FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   927   928   929   930   931   932   933   934   935   936   937   938   939   940   941   942   943   944   945   946   947   948   949   950   951  
952   953   954   955   956   957   958   959   960   961   962   963   964   965   966   967   968   969   970   971   972   973   974   975   976   >>   >|  
stained the right of a municipality to bar from employment persons who advise, advocate, or teach the violent overthrow of the government, or who are members of, or become affiliated with any group doing so, and to exact a loyalty oath of its employees. In Adler _v._ Board of Education[233] the Court sustained the Civil Service Law of New York as implemented by the so-called Feinberg Law of 1949.[234] The former makes ineligible in any public school any member of an organization advocating the overthrow of government by force, violence, or any unlawful means. The Feinberg Law requires the Board of Regents of the State (1) to adopt and enforce rules for the removal of ineligible persons; (2) to promulgate a list of banned organizations; (3) to make membership in any such organization prima facie evidence of disqualification for employment in the public schools. Referring to the Garner Case above, Justice Minton, for the Court, said: "We adhere to that case. A teacher works in a sensitive area in the schoolroom. There he shapes the attitude of young minds towards the society in which they live. In this, the state has a vital concern. It must preserve the integrity of the schools. That the school authorities have the right and the duty to screen the officials, teachers, and employees as to their fitness to maintain the integrity of the schools as a part of ordered society, cannot be doubted. One's associates, past and present, as well as one's conduct, may properly be considered in determining fitness and loyalty. From time immemorial, one's reputation has been determined in part by the company he keeps. In the employment of officials and teachers of the school system, the state may very properly inquire into the company they keep, and we know of no rule, constitutional or otherwise, that prevents the state, when determining the fitness and loyalty of such persons, from considering the organizations and persons with whom they associate."[235] Group Libel In 1952 in Beauharnais _v._ Illinois[236] the Court sustained an Illinois statute which makes it a crime to exhibit in a public place any publication which "portrays depravity, criminality, unchastity, or lack of virtue of a class of citizens, of any race, color, creed or religion" or which "exposes the citizens of any race, color, creed or religion to contempt, derision, or obloquy." The act was treated by the State Supreme Court as a form of criminal libel, with the
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   927   928   929   930   931   932   933   934   935   936   937   938   939   940   941   942   943   944   945   946   947   948   949   950   951  
952   953   954   955   956   957   958   959   960   961   962   963   964   965   966   967   968   969   970   971   972   973   974   975   976   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

persons

 

public

 
school
 

employment

 

schools

 

loyalty

 

fitness

 
Feinberg
 

organization

 

determining


company

 

organizations

 

properly

 

Illinois

 
ineligible
 

society

 

religion

 

overthrow

 

teachers

 

officials


integrity

 

government

 
sustained
 
employees
 
citizens
 

present

 
determined
 

reputation

 
screen
 
system

doubted
 

immemorial

 
conduct
 
inquire
 

ordered

 

maintain

 
considered
 
associates
 

unchastity

 
virtue

criminality

 

depravity

 

publication

 

portrays

 

exposes

 

contempt

 
Supreme
 

criminal

 
treated
 

derision