whatever a local administrator decided should be required of a good American citizen.
Historically, educators have been among the most open-minded and freedom loving of citizens. During McCarthy's era, many teachers were unwilling to sign a piece of paper that effectively denied them their basic First Amendment rights, including "freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble".
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government… Since that time, the courts have allowed loyalty oaths as a condition of employment only with severe limitations.1 To ask someone to swear to uphold the state or federal constitution and not to participate in a revolution by illegal means is one thing. To demand that they not attend meetings were people discuss Marxism is an entirely different matter -- especially in a University setting where presumably any subject may be discussed in the interests of the search for truth.
Current event
I would like to report that her teacher, Lutz Zastrow, supported her well-thought-out decision to act in accordance with her beliefs. I would sincerely like to … since I believe that educators everywhere should support their students who demonstrate a functioning conscience -- even if their decisions do not always coincide with that of the instructor. I would love to report that the youth of my country are always under the guidance of those who hate blind obedience and love liberty almost as much as I do.
Obviously, people have a right to pledge allegiance to a flag, or a man or a government -- if they choose to do so -- just as they may choose to pledge themselves to Jesus or Buddha or the Spirit of Richard Nixon. The root word of allegiance is 'liege' which is a vassal, a loyal subject. If a person wants to make themselves vassals to something, that is their business. The Jehovah's Witnesses believe in God, and since they consider themselves as subjects of the kingdom of God, they will not pledge allegiance to anything less -- especially a flag. They believe it to be icon-worship and Moses' second commandment explicitly forbids bowing down to objects. It seems odd to this author that most other religions in Christendom do not have similar ideas.
How did this happen? What Lutz Zastrow and District superintendent Tom Anthony fail to understand about America is that we are not subjects except by choice. We are citizens. What MaryKait Durkee knows about being an American -- that her educators do not know -- is that citizenship is about doing our own thinking. It is about coming to our own conclusions and acting in accordance with those decisions. Being an American is about taking only the oaths you choose to take, and not allowing your conscience to be overruled by someone else, just because they are allegedly 'in authority'. How did a philosophical descendant of Joseph McCarthy end up teaching in a classroom in southern California? Moreover, does it not seem ironic that a child in America is being treated this way, for refusing to recite words that end "…with liberty and justice for all"?
1 Neither the federal nor state government may condition employment on taking an oath that impinges on rights guaranteed by the 1st and 14th Amendments, such as rights relating to political beliefs. Nor may such employment be conditioned on an oath that one has not engaged, nor will not engage, in protected speech activities, such as criticizing institutions of government, discussing political doctrines that approve the overthrow of certain forms of government, or supporting candidates for political office. [Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 (1967); Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360 (1964); Cramp v. Board of Public Instruction, 368 U.S. 278 (1961)] |
From the late 1940s and into the 1950s, a jackass of a Senator from Wisconsin named Joseph McCarthy created a manic stir in the country. He and his permanent subcommittee 'investigated' -- a euphemism for 'harassed' -- members of the media, public figures, army officials and people in high government positions. He accused them of being Communists -- whatever that means. Not one of his imputations was ever proved and the Senate finally censured him in 1954.
Because of America's national hysteria, many good teachers lost their jobs for their refusal to take a loyalty oath. In one such case in July 1950, thirty-one faculty members of the Berkeley and Los Angeles campuses of the University of California were dismissed by a two-vote majority of the Board of Regents for refusing to sign the required loyalty oath. This oath required a specific denial of membership in the Communist party or belief in organizations advocating overthrow of the national government.
