Word: oaths
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1930-1939
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
Worthy of great praise is the decisive stand of Professor Mather of Harvard against the enforcement of the stupid and repressive Teachers' Oath Law of Massachusetts. In refusing to sign an oath of allegiance as a teacher he has refused to lay himself at the mercy of all narrow minded chauvinists who might choose to interpret utterances of his as unpatriotic. To suppose that anything particularly subversive or radical might invade the teachings of a professor of geology, which is the position Dr. Mather holds at Harvard, is, to begin with, ridiculous. But it is a matter of some importance...
...there is also a possibility that the statute is unconstitutional. If it is unconstitutional, anyone who cooperates in its enforcement is cooperating in harassment of citizens in violation of the supreme law of the land. It is hard to answer the question satisfactorily because in so far as the oath refers to support of the federal and state constitutions, I find it to be absolutely without meaning. Section 2a expressly recognizes 'The basic principle of the constitution which assures every citizen, etc. the right to advocate changes . . . in both the state and federal constitutions.' Obviously, one may thus teach that...
...Teachers' Oath Act' stands, the Legislature seems to be making merely a nasty gesture suggestive of Hitler or Mussolini. Legislators who voted for it were flirting with violation of their own oaths to support the Constitution, but it is not clear that they have accomplished even that. Yours sincerely, James A. McLaughlin...
...display lack of generosity in refusing to believe that Professor Mather's decision to comply with the Oath Bill is the result of his unwillingness to involve the University in a legal battle. Professor Mather does not need to "extricate himself rather gracefully" from anything. He has shown himself willing to take personal responsibility for his action. If there were not men like this who shun the ineffectual mollycoddle ways of the CRIMSON, democratic government would have vanished long ago, if indeed it could ever have appeared...
...suggest that perhaps the oath will prove not to be mandatory. Then the refusal of one man to obey the law would quickly have shown this. Next you suggest a test case on the constitutionality of the law. How is this to be brought about except by the refusal of someone to obey it? Lastly you suggest that if the law is a poor piece of legislation, as you say is "probable", Professor Mather could "arouse public opinion to influence the State Legislature in its repeal". Is this not just what he set about to do? Bert Arenson...