Case Title: Brush v. STATE BD. OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Citation: 245 Or. 373, 422 P.2d 268

Docket Number: 

State: oregon

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Date: 1966-12-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
Affirmed December 30, 1966.
Wolf D. von Otterstedt, Assistant Attorney General, Eugene, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Robert Y. Thornton, Attorney General, and Loren H. Russell, Assistant Attorney General, Salem.
Thomas P. Deering, Portland, argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.
Before McALLISTER, Chief Justice, and PERRY, SLOAN, O'CONNELL, GOODWIN, DENECKE and HOLMAN, Justices.
AFFIRMED.
*374 McALLISTER, C.J.
This is a declaratory judgment proceeding brought by plaintiff, Florence Brush, against the State Board of Higher Education, challenging the constitutionality of ORS 342.615, which requires that every teacher in the public schools of Oregon, as a condition of employment, subscribe to an oath in the form set out in the statute. The statute reads as follows:
The lower court held the statute unconstitutional, and defendant appeals.
The facts are not in controversy. The plaintiff is an Assistant Professor of Portland State College, one of the institutions controlled by the State Board of Higher Education. On September 20, 1965, the Chancellor of the State Board of Higher Education directed the President of Portland State College to require every faculty member of the college to comply with ORS 342.615. The plaintiff refused and was advised that she would receive no further compensation until she filed a loyalty oath as required by the statute.
*375 Our decision here is controlled by Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 US 360, 84 S Ct 1316, 12 L ed 2d 377 (1964). In that case the Supreme Court held that a Washington statute requiring employees of the State of Washington to take a similar oath[1] was unconstitutionally vague and contravened both the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
In holding that the oath required by the 1931 Washington statute quoted below violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the court said (377 US 371-372):
In holding that the 1931 Washington statute violated the First Amendment guarantee of free speech, the court said (377 US 372):
Since there is no reasonable basis to distinguish the loyalty oath required by ORS 342.615, and the Washington oath construed in Baggett v. Bullitt, supra, we affirm the judgment of the lower court. We need not consider whether ORS 342.615 also contravenes Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution of the State of Oregon.
The decree of the lower court is affirmed.
[1]  "I solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the constitution and laws of the United States of America and of the State of Washington, and will by precept and example promote respect for the flag and the institutions of the United States of America and the State of Washington, reverence for law and order and undivided allegiance to the government of the United States." Wash Laws 1931, c. 103.