IN THEORY:

Teacher Wendy Gonaver was recently released from Cal State Fullerton just before her first class because she did not sign a loyalty oath swearing to “defend” the U.S. and California constitutions “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Gonaver, a Quaker and pacifist, said she felt the oath infringes on her rights of free speech and religious freedom. Do you think the Cal State system is right to insist on the oath?

Of all the questions that have been submitted for In Theory, this is the most difficult for me. It touches on freedom of speech and religious expression, which are very dear to my heart as an American, a veteran and a Christian. At first, we might be tempted to side with the teacher. As I search my heart on this, however, I have to side with Cal State Fullerton on this very difficult decision. Here is my reasoning:

1. Our constitutional guarantees are not unlimited freedom to do as we please. A civilized society must sometimes limit the desires of an individual to maintain order and the common good.

2. The requirement to sign the loyalty oath has been around since 1952. It should not have been a surprise to the teacher that she would be expected to abide by the same law as have more than 2 million Californians who signed the oath as a condition of employment.

3. I agree with the original intent of the oath, which, if I understand it correctly, was to prevent educators from teaching anti-American sentiments to young people. Our schools should not be classrooms for disgruntled, unhappy people to vent.

I feel for the teacher, but I believe that as long as the law requires the signing of the oath, she should either sign it and abide by it, or seek employment in some other venue.

Pastor Dwight Tomlinson

Liberty Baptist Church

Newport Beach

Since when are people who calls themselves pacifists not a loyal citizens? What causes people and institutions to miss the primary reason we are a free country? Sounds reminiscent of McCarthyist thinking by those who see intimidation as the only answer to the defense and preservation of our American way. The only difference is that intimidation is a primary tools of a totalitarian government, not a government for the people and by the people.

I have no problem defending my country, but I have no patience with those who have missed the point of this country. It’s time to rewrite the loyalty oath.

Pastor Jim Turrell

Center for Spiritual Discovery, Costa Mesa

Talk about defending the Constitution. It would be nice if our administration in Washington were a bit interested in that. They have been doing everything possible to limit our constitutionally guaranteed rights and accumulate more power at our expense.

During the McCarthy era, our politicians’ overreaction to anyone with a tinge of possible interest in communism built up to such a ridiculous degree that it became a national embarrassment. Politicians love to have something with which to frighten the populace.

There was never any real danger to America from its communist sympathizers. Talented people lost their jobs because they knew someone involved with the onetime legitimate and officially recognized American Communist Party.

Absurd rules like the loyalty oath should be kicked out — like McCarthy was — when people learned it was nonsense. A true subversive would sign the pledge without a thought.

Back when there was a draft, those called up who had religious or ethical reasons against using guns to kill others were usually allowed to do only non-fighting jobs, but they were still taken into the military. Now two things need to be done: Give Wendy Gonaver her job back, and remove that silly loyalty oath.

Jerry Parks

Member, Humanist Assn. of Orange County