Colorado § 22-61-103 - Teacher's oath, affirmation, or pledge.

§ 22-61-103. Teacher's oath, affirmation, or pledge.

(1) A person now holding a license to teach in the public schools in the state of Colorado or who shall hereafter be issued a license to teach in such public schools within the state of Colorado, except a person employed to teach in a temporary capacity who is a citizen of a nation other than the United States, shall take or sign the following oath, affirmation, or written pledge:

I solemnly (swear) (affirm) (pledge) that I will uphold the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Colorado, and I will faithfully perform the duties of the position upon which I am about to enter.

(2) A person authorized to administer oaths in the state of Colorado shall administer the oath or affirmation, or the teacher must sign the pledge.

Source: L. 21: p. 719, § 1. C.L. § 8441. CSA: C. 146, § 235. CRS 53: § 123-17-14. L. 61: p. 665, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 123-17-6. L. 69: p. 1024, § 1. L. 2004: (1) amended, p. 1286, § 22, effective May 28. L. 2017: Entire section amended, (SB 17-296), ch. 313, p. 1687, § 6, effective June 2.

ANNOTATION

This loyalty oath is not unduly vague. A loyalty oath prescribed for teachers in Colorado state institutions which affirms the "upholding" of the state and federal constitutions and the "faithful performance, of teacher's duties is not unduly vague, but is plain, straightforward, and unequivocal, and a person taking it is not left in doubt as to his undertaking." Ohlson v. Phillips, 304 F. Supp. 1152 (D. Colo. 1969), aff'd mem., 397 U.S. 317 (1970).

Neither is it an improper invasion of rights of free association and expression. The obligation assumed in taking the oath is one of simple recognition that ours is a government of laws and not of men, and the oath is not a sweeping and improper invasion of the rights of free association and expression. Ohlson v. Phillips, 304 F. Supp. 1152 (D. Colo. 1969), aff'd mem., 397 U.S. 317 (1970).

Nor does it deprive teachers of equal protection. The oath is an almost universal requirement of all public officials, including lawyers and judges, and it cannot be truthfully said that teachers are being deprived of equal protection of the laws by arbitrarily classifying teachers. Ohlson v. Phillips, 304 F. Supp. 1152 (D. Colo. 1969), aff'd mem., 397 U.S. 317 (1970).

The state has a vital concern in possible advocacy by teachers of forceful overthrow of government. Since teachers work in a sensitive area in which they can shape the attitudes of the students with whom they come in contact, the state has a vital concern in the educational process, and has the right not only to screen teachers as to their fitness, but also to be concerned about possible advocacy of overthrow of the government by force and violence. Ohlson v. Phillips, 304 F. Supp. 1152 (D. Colo. 1969), aff'd mem., 397 U.S. 317 (1970).

This section is not a bill of attainder or ex post facto law. The oath statute does not constitute a bill of attainder or an ex post facto law, because punishment is a prerequisite of these forbidden legislative acts, and the statute imposes no punishment. Ohlson v. Phillips, 304 F. Supp. 1152 (D. Colo. 1969), aff'd mem., 397 U.S. 317 (1970).

The imposition of qualifications is not punishment. The statute imposes no punishment, as it is merely a general regulation providing standards of qualification and eligibility for a position, and the imposition of such qualifications by the general assembly does not amount to a "punishment". Ohlson v. Phillips, 304 F. Supp. 1152 (D. Colo. 1969), aff'd mem., 397 U.S. 317 (1970).

Swearing to "faithfully perform" their duties is not a restriction on teacher's political expression. State can reasonably ask teachers in state schools to subscribe to professional competence and dedication, and this portion of the oath providing that they will "faithfully perform their duties" of their positions merely reflects the significant interest of the state in assuring the careful selection of teachers, and imposes no restrictions on a teacher's political expressions. It is certain that there is no right to be unfaithful in the performance of duties, and hence this undertaking is implicit. Ohlson v. Phillips, 304 F. Supp. 1152 (D. Colo. 1969), aff'd mem., 397 U.S. 317 (1970).

In this oath the phrase to "uphold the constitution" means an affirmation of belief in organic law and disbelief in the use of force to overthrow the government. Ohlson v. Phillips, 304 F. Supp. 1152 (D. Colo. 1969), aff'd mem., 397 U.S. 317 (1970).

No hearing is required where teacher is dismissed for failure to take the oath. Due process does not demand a hearing in connection with every dismissal from public employment. A teacher who is dismissed for refusal to take the oath has no need to be faced with his accuser or given an opportunity for cross-examination, since no amount of hearing can change the fact that the person refused to take the oath. Ohlson v. Phillips, 304 F. Supp. 1152 (D. Colo. 1969), aff'd mem., 397 U.S. 317 (1970).

Reasons for refusal to take oath are not relevant. A teacher's reasons for refusal to take the oath are not relevant, because where the oath is simple, direct, and unambiguous, the hearing as to why the accused refused to take it would be virtually meaningless. Ohlson v. Phillips, 304 F. Supp. 1152 (D. Colo. 1969), aff'd mem., 397 U.S. 317 (1970).