Cite as: 6 N. Supreme Court of New Jersey. Argued Dec. Decided March 12, George B. Thorp had his teaching employment contract terminated by the Board of Trustees of Schools for Industrial Education of Newark, New Jersey, for refusal to take an oath of disavowal of allegiance to doctrines of force or violence as a mode of overthrowing government. On appeal to the State Commissioner of Education and the State Board of Education, the action of the Trustees was sustained, and plaintiff's appeal to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court was certified to the Supreme Court for decision on its own motion.
The Supreme Court, Heher, J. Charles R. Hardin, Newark, argued the cause for respondent. The opinion of the court was delivered by. The question here is the constitutional sufficiency of ch. The oath is in terms following:.
So help me God. At the time of his employment, plaintiff was an experienced teacher and a specialist in the fields of mechanical and aeronautical engineering. On February 17, , after four days of teaching under the contract, the trustees requested plaintiff to take and subscribe the prescribed statutory oath; but a week later he declined, in writing, on the ground that this legislative requirement infringed upon 'the rights of private citizens as guaranteed' by the Federal and State Constitutions.
The trustees constitute a body corporate under ch. Plaintiff's appeal to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court was certified here for decision on our own motion. More specifically, it is said that the statutory proscription trespasses upon the sacred domain of belief, even though the subject matter be a settled conviction entertained by one who would teach and instruct youth of the right to overthrow or change the established Federal or State government by force or violence or other unlawful or unconstitutional means.
This legislative directive is challenged as an unconstitutional 'throttling of any unorthodox philosophy which must inevitably flow from such proscription. Douds, U. The First Amendment of the Federal Constitution gives 'freedom of mind the same security as freedom of conscience. Collins, U. It is of the very essence of the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment that opinions or beliefs not manifested by an overt act shall not be the subject of criminal sanctions Unorthodox thoughts as such may not be rendered punitive.
