Loyalty Oaths
A Reflection on Free Thought in Public Service
When I was a young teacher going through my credentialing program, one of the many formalities I had to complete was signing a loyalty oath. At the time, it made perfect sense to me. After all, I was entering a public institution, funded by taxpayers, and agreeing to serve the public good. Why wouldn’t I swear allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the State of California? It seemed like nothing more than a procedural step—one of many bureaucratic boxes to check before I could step into a classroom.
Now, 25 years into my career, as I enter middle age, I find myself reconsidering the meaning and purpose of that requirement. Watching Guilty by Suspicion reminded me of the historical weight of loyalty oaths, their connections to McCarthyism, and the broader implications they carry for freedom of thought, academic integrity, and personal conscience. The movie dramatized the plight of Hollywood figures blacklisted for their alleged communist ties, many of whom were pressured to sign statements of loyalty or testify against colleagues. It made me ask: Do loyalty oaths truly serve a necessary function, or are they relics of an era that distrusted intellectual independence?
What Is a Loyalty Oath?
In California, as in many states, public employees—including teachers—are required to sign a loyalty oath as a condition of employment. The California Constitution (Article 20, Section 3) mandates that all state employees swear to "support and defend" the U.S. and California Constitutions against all enemies and to bear true faith and allegiance to them.
Unlike the anti-communist oaths of the 1950s, today’s loyalty oath does not require individuals to renounce specific ideologies or associations. It is framed as a pledge to uphold constitutional principles, not a test of personal belief. However, the broader question remains: What is its actual purpose?
The Case for Loyalty Oaths
Supporters of loyalty oaths argue that they:
Ensure commitment to democratic principles. By affirming allegiance to the Constitution, public employees acknowledge the legal and ethical boundaries of their roles.
Protect the integrity of public service. A loyalty oath sets a standard that employees will not act against the government or engage in subversive activities.
Are largely symbolic. Many argue that signing the oath is a minor formality, akin to pledging to abide by workplace policies or professional ethics codes.
The Case Against Loyalty Oaths
Critics, however, see loyalty oaths as unnecessary at best and harmful at worst:
They compel speech. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of thought, yet a loyalty oath requires employees to affirm a specific ideological stance as a condition of employment.
They have a troubling history. Loyalty oaths were once used to purge suspected communists, socialists, and political dissidents from public life. While today’s oath lacks explicit ideological tests, its roots in McCarthy-era paranoia remain.
They do not prevent disloyalty. Signing an oath does not guarantee an employee’s adherence to constitutional principles. Those intent on undermining democracy are unlikely to be deterred by a piece of paper.
They create barriers for religious objectors. Some faith groups, such as Quakers, oppose taking oaths on spiritual grounds. While courts have allowed modified versions, the requirement itself remains exclusionary.
Final Thoughts: Do They Still Make Sense?
Looking back, I realize that signing a loyalty oath as a new teacher did not feel like a big deal at the time. But with decades of experience behind me, I now view these oaths through a different lens. Are they a harmless tradition, or do they represent a lingering distrust of public servants? If a teacher, professor, or civil servant is truly committed to ethical conduct, democracy, and the rule of law, does an oath change anything?
Maybe the real test of loyalty isn’t what we sign on a piece of paper but how we act in our classrooms, communities, and public institutions. If we truly value democracy, shouldn’t we encourage free thought rather than demand symbolic affirmations of allegiance? Guilty by Suspicion reminds us of the dangers of government overreach in policing ideology. Perhaps it’s time to question whether loyalty oaths belong in a society that claims to value intellectual freedom and dissent.