I think what really got the hackles raised in this particular case was the teacher's desire to insert the word "nonviolently" into the oath...

Bearing in mind the number of school shootings in the US, I could, hypothetically, understand a requirement for a teacher to defend their children, i.e. human lives, -nonviolence but, coming from a country without a written constitution, the legal necessity of a teacher swearing to defend a piece of paper +potentialviolence is mindboggling. Possibly California has confused education with military service. o_O

::ironic icon::