A key tenet of American’s civic religion is that the McCarthy-era persecution of Communists and Communist sympathizers was both paranoid and immoral. Academics are especially strident in their commitment to this tenet. And since they are academics, they’re especially dismayed by academia‘s persecution of Communists and Communist sympathizers. The most infamous form of this persecution: the loyalty oaths many universities imposed on their employees. Sign the oath, or lose your job.
What exactly did these loyalty oaths say? Here’s UC Berkeley’s Loyalty Oath of 1950.
Constitutional Oath (Constitution of the State of California, Article 20, Section 3)
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of my office according to the best of my ability.”
As passed by the Regents, April 12, 1950
“Having taken the constitutional oath of the office required by the State of California, I hereby formally acknowledge my acceptance of the position and salary named, and also state that I am not a member of the Communist Party or any other organization which advocates the overthrow of the Government by force or violence, and that I have no commitments in conflict with my responsibilities with respect to impartial scholarship and free pursuit of truth. I understand that the foregoing statement is a condition of my employment and a consideration of payment of my salary.”
Notice the mild wording of this Loyalty Oath. A person who personally advocates the violent overthrow of the government could truthfully sign it as long as he belongs to no organization that shares his position. A philosophical communist in full sympathy with Stalin could truthfully sign it as long as he is personally an “impartial scholar” in “free pursuit of truth.” Needless to say, every species of democratic socialist could readily sign, as could every kind of anti-anti-Communist.
By way of contrast, let’s compare UC Berkeley’s new Diversity and Inclusion Oath. Well, it’s actually much more. An Oath merely requires you to parrot someone else’s words; what Berkeley now mandates is a self-authored Diversity and Inclusion Vow in order to determine eligibility for employment. The university then scores your Vow for orthodoxy. Part 1 of its rubric, “Knowledge About Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” assigns you a prohibitively low score if your statement contains stuff like:
Little expressed knowledge of, or experience with, dimensions of diversity that result from different identities. Defines diversity only in terms of different areas of study or different nationalities, but doesn’t discuss gender or ethnicity/race. Discusses diversity in vague terms, such as “diversity is important for science.” May state having had little experience with these issues because of lack of exposure, but then not provide any evidence of having informed themselves. Or may discount the importance of diversity.
That’s right, merely “discounting the importance of diversity” virtually bars you from faculty employment. Imagine if the 1950 Oath required you to, “Affirm the great importance of the fight against Communism.” Or sanctioned those who merely “discussed anti-Communism in vague terms.”
The rubric continues:
Seems not to be aware of, or understand the personal challenges that underrepresented individuals face in academia, or feel any personal responsibility for helping to eliminate barriers. For example, may state that it’s better not to have outreach or affinity groups aimed at underrepresented individuals because it keeps them separate from everyone else, or will make them feel less valued.
This would be akin to a 1950 Oath that mandated support for current anti-Communist tactics. Something like: “For example, may state that it’s better not to support right-wing dictatorships because it creates the false impression that capitalism and democracy are incompatible.”
What’s afoot? Orwellian doublethink of the highest order. Sure, the hated 1950 Loyalty Oath seems far less onerous than the new Diversity and Inclusion Vow. But the people who refused to sign the 1950 Oath were heroes standing up for freedom of conscience. The people who question today’s orthodoxy, in contrast, are hate-mongers who need to be excluded from high-skilled employment.
Newspeak-to-English translation: Full-blown Stalinism is no big deal, a mere difference of opinion. Yet even tepid doubts about whether mandatory discrimination against high-performing groups has already gone far enough are anathema, anathema, anathema.
READER COMMENTS
Grant Gould
Sep 14 2020 at 11:58am
Um, California state universities still require a formal loyalty oath to the state and constitution. My wife was told to take it before she could be paid to lecture (after she had already given the lectures, no less!), until she was able to prove she wasn’t a California citizen.
So this new oath isn’t instead of an existing loyalty oath, it’s in addition to. Better or worse, this is just an extension of an existing bad practice, not a reinvention of it.
Peter Gerdes
Sep 14 2020 at 12:40pm
I think they took out the communist part no?
Grant Gould
Sep 14 2020 at 12:53pm
I believe so, but if your objection is to loyalty to the state, or to oaths, rather than communism it hardly helps.
The odiousness of loyalty oaths is unrelated to communism, pro or con.
Cliff
Sep 14 2020 at 9:31pm
This seems like a total non sequitur. Isn’t the whole point of this post that the current oaths are far worse than the nati-communist oaths (which are no longer required)? I don’t think the point is that an oath to uphold the constitution is odious??
Peter Gerdes
Sep 14 2020 at 12:39pm
I don’t know if Berkeley was particularly liberal back then but I presume there was variation in the oaths and this sounds like a particularly mild form.
Jose Pablo
Sep 14 2020 at 4:09pm
Great point Bryan!!.
We do live in an Orwellian world.
ee
Sep 14 2020 at 5:30pm
That Berkeley link says it’s a sample template. How much is it actually used? They have an email address for feedback maybe you should send some.
Mark Z
Sep 14 2020 at 9:27pm
I believe all U of California schools – not just Berekeley – require all applicants to academic position to include a statement “Demonstrating Interest in and Ability to Advance Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” meeting these specific criteria in order to be considered. It’s possible that hiring committees don’t really take the statements into consideration in practice.
Kurt Schuler
Sep 14 2020 at 8:34pm
You might have mentioned something in a parallel vein taking place considerably closer to home, at your current place of employment, George Mason University. Here is a letter on the subject that I recently sent to the university’s new president, Gregory Washington. (I have added links for the benefit of readers of this site; they were not in the original letter.) From your remarks about Berkeley, it appears you have similar views about George Mason to those I have expressed. Will you have the boldness to state them publicly?
Dear Dr. Washington:
Your recent statement announcing a Task Force on Anti-Racism and Inclusive Excellence makes frequent reference to anti-racism but fails to define what the term means. As you must be aware, other people and institutions have used “anti-racism” as a justification to try to narrow the boundaries of speaking, teaching, and research on various topics, including those that have no direct connection with race.
Moreover, they have too often increased rather than reduced racial animosity. Perhaps you recall, for instance, that only a few months ago the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History & Culture had a section on its Web site claiming that “emphasis on scientific method,” including “objective, rational linear thinking,” “cause and effect relationships,” and “quantitative emphasis” are characteristic of white culture, and by implication probably
undesirable. Such views are poison for any institution trying to promote high-quality inquiry.
I attended George Mason about 30 years ago. It was tolerant of differences of race and of thought back then. I keep up with news from the campus and can’t believe the university is any less racially tolerant today. Your initiative, however, runs a distinct risk of creating a stifling orthodoxy that will result in intellectual mediocrity.
Yours truly,
Kurt Schuler
GMU Ph.D. 1992 (Economics)
Phil H
Sep 15 2020 at 8:25am
Here’s a defence. I’m not sure if it holds up, but I think the argument can be made.
The oaths required in the 1950s were bad because they were direct and explicit violations of the right of assembly, a fundamental human right protected in the USA by the first amendment. The implication of the 1950s oath was guilt by association. Whether or not communism is a real threat, this approach to neutralising it was impermissible.
The oaths required today are less bad because they do not violate human rights. They are simply a way of selecting people who will perform well at the functions of the university. And the specific attitudes called for are not, as BC claims, merely “current tactics,” but actual correct attitudes, developed over many years of experience.
That’s what I reckon the argument would look like, and I think each part is defensible, though I’m sure there are counters as well.
Mark Z
Sep 15 2020 at 3:53pm
Can you elaborate how the anti-communist oaths would violate human rights but diversity oaths don’t? Guilt (or exclusion) by formal association with a political party seems less restrictive than exclusion by ideology, which is what diversity oaths do. I also think being a non-communist is a correct attitude, but I don’t think universities should be excluding applicants based on whether they have the ‘correct’ political attitudes or opinions, which this does. The oaths are essentially inconsistent with opposition to affirmative action, and probably also opinions about why some groups are more or less represented than others other than standard progressive opinions about this.
One could I suppose argue that opposition to affirmative action or disagreement with certain aspects of the racial politics of the university is sufficient evidence that one is racist and incapable of being fulfilling one’s duties as a researcher or educator, but one could also argue the same thing about not only communism but a lot mainstream political views about as easily. I think when people criticize the anti-communist oaths, they’re appealing to a principle of institutional political neutrality that they must dispense with to defend the current diversity oaths. The only way one can reconcile those beliefs, IMO, is if one believes membership to the communist party in the 1950s (when the communist party was actively cooperating with Stalin’s regime) is more within the range of social acceptability than opposition to affirmative action (since enforcing some social acceptability constraints is probably inevitable). But one would certainly never convince me of that since I think opposition to affirmative action is the correct ‘attitude.’ I think it’s also clearly a mainstream position among Americans, so the Overton Window being applied wouldn’t be reflective of the country in general.
Phil H
Sep 16 2020 at 9:21am
I mean, I think I said it. It’s freedom of association.
“Guilt (or exclusion) by formal association with a political party seems less restrictive than exclusion by ideology”
You can think that, but one of these is a formally defined human right, and the other is not.
”I think when people criticize the anti-communist oaths, they’re appealing to a principle of institutional political neutrality”
I don’t think that’s right, it was specifically the association issue. Are our universities supposed to be politically neutral? Who says? We can have Liberty University and Berkeley. There just is no such requirement, AFAIK.
“that they must dispense with to defend the current diversity oaths”
Here I make a more contentious argument: that diversity is not political. It’s a technical issue of university management. Just as a professor has to be committed to teaching, they have to be committed to making the community of scholars that is a university. If they don’t get how to do that, and are unwilling to learn, then they’re not suitable material.
Certainly you can push back on these arguments. But things like the technical nature of human rights are not small potatoes.
Comments are closed.