In effect since 1934, a New York state law required faculty members in public schools and taxexempt, private schools, including colleges and universities, to sign an oath indicating that individuals would support the federal and state constitutions in the faithful execution of their professional duties. In October 1966, state officials realized that faculty members at Adelphi University, a nonprofit, tax-exempt university in New York, had not signed the oath. When the administrators at Adelphi asked the faculty members to sign and return the oath, 27 of them declined to do so. Instead, the faculty members brought an action contesting the constitutional legitimacy of the state law. Specifically, the faculty members claimed that the law violated their rights under the First, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
In initiating their claims, the faculty members filed a motion for a provisional injunction known as an injunction pendente lite, which requested a temporary, legal hold on the loyalty oath requirement until the litigation was resolved. Pursuant to a hearing regarding the motion, a three-judge panel in a federal trial court in New York conducted a hearing to determine whether requiring the faculty members to sign the loyalty oath violated their constitutional rights.
The faculty raised three main arguments in their motion. First, the faculty members claimed that obligating them to take an oath as to the performance of their professional duties violated their constitutional rights. In support of this position, the faculty relied on the Supreme Court’s analysis in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), in which the parents of students challenged a state requirement that their children were required to salute and pledge their allegiance to the American flag. In Barnette, the Supreme Court held that the students’ expulsion and school’s threat of criminal juvenile penalties for failing to salute the flag and pledge allegiance were violations of the students’ First Amendment rights.
According to the faculty members at Adelphi, the requirement of the loyalty oath was similar to saluting and pledging of allegiance to the flag. The threejudge panel disagreed on the basis that the pledge in Barnette was far more elaborate than the oath that the faculty members were challenging. The judges noted that Barnette involved a challenge to the religious freedom of the children in Barnette, because they were Jehovah’s Witnesses whose religious beliefs prohibited expressions of reverence to images such as a flag. In Knight, the court pointed out that because the oath neither compelled individuals to act against their religious beliefs nor threatened the faculty members with criminal sanctions as in Barnette, its precedent was inapplicable.
Second, the faculty argued that the statute was unconstitutionally vague, which was precisely the reason the Supreme Court had struck down earlier loyalty oaths. The court disagreed on this argument, too. Here the faculty members relied on cases that invalidated negative loyalty oaths because the oaths required individuals to refrain from acts and associational memberships and because the individuals were subject to criminal penalties if they disobeyed. In those cases, the court observed that the laws were not precise enough to enable ordinary persons to decide what acts and associational memberships they had to avoid. Consequently, the court noted, the earlier laws had been struck down for vagueness. By contrast, the court held that Knight presented a loyalty oath that required only affirmative support for the national and state constitutions in the fulfillment of faculty members’ professional obligations. Insofar as the language in the disputed statute was clear and reasonable, the court ruled that the law was not constitutionally vague.
Third, the faculty asserted a public policy argument that educators needed a work environment that was free from outside interferences. In response, the court was of the opinion that because the loyalty oath did not restrict the political or philosophical expressions of the faculty members, it did not interfere with their work. In sum, taking the three arguments that the faculty presented, the court denied their motion for an injunction. Dissatisfied with the outcome, the faculty members sought further review. On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court summarily affirmed the order of the three-judge panel in a brief one-sentence order that simply stated, “The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed” (p. 36).
Jeffrey C. Sun
See also academic freedom; Bill of Rights; Keyishian v. Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York; Political Activities and Speech of Faculty Members
Notes and comments: Loyalty oaths. (1968). Yale Law Journal, 77(4), 739–766.
Sun, J. C. (2008). Loyalty oaths. In C. J. Russo (Ed.). Encyclopedia of education law (Vol. 2, pp. 521–523). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Knight v. Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York, 269 F. Supp. 339 (S.D.N.Y. 1967), aff’d, 390 U.S. 36 (1968).
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).