The University's loyalty oath policy recently fell victim to a bad case of confusion and misunderstanding.

The policy requires applicants and full-time employees of the state of Pennsylvania to sign a contract affirming an obligation to uphold the constitution of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania before receiving payment for work.

James Elliott, director of the office of human resources, said the University does not require part-time and wage payroll workers to sign the contract.

But Amy Magill (junior-accounting) said the Continuing Education department made her sign a loyalty oath even though she was only working part time as a model for an art class.

Magill said Continuing Education held a meeting after she voiced a complaint about the situation and sent the department a letter.

Elliot said Magill was not supposed to sign the loyalty oath portion of the contract, and the whole incident was a case of miscommunication and misinformation.

Ron Avillion, director of Continuing Education, said the department was not informed about the policy for part-time, wage payroll workers by their human resources office and made Magill, along with other students, sign the oath.

He said communication between the human resources representative for Continuing Education and the department was confused, which caused the problems.

"It was a misunderstanding on our part," Avillion said.

The situation was immediately corrected and Continuing Education will no longer require part-time workers to sign loyalty oaths, he added.

According to Pennsylvania law, the loyalty oath was deemed unconstitutional in 1975 and has not been allowed to be required for any state-related job.

The University still has full-time faculty -- such as professors and teaching assistants -- sign the loyalty affirmation, which is merely a statement of support for the U.S. Constitution, Elliot said, adding that there is nothing illegal about the policy.

James Ryan, Continuing Education vice president, said this situation should not reflect on the department or the individuals involved.

"These are not issues that deal with personal judgments," Ryan said. "These are more of organizational issues that are based on a lot of legal matters in the past."

Magill said her main goal in pursuing this mix-up was to get rid of the entire loyalty oath policy.

"Each person has their own principles," Magill said. "I just (thought) this was something I felt strongly about."

The other loyalty oath contracts that were signed by students will be retrieved and negated, Avillion said.