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