Teacher under fire for informing kids of their Fifth Amendment rights
dailyherald.com
dailyherald.com
To me, that sounds like an unusually thoughtful social studies teacher. He is relating the general concepts that he is hired to teach his students to a real-world situation facing the students, and that sounds like good teaching to me. He ought to get a promotion or a raise, based only on this news about his public behavior in the classroom.
It is, of course, sometimes appropriate for schools to distribute surveys to minor students in their care on which there may be questions about student behavior that may be embarrassing or illegal. But the teacher, based on the report here, is just asking his students to think about their lessons and what those lessons mean, not trying to undermine the survey process.
"But Dryden doesn't want this seen as him vs. the administrators. He said he knows they were acting in what they thought was the best interests of the students.
"'These are good, professional, smart people on the other side who want to do what is right by kids,' he said.
"He would rather focus the discussion on the survey.
"'I have asked people (the supporters) to talk about the survey. I think I am a sideshow,' he said. 'This (the survey) was rushed and it wasn't vetted.'
"'I'm not a martyr,' he said. 'I'm trying to refocus people's attentions. Calm down.'"
This story is happening in my town. There is a public hearing tomorrow night and I plan on attending.
As the teacher said, the focus should be on the survey, not his acts. Of course, provided that he doesn't suffer any unfair and ridiculous disciplinary actions.
Stupid, yes. But I think it is likely that the school has a real legal barrier to sharing the survey.
It could be. It could also be that the people who dreamed up this survey saw that legal barrier as a convenience. You can administer an unfair and potentially useless, invasive, survey, to your students, AND you have a "reason" not to tell the media, too! Had I been a student at this school, I would have put my survey directly in the trash.
The idea that a publically funded school is passing out surveys to students, and we cannot read them, makes me rage. If this doesn't anger you, then something is wrong. The reason is irrelevant, they should have thought about that before buying the survey.
When tyranny comes it is not going to introduce itself. No one is going to hand you a pamphlet, entitled: "Your rights, and lack thereof" and roll out the details of how they will all be taken away. It will do so by stealth. It will do so by employing lame excuses. It will come as a trojan horse. Increased security, no more terrorist attacks! This is all secret so we can keep the kids off drugs!
The road to hell was paved with good intentions.
This teacher is a hero.
I bet all that was done was done under the public guise of "protecting the children" (then again what isn't these days...). Privately all that was done was to protect the behinds of the administrator in case some kid does something "crazy" and the school is sued or criticized. They want to have something to point to and say "Aha but we did everything we could, see...! we hired professionals in the field to find troubled teens, if they couldn't don't blame us".
Simple as that.
That is the reason there are so many bullshit business consulting companies. It lets those implementing risky and unsound/unpopular idea to go and point their finger to and say "see we hired professional and they agreed with us, these are world class consultants, if they couldn't predict failure, how could you blame us, simple administrators/executives/board of directors..." stuff like that.
It is all basically about having a scapegoat in the end.
In this case my capacity for outrage is exhausted. I've been through too many permutations of this particular type of outrage that this is in line with my expectations.
And yes, if the survey is as described, the teacher should be commended. Not punished. But that's out of my hands, though if someone gives me someone to email, I will do so.
...wait.
Of course we don't draw and quarter drunk drivers. Just because an offense does not require mens rea does not mean that we throw out all sense of proportional punishment.
Firing programmers for creating bugs (an offense without mens rea) is massively disproportionate, which is why we don't do it (at least until the severity and frequency of the bugs becomes unreasonable and other corrective options have been expended.)
It's as if we don't know that it was malicious and recognize that, just perhaps, we should ascribe incompetence first.
Drunk driving laws use strict liability, meaning that absolutely no mens rea is required to prosecute a drunk driver. Incompetence, rather than malicious intent, can be assumed but the drunk driver is nevertheless pursued and ultimately punished in a proportionate fashion.
Nobody here is suggesting that we drag these school administrators off to criminal or civil court for being spineless tyrants through incompetence. What we are suggesting is that in the "court of public opinion", their 'crime' should use strict liability. School administrators do not need to act maliciously for us to criticize them. Incompetence, without mens rea, is fair game for criticism.
Who gives a shit if they are just incompetent? I assume that they are. That does not get them off the hook.
So, does the early bird get the worm or do good things come to those who wait? We're maybe too inclined to just assert these sorts of things as fact. (This includes me.)
Someone who attributes to incompetence too regularly is one we may call a "chump" or a "sucker" and is an easy mark for charlatans of all stripes. If I don't get taken for a fool occasionally, maybe I could have a little more human faith. If I get taken for a fool all the time, I should get pissed off more.
Further, if it comes from a company that also offers more conventional achievement kinds of tests, it may come with bloodthirsty NDAs, as a matter of habit for such companies.
It's a public school. So copyrights are now more important than parents rights? What a lame excuse.
Maybe that's also why our - so called - Representatives in Congress can't see the Acts they are voting into the Law? Because it's copyrighted by Lobbyists?
What a joke of a country.
Copyright does not stop you from giving a copy to someone, it only stops you from making more copies.
Furthermore if members of the press got a copy, they might be forbidden from publishing the test in full. A sample single question from the test (alluding to illegal activity) would likely be fair-use.
Except that you do not need a license unless you are making copies. The only reason you see licenses with software is that the process of installing software is making a copy of that software. Books do not come with licenses, because you do not copy a book in order to read it.
"Furthermore if members of the press got a copy, they might be forbidden from publishing the test in full."
I am pretty sure that even a full reproduction in a newspaper could be fair use, since it is for purely journalistic purposes and the publishing of the questionnaire would not impact the market in any way (the scrutiny by the press might, but criticism is also covered by fair use).
Essentially, copies made that are inherently required for the expected function of the work (to the HD if required, to RAM, to screen, etc) aren't copyright violations. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117
They couldn't keep it online, but couldn't be seriously censured for trying, and they wouldn't be alone.
If the gatekeepers don't provide the information (malicious compliance, obfuscation, foot dragging, denying request), you've got grist for the mill. EVERYONE supports "open government" and will support your efforts.
It's best (PR wise) to get the incriminating information after a long drawn out fight.
The public (parents in particular) ought to have the right to know everything that their kids see.
It's an interesting problem, because the companies involved fund studies to improve the diagnostic power of the test (tweaking the questions and scoring), but then lock up what they find out.
(Here's an example of a commercial psychometric survey: http://www.talentlens.co.uk/select/giotto)
At the same time every individual school will have dozens of people with graduate degrees. Much of those graduate degrees will be based on classes and research about how to acquire exactly this type of data. And yet, they are unable to make these things themselves and go out and purchase them in the most expensive way possible.
The amount of waste involved in the education process is mind boggling.
I was trying very carefully not to say that there's no value in these surveys, because they are designed by experts: PhDs, running statistically significant experiments. Sample sizes on the ones I've looked at are in the hundreds, which is pretty huge for a psych experiment. Just slapping one together based on a few classes you took would be irresponsible and probably not very useful as a diagnostic. My complaint is mostly that since we're publicly funding these experiments anyways (one government body buys them from a company, who gives some money to another government body), we should cut out the middle-man.
That's awesome. This is what democracy looks like.
I got hooked attending some townhalls on my pet topic. I've learned so much about politics, policy, etc. these last 8 years.
#1 Show up.
#2 Keep showing up.
#3 Bring your friends.
It's ridiculous how few people shape policy. The upside is adding a few more people to the debate can significantly shape outcomes.
If you become credible (learn a topic well enough to speak to all points), and you pack council chambers with your supporters, you will change policy.
Everyone focuses on campaigns. The real action is in policy. Politics is a dirty, filthy business, but it's still worthwhile.
I strongly recommend Camp Wellstone. There's an "activist" track. Anyone aware of methodology or project management will grok their techniques immediately. The focus is policy vs products.
For election integrity, it was a small group of us vs everyone else. I've testified opposite Mark Radke of Diebold, county auditors, county executives, election administrators, retired generals, people representing the disabled community, etc.
One time, our issue followed the kittens and puppies on the agenda. Something about a kennel. Council was PACKED. EVERYONE showed up for the puppies and kittens.
Whereas it was just me and my cohort representing the interests of democracy. Looking at the turnout for the puppies and kittens, I turned to my cohort and said "We're doing this wrong."
The times we "won", it was either because we packed the hearing or I had better (embarrassing) information.
Some highlights:
- A father who made a point of stating he disagrees politically with Dryden but vehemently supports him and his views on the 5th amendment
- A mother complained the "opt out" email that was sent did not mention the self incriminating nature of the questions. She was concerned about the lack of confidentiality and the overall effectiveness of a survey that kids had admitted lying on.
- A student noted the inconsistency in teaching children about their rights academically, only to deny them in practice.
In the end, I was impressed with this community's response and how this issue managed to bring so many political opposites together in support of our rights.
Too bad it all fell on deaf ears, though.
He was fired a few years after I graduated. Which wasn't surprising - he constantly pissed off the school board and other teachers. Dryden sounds a lot more politic than my teacher was.
The fact that the district wouldn't have instructed all teachers to notify students of the potential ramifications of answering such questions is a big problem. If any of the data later has a negative impact on someone's child, the district may have some legal liability. This teacher should actually be rewarded potentially shielding the district from a lawsuit.
Wow, this has been circulating among my Facebook friends and I saw the article when it came out. Did not expect to see it on the front page of HN.
I'll try to add a little more information. The article mentions it briefly, but suicide has become a big issue in Batavia[0]. I know of at least the first 2 suicides - two friends (or possibly boyfriend/girlfriend, can't say for sure), roughly 6 months apart. These events were completely unprecedented and were a shock to the quiet, safe, middle-class town.
Major props to Dryden for standing up to the this. Although I never had him for a teacher when I was in school, many of my friends were influenced by him.
I'll ask some friends if they remember any of the survey questions, and post them here if I can.
Also, I look forward to nsxwolf's (another Batavian!) notes from the city council meeting.
[0]: Read a little more here: http://www.kcchronicle.com/mobile/article.xml/articles/2013/...
This is a microcosm of what happens when public institutions, whose records and dealings are considered to be part of the public record, uses private contractors. Other public instituions have used this to deny access to what is usually a citizen's right to know: e.g. public worker salaries being maintained by a private payroll company.
Here is a freely published copy of the POSIX standard:
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/
Regarding the "text of some laws", there was actually a story on HN about the city of the District of Columbia asserting copyright to their laws and making it only available via a private company:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/31/ignorance-of...
* School district sees all these school shootings, news reports of troubled teens, suicides, bullying and how badly it reflect on the district.
* School district employs below average intelligence administrators who are easily manipulated and controlled by contractors, lobbyists, salesmen, suppliers. Either an administrator or one such salesperson from the test administration company came up with the idea of providing these proprietary tests.
* Tests are touted as an easy, spray and pray instrument "just give them this test for which we'll charge $500 a pop and you'll easily weed out ones who (wink wink) need help."
* This is how the school district solves its paper problem, computer problems, fixing the cracks in the asphalt in the parking lot problem. They are approached by salesmen and given gifts and dinners and are sold "solutions".
* The more overpriced and expensive the solution the more sleeker the sales pitch. "You don't want to end up like Columbine, OR DO YOU?" maybe stuff like "What if Columbine happened here, could you tell the parents that you DID EVERYTHING YOU COULD?" and so on.
* It is not that hard to scare these people into anything. At best it was a plain ol' sales pitch. At worst there were shady deals going on "We'll buy your son a new car if you buy this package"
* Test instrument comes with strict copyright rules (not that unusual for psych and personality test packets), disclosure rules, but I don't think that is that uncommon.
* Administrators buy in. Cha-ching for the testing company and all is well, ...
* Except for one teacher who actually is doing his job and applies his subject to the real world. So we have this story.
* Now I wonder how frequent this stuff is and how many other school districts are doing this, but which don't have teacher like this who like to "stir the pot".
So if the corruption is the problem why they don't get questioned by the Police?
Promises of gifts, expensive trips, retreats to exotic islands, scholarships for family members, all kinds of other perks can be used to help facilitate deals with vendors.
Frankly, the schools shouldn't have that information, it's dangerous. While it can save lives, it can end them just as easily.
They have nightmares of being on the stand in court and asked questions like "are you sure you did everything you could to prevent the disaster?"...At least this is probably how testing and psych screening company sold them the packet.
Now their stupidity is also a blessing. If just someone could manipulate them into being afraid of your scenario. Being sued for collecting too much private info about its students. What if they get hacked or someone breaks into the office and steals all those answer sheets with all kinds of strange confessions? Law suits from parents is supposedly this dark deep evil always lurking in their minds. Just need to re-frame the problem so that they see collecting data = increasing risks of getting sued and voila, temporary win.
As a side note, someone on Reddit mentioned taking a similar test (but supposedly anonymous, I say "supposedly" as teacher often can tell the students by handwriting). and putting the most outrageous answers they could in the boxes, mostly for fun. I realized I would have probably have done back then the same thing, just to mess up their statistics. What if didn't end up being anonymous, it leaks and now it is attached to my name for life. Good luck explaining every employer who runs background checks.
People who can think better in general don't say stupid things like this.
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
I don't necessarily think they were right on everything, but they were right on this. You really don't want to live in a state where Treason is an accusation thrown around lightly.
Just wanted to point out that the hearing taking place tonight will probably be recorded by BATV (http://batv.us/) and available to stream later in the week. Once the recording is posted, I will update with a direct link.
What do they do if a student reveals an alcohol problem? Or sexual abuse? Or criminal behaviour?
It's potentially a good idea, but they should have thought it through a bit more before.
EDIT: The company selling the tests have a lot of product available. (http://www.mhs.com/Education.aspx)
EDIT: I might be annoyed if schools are buying these tests instead of textbooks.
I think a shocking consequence is students will now feel unsafe telling the truth about troubling events (abuse, etc.)
That would defeat the purpose of the survey.
I guess if there's a time for someone to learn the hard way when to keep private info private, high school is better than later.
Does that include crimes against minors?
That's the idea -- helping those students is a significant and easily ignored cost center.
Therefore, a student speaking in favor of 2nd Amendment rights or coming out sounding too "pro-gun" might find himself tagged for observation by the administration as an "extremist" or a potential threat.
A lot of people feel that they must fill in every value of every form "or else". While really, if you value your privacy you should ask if every value is really required.
And of course, it's very easy to lie accidentally: You may honestly be confused, mis-remember, make a mistake, or tell them a true fact that doesn't fit with incorrect information they obtained from another source. Especially under the stress of being suspected, investigated, arrested, etc.
Rule one of dealing with the police: Don't help them under any circumstances. Shut up and lawyer up immediately.
For more information, watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
The video I linked discusses this very issue for a few minutes starting at 5:20.
At 6:55 he talks about how possession of a lobster can be illegal: "It doesn't matter if he's dead or alive. It doesn't matter if you killed it or it died of natural causes. It doesn't even matter if you acted in self defense! Did you know that? Did you know it could be a federal offense to be in possession of a lobster? Raise your hand if you did not know that. [audience raises hands] There's the problem!"
The whole video is witty and informative, and IMHO definitely worth watching.
It's pointless to argue this point, because the simple rule is, as you say, never to talk to the police, and have a lawyer and audio recorder if you do.
I'm not sure what the ramifications would be of a minor lying on a survey administered by school administrators. I doubt if students could be charged with a crime for lying under these circumstances, but I can envision other problems if students admitted to drug or alcohol use on a survey that identified them by name.
Probably not. The comment I replied to was saying that choosing to lie instead of self-incriminate is sometimes a crime, and I was elaborating on that.
> federal officials
This advice applies to state and local officials, too.
> I'm not sure what the ramifications would be of a minor lying on a survey administered by school administrators
Probably nothing.
> other problems if students admitted to drug or alcohol use on a survey that identified them by name.
Yes, if the survey results ever get out, they might later be used as evidence. Don't say it's not possible -- the police might find an excuse to subpoena the results and get a lax judge to sign off on it, and I seriously doubt that school officials would be willing to go to jail for their students by not complying. Or the results could be stolen, leaked, or hacked.
My school did something similar, but the surveys were anonymous and simply used for aggregate statistics - which sounds infinitely more effective than what this school is doing, anyway.
Weapons yielded suspension and automatic recommendation for expulsion. Administrators did not have to agree with the recommendation.
With that said, I don't like the "automatic recommendation for expulsion" parts of these policies. Even if administrators don't need to adhere to it, making it automatic is silly in the edge cases. I don't think it helps.
Other school districts can and have applied their codes of conduct to non-school related activities.
Granted it's not zero tolerance because he wasn't expelled.
I'm not, and never was, happy with the overreaching disciplinary actions taken by school systems. I think it tends to be reactionary and counter-productive. But your claims are still not accurate. While I disagree with the policies, and I think they are bad, they are as bad as your claims.
That's pretty close to what you say. Of course you set out an impossible claim of the school stating that it has "nothing to do with school." The argument from the school system in cases like these is roughly that out-of-school behavior has an impact on the school, so all behavior can be punished by the school system.
You could cross check answers of a well designed survey to get an indication if the answers are honest or not but this does not nearly bring the result close to an anonymous but more honestly answered survey.
But with their rights, troubles and teenage rebellion - how dare they disrupt the perfect teaching set up by bureaucracy by being themselves.
The fact that a survey is needed means that the system has already failed the students. And the idea of it being non anonymous means that the persons responsible have no idea at all how to deal with children. The school is there to guide the young ones during one very hard period in a person's life. It should be relationship based on trust not intimidation. But instead we get administrators that think of themselves as sheriffs that must be tough on crime.
But the mantra is protect the children (which we do for ourselves) and not do something good for the children.
The 5th amendment gives people the right to refuse to testify, as a witness, in a way that might incriminate oneself. Relatedly, it excludes self-incriminating statements in certain circumstances from evidence in criminal cases. While the 5th amendment has been interpreted to apply to many different proceedings (not just criminal cases, as in the text of the amendment), there must be some sort of proceeding of a disciplinary nature.
If the survey results were not shared with the police or intended to be used in a criminal case, it's quite likely not the case that the 5th amendment was implicated at all.
No, you have the right not to testify information that would incriminate you in a proceeding. It's a narrower right than you're making it out to be.
But it is a useful protection when you don't know if you are required to testify -- knowing that you have the 5th means you no longer need to know if you are being compelled or not.
That's neither here nor there. I'm just saying I doubt it's the case that the 5th amendment prevents the school administration from making a student fill out that survey in the absence of any police involvement or review of the results.
The likelihood that a survey in which an American public school student admitted drug use would not find its way into the grubby clutches of law enforcement is approximately nil.
Well, if a student tells school officials he's been breaking the law, that could trigger a "proceeding of a disciplinary nature", couldn't it? I believe there is case law on this sort of thing.
If the students were "coerced" or "compelled" to take a survey that may self-incriminate them, then it could probably be shown the privilege did apply.
This is actually a gray area. My understanding is that this isn't true until the school administrators call the police in. Before that, they are not agents of the police and they don't have to mirandize you. It's also cloudy because the administrators are seen as in loco parentis (in place of the parents). Here is the wikipedia article that details the changing case law around what public school administrators can do w/r/t the bill of rights. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_loco_parentis#Primary_and_se...
You can invoke the 5th amendment in proceedings that are not currently, but could become, criminal proceedings, on the grounds that your answers may be used against you criminally. For instance, you can refuse to answer questions in a civil case deposition relating to potentially criminal activities. The only way to remove the right against self-incrimination is to grant immunity, which for drug-related offenses means, to be safe, both state and federal government would have to agree.
What's even more sad is that a brief word from a civics teacher got a significant number of students to think twice about taking the survey. Why didn't the students' parents talk to their own kids about the survey? It's a parent's responsibility, as much as it is a civics teacher's responsibility, to discuss civics issues like this with their children. Most of the parents would probably do well to audit Mr. Dryden's class.
Maybe the parents weren't told that the survey was asking about potentially illegal behavior and wasn't anonymous.
Maybe the survey's true nature was buried in ambiguous terms or lengthy legalese.
Maybe the survey was opt-out instead of opt-in, and most people took the path of least resistance and didn't bother to do anything with it (if their kids even remembered to give them information that was sent home).
So the amendment is necessary not because of the general case (in any circumstances, it is obvious that nobody has the right to expect a self-incriminating answer to a question) but because of the specific case of a witness.
However, nowadays, people seem to need to be recalled that they are not expected to speak against themselves anywhere. Except if they willingly want to do so.
"Did you insult your classmate?" is usually not a legal proceeding. However, answering it one way or the other will help you or not. You do not need to answer that question. But quoting the Fifth for not doing so is ridiculuous: it is way before the Fifth amendment.
So, the teacher was correct to treat the students about their basic, God-given rights.
I'm not American, but I'm pretty sure the fifth amendment applies to any and all self incriminating statements that can be used to support a criminal charge against you. This is the entire reason police advise you of these exact same rights at the moment of arrest.
By your explanation, anything you say to a police officer or other figure of authority (in this case the school) that leads to criminal prosecution is fair game. That simply isn't the case.
Entire context:
nor shall (a person) be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
Witness is in reference to the general action; not just sitting on a stand.
The core of the rule is narrower than that: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fifth_amendment ("The Fifth Amendment protects criminal defendants from having to testify if they may incriminate themselves through the testimony.")
It has been broadened beyond that, ("In the landmark Miranda v. Arizona ruling, the United States Supreme Court extended the Fifth Amendment protections to encompass any situation outside of the courtroom that involves the curtailment of personal freedom"), but note that Miranda itself is inapplicable because the "custody" element is missing.
I can't find any case law on the subject, but there is an old law review article that discusses some of the issues: http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=20....
Even within the framework of the article, which argues in favor of students having 5th amendment rights in general, it's hard to see how a survey aimed at gathering information for psychological evaluation would implicate the 5th amendment. The most likely answer seems to be that it's permissible so long as the student retains the right to invoke the 5th in any criminal action against him.
The term "coercion" is an elastic word that may mean different things in different settings. In the public school context, for example, an administrator may suspect a student of wrongdoing" and threaten to impose a penalty unless the student makes a statement. The administrator may threaten to suspend or expel the student, to call the police, or to impose a less "severe" penalty such as keeping the student after school. At some point, these threats become coercion, thereby implicating the fifth amendment
Considering what is happening to the teacher, I'm sure any reasonably skilled lawyer would be able to make the case that such an atmosphere of coercion does in fact exist in this particular district.
The objection here is to "fishing expeditions" wherein evidence is gathered en masse under an innocent pretext, and later (whether planned or not) an authority could gain access to that information and use it against the coerced students. Example: survey occurs, police find evidence of drug crimes with tenuous connection to a particular student, survey results are demanded via warrant by police, confession by student in question is revealed and a whole lotta other students' confessions are found and subsequently acted on.
That the evidence was elicited prior to development of a criminal case does not excuse compelling students to confess, whoever to, to otherwise unidentified crimes. If the evidence exists at the onset of criminal investigation, it cannot be recalled by the suspect under 5th Amendment grounds. That the confession is elicited by the state, to wit the public school, compounds the issue: the government is not allowed to demand evidence of criminal culpability without warranted cause, which is exactly what the school in question was doing.
Broad-based gathering of information about potential psychological issues, without anonymity and with viable consequences of expulsion or prosecution, is nothing more than a "fishing expedition"/"witch hunt" - exactly the kind of thing the 4th and 5th Amendments are intended to protect against.
It is no longer necessary for criminal proceedings to be in progress; it is now sufficient that the testimony could give rise to criminal proceedings. See, for example, Lois Lerner, the IRS official who took the 5th Amendment at a Congressional (i.e., non-criminal) proceeding because the testimony given could have led to criminal proceedings.
'We can't help them if we aren't aware of their needs,' Barshinger said."
Honest question: Could a survey to high school students truly help suicidal teens?
When I was in school, I know a fair number of kids just filled in bubbles at random on these things anyway.
What are "social-emotional learning standards"??
i.e. does the child behave with typical maturity for a child of his age?
The school system should be following a combination of legal code and the generally accepted morals of the community they represent. Notification was provided to parents. Parents could opt out and there was no general movement by parents to prevent the survey. The school therefore didn't ask him to do anything which is "definitively immoral".
People including myself have to make judgements like this at different times during their career. I have worked for companies which have asked me to perform actions which I personally have found against my moral code but which aren't illegal and may not be considered immoral by society as a whole. Sometimes I have done them and other times I have not. It has depended on how large of a violation of my own moral code I though it was. Anytime I have refused I have fully expected and received negative reactions from my employer. To actively interfere with the goals or requests of your employer and not expect a negative reaction is just idiotic.
Abuse of treason convictions had occurred so much in England that the framers specifically defined it in the constitution (apparently the only crime to get such a treatment).
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
I don't necessarily think they were right on everything, but they were right on this. You really don't want to live in a state where Treason is an accusation thrown around lightly.