Posted on 02/26/2005 7:21:58 PM PST by ken21
Lost oaths, lost jobs? By JOSEPH THOMAS and MATT WILLIAMS Colorado Daily Staff
Midterms are in full swing at CU, but at least one CU professor said Wednesday there was a time this week when he wasn't sure he would be back for the second half of the semester.
English professor Paul Levitt told his class Wednesday that there was a 50-50 chance he would be fired by the University before he had a chance to grade his students' term papers.
The reason?
Levitt said he didn't want to re-sign a faculty loyalty oath that CU administrators are trying to ensure is signed by all current CU-Boulder faculty.
"Having been subjected to that humiliation once, I wasn't going to do it a second time," Levitt said Thursday. AD (_middle)
The oath reads "I solemnly (swear) (affirm) that I will uphold the constitution [sic] of the United States and the constitution [sic] of the state of Colorado, and I will faithfully perform the duties of the position upon which I am about to enter."
It has resurfaced as an issue at CU after embattled CU ethnic studies professor Ward Churchill acknowledged that he had signed one last Friday.
"I base everything I do on the clear principles of constitutional law, and from my point of view, beginning with the U.S. Constitution, everything has to conform to that, including the Colorado Constitution," Churchill said. "As far as I'm concerned, the U.S. without attribution ripped off a big chunk of that Constitution from us," Churchill said.
By "us," Churchill said he meant Native Americans, specifically, the six nations of the Iroquois Confederacy.
Levitt said he remembered originally signing the loyalty oath a few years after he first started teaching at the University in 1964.
Levitt's students Wednesday indicated Levitt was initially concerned he might be fired over refusing to sign the oath.
"Professor Levitt told us in class that he may not be back on Monday because he may be fired for not re-signing a loyalty oath to the university. He said that no matter what happened he would still get our papers back to us," said Crystal Bedley, a student in Levitt's class.
Levitt confirmed he was told that if he didn't re-sign the oath, he would face termination. So, Levitt hired lawyer Carl Manthei.
The situation was defused when, according to Manthei, CU legal counsel called him Thursday to confirm Levitt's original, signed loyalty oath had been found by the University on microfiche.
"It seems very odd, number one, that they would have everyone sign an oath that has already been signed in the past," Manthei said. "And secondly that they would have given them a deadline, and thirdly, that they would threaten termination."
University spokesperson Pauline Hale said that the target deadline is today at 5 p.m. to verify whose signed loyalty oaths are in their personnel files and whose remain to be signed.
A precise count of the number of missing loyalty oaths among CU faculty should be compiled by next week, Hale said.
Kathryn Eggert, chair of the English department, said Thursday her department had tracked down only 20 percent of the English department's loyalty oaths so far.
The rest of the faculty's oaths are probably on microfiche in "cold storage," she said.
Interim Chancellor Phil DiStefano sent a campus-wide e-mail to CU-Boulder personnel on Monday that ordered an administrative review of the files of all professors, instructors and teachers to verify that they had signed the oath.
The loyalty oath is a part of the Colorado Revised Statutes, which requires professors, teachers, and instructors at all state colleges and universities to swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Colorado.
Levitt said the University is bullying the faculty of the CU system by making them sign the oath.
"To my mind it was simply a form of public humiliation on the part of the faculty making them kiss the ring of the Pope and let them know who's boss, to intimidate them and get them in line, all of that business," Levitt said.
Levitt said he knows of at least two other faculty members who do not want to sign the oath again.
"The loyalty oath is a part of the Colorado Revised Statutes, which requires professors, teachers, and instructors at all state colleges and universities to swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Colorado."
it's pretty obvious that if one does not want to sign this, then one is not an american.
I guess asking him to pledge allegiance to the flag is out of the question,too.
If they have a problem with the US Constitution, let them seek employment elsewhere. They could start their own university.
i've never understood the reasons of people who do not sign.
.
Why not? Is his arm broken? Will it cause too much pain? More pain than grading all those essays from the students? Poor, poor pitiful professor!
.
"To my mind it was simply a form of public humiliation on the part of the faculty making them kiss the ring of the Pope and let them know who's boss, to intimidate them and get them in line, all of that business," Levitt said.
----
They ARE the boss dummy. And WE, the tax payers of Colorado, are THEIR boss. And by the way, WE are pissed. Boulder isn't the only town that pays taxes that go in part toward CU. You might have to leave Boulder county from time to time to understand how most people view your beautiful city.
.
Do you suppose he thinks that signing it is meaningless if a traitor like Ward Churchill signs it and gets away with what he is doing? Just a thought.
Hey.. they haven't gone far enoough!
How about a random urinalysis for illegal substances?
A lie detector test?
There are many employers who require those tests....in the private sector. If I, as taxpayor, am paying your salary, I want to be sure you don't have a problem with "the constitution", you're not on illegal drugs ( that way we taxpayors get a Workmen's Compensation discount) and even Radio shack asks for a polygraph to avoid theft.
Go become an actor or writer if these things snub your sensibilities. Hey Professor...consider this is your tiny bit of touching Reality.
BTW, if you're going to comment to a poster, it is best that you click the ole reply prompt and then TYPE something.
"I base everything I do on the clear principles of constitutional law, and from my point of view, beginning with the U.S. Constitution, everything has to conform to that, including the Colorado Constitution," Churchill said. "As far as I'm concerned, the U.S. without attribution ripped off a big chunk of that Constitution from us," Churchill said.
By "us," Churchill said he meant Native Americans, specifically, the six nations of the Iroquois Confederacy.
could someone explain what churchill means?
we all have had to submit urine tests, sign statements, ... and we all pay taxes to support these professors.
but we do not have tenure. we can be fired, and are fired routinely.
Question: Is anyone else offended by this professor's anti-Catholic remark? I just want to use the left's tactics against.
i guess you need an anti-catholic defamation league.
More revisionist history by Native activists.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3380/is_199803/ai_n8117838
During the U.S. Bicentennial, when academics and nonacademics replowed virtually every aspect of the American founding, a few nonhistorians claimed that the Iroquois Confederation was a powerful influence on the Articles of Confederation, the U.S. Constitution, or both. Historians who looked into the matter quickly concluded that such claims were ill-founded.(1) Those who sought to include Native Americans in American constitutional history, by framing the matter the way they did, chose the wrong grounds for seeking inclusion. The Iroquois Confederation was important not for its ...
Or, try this:
http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_a6.html
Q103. "I have heard that the U.S. Constitution is based on a document called the 'Iroquois Confederation'. Is this true, and if so what parts of the Constitution came from this document?"
A. The U.S. Constitution is not based on that of the Iroquois Confederation - but some of the delegates to the Convention knew of the Confederation (notably Benjamin Franklin) and the two documents share many concepts, as do many constitutions. The Five Nations was a federal-style system, and it shared that with the U.S. You can find it online, though it is slightly difficult reading - the Indians spoke often in concept and metaphor.
Find a copy here: http://tuscaroras.com/pages/history/iroquois_constitution_1.html.
interesting. thanks.
apparently churchill distorts this connection for his personal gain.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.