"A Pall of Orthodoxy" The Painful Persistence of Loyalty Oaths

Nick R. Post #4 Dissent Quarterly, summer 2009 written by Marjorie Heins

The article examines the use of loyalty oaths in Ohio and throughout history. In 2006 Ohio created the Ohio Patriot Act which requires new public employees to take and answer NO to six questions. These six questions were designed using the U.S. State Department's "Terrorists Exclusion List." Apparently the oath also applies to anyone who receives a government contract over $100,000 in a given year. Answering "yes" or leaving blank any of the six questions automatically declines you form receiving a governmental position. The article states that the questions can be confusing and hard for the average person to understand. The State Department's definition of terrorist groups and organizations are broad and undefined. The article also cites a professor in California who lost her job at the state university in Fullerton in 2007. Bearing arms against enemies foreign and domestic was part of her loyalty oath. She being a Quaker refused to bear arms and was subsequently terminated. They article goes on to explain the history of test oaths in the U.S.

this is interesting because state government is trying to control who gets a job within its walls. This is based on you signing an oath. I understand oaths in the military and by the president, but at a state level? So if I lived in Ohio and wanted to be a park maintenance worker, I would have to swear an oath to defend the state? Does one really think it is a good idea to have people swear oaths? Do people really defend those oaths? Or is ti just a way to terminate and imprison people? I took an oath to defend my country, but I am also in the military. There is nothing wrong with people taking oaths in certain situations. I think oaths at universities and other state agencies is a little ridiculous.