Loyalty oaths are relics of the past

Chad Strawderman Arizona Daily Wildcat

"I, [the signed] do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of Arizona; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, and defend them against all enemies, fo reign and domestic, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties according to the best of my ability, so help me God (or so I do affirm)."

Anyone who's taken American history in high school knows about stuff like this; the words "witch-hunt" and "paranoia" are commonly associated with the era that spawned loyalty oaths. I can understand (sort of) the logic behind a loyalty oath in the early 1950s; there was a time when it seemed the world would be taken over by Communists, Socialists, and beatniks. (The last, of course, was by far the most frightening at the time.) From a very realistic perspective, it makes sense for a government to desire a unified domestic voice, so that international dealings are conducted with a solid, sure front.

However, requiring a loyalty oath these days is like Gheorge Muresan nailing a nothing-but-net three-point shot: a sure sign that something is hideously wrong. In Gheorge's case, it means it's time to pull the three-point arc back out. In the case of the oath, it's time to get rid of it.

Don't misunderstand me. I had no difficulty signing that oath per se, because I would indeed defend the nation and its Constitution from all foes, foreign and domestic. Further, this oath seems a perfectly logical requirement for elected officials and mil itary personnel, as it is their occupational duty to defend our nation from all enemies.

But from journalists? Come on, people. The media have a general reputation for cynicism that precludes patriotic fervor; that notwithstanding, the duty of the press is to tell the truth, not vehemently support the government in every way.

One major problem is this: If whoever signs such an oath commits high treason, "oathbreaking" will likely be least among the crimes with which the defendant will be charged. Imagine the courtroom scene:

U.S. Attorney: Did you or did you not actually discover, in your role as a journalist, the launch codes for this nation's nuclear arsenal?

Defendant: I did.

U.S. Attorney: And did you or did you not sell those same codes to every other nuclear power in the world?

Defendant: I did.

U.S. Attorney: Did you not sign a LOYALTY OATH to this government? Liar, liar, pants on fire!

Defendant: Hey-!

U.S. Attorney: Your Honor, even high treason pales beside forswearing! This man should be drawn and quartered!

Here's another little hitch. Men and women of honor frequently consider themselves bound by their word, and would stand by the oath they swear. Those who don't labor under weighty moral constrictions are criminals. Criminals break the law; they are by def inition the ones least likely to stand by their signature. It would be like forcing the general public to sign documents saying, "I, the undersigned, do hereby agree never to break the law." Sure, most of the people will try not to violate the law, but mu rder, rape, theft, and traffic violations will continue.

That's why making guns illegal in order to cut down on crime is silly; criminals will simply carry illegal weapons and add one more to their list of illegal activities. People who do not want to be bound by a loyalty oath will misspell their names, sign a s "John Wayne," or simply sign the paper and go about their merry ways.

Further, what if someone who works for a paper for which this oath is required happens to be a Mexican national? Or a Namibian? This oath could constitute treason in their own country. Americans would be outraged if a foreign power required that sort of p romise from American citizens working abroad; common courtesy would indicate that we do unto them as we would have them do unto us.

In short, requiring a loyalty oath from employees at a student newspaper is not merely silly; it insults the public intelligence. Maniacal nationalism has run its course; let it go into the history books, like Twin Peaks and Gimme a Break.

Chris Badeaux is the Daily Wildcat opinions editor and a senior majoring in English. His column, 'Cynic on Parade,' appears every other Monday.

By Chris Badeaux
Arizona Daily Wildcat
February 10, 1997