vol. 32, no. 11

American

Civil Liberties

~ Union

Volume XXXII

ERNEST BESIG

2270 = ISTH AVE

SAN FRANCISCO CA 94116

SAN FRANCISCO, NOVEMBER, 1967.

Expanded Program Needs Support

Membership |

Re-enrollment |

For 6,

-68 Begins

The Board of Directors of the ACLUNC last month fixed

a budget of $128,928.12 for the fiscal year beginning

No-

vember 1, 1967. This is an increase of about 9% or $10,-

936.10 over last year's budget. It is the biggest budget in the

branch's history and could result in a deficit of $18,300 since

-the anticipated income this year

is only $110,600.

Late last month letters were

sent to all ACLU members ex-

cept those who have contributed

since August, urging them to re-

enroll for the current fiscal year

State Supreme

Court Takes

Peace Ad Case

The Supreme Court cf Cali-

fornia has nullified the decision

of the Court of Appeal holding

that the Alameda-Contra Costa

Transit District was within its

rights in refusing a paid adver-

tisement by The Women For

Peace asking people to write

President Johnson about the war

in Vietnam. ihe Court of Ap-

peal had ruied, as detailed in

the October issue of the ACLU

NEWS, that a non-discrimina-

tory rejection of all political ad-

vertising except at the time of

campaigning on ballot issues did

not violate constitutional! rights.

ACLU counsel, disagreeing

with this decision, took the case

to the California Supreme Court

and that Court has now granted

a hearing and will shortly set

the case for argument. When the

California Supreme Court grants

a hearing in a case the decision

ef the Court of Appeal is nulli-

fied and has no precedent value.

ACLU attorneys are hopeful that

the State's highest court will af-

firm the judgment of the trial

court which granted an injunc-

tion against the Transit District's

refusal to accept the advertise-

ment.

Two induction

Center Leaflet

Cases Dismissed

Prosecutions were recently dis-

missed against two Selective

Service registrants who distrib-

uted literature inside the Oak-

land Army Induction Center.

Both men appeared at the Cen-

ter in response to induction or-

ders.

In the first case, B. Penney

sought to distribute leaflets

which announced his refusal to

kill another human being. Upon

refusing to surrender his leaflets

he was arrested for disturbing

the peace. The District Attorney

dismissed the prosecution "in the

interests of justice."

In the second case, Ken Dursa

was also charged with disturbing

the peace after passing out leaf-

lets inside the Center, and the

District Attorney likewise dis-

missed the charges.

Both cases were handled by

volunteer ACLU Attorney Ken

W. Kawaichi of Oakland.

and to contribute toward the

budget. The letter noted that the

expected deficit results from

ACLU's expanded program of

last year when a Legislative

Representative and Assistant

Staff Counsel was added to the

staff. That program today costs

about $22,000. The Board had the

choice of dropping the program

and balancing the budget or of

trying to raise the additional

money. It voted to keep the pro-

gram and toe raise the money.

Each member is urged to re-

examine his giving to the ACLU

to see whether he can't give a

little more this year in order to

help the ACLU keep its expand-

ed program. Obviously, the

budget will not be met unless

the membership is willing to IN-

CREASE its contributions.

If you cen's pay

contribution now, please make a

pledge that is payable on a quar-

terly basis. You can add sub-

stantially to the value of your

contribution by responding to

this initial budget appeal, there-

by saving the ACLU the costs of

follow-up mailings.

Here is the way your money

will be spent:

Ge ee een

oar Ot ar

Salaries. $ 75,150.00

Retirement _................... 441.30

Pension Fund .............. 900.00

Hospitalization _........... 125.00

Legal Dept.-Cases ... 6,000.00

Mailing Service .......... 6,000.00

ACLU-NEWS ............... 4,260.00

Printing and Stationery 4,850.00

Taxes and Insurance ... 3,921.82

Travel and Trans. .......... 1,850.00

Rent 22 7,675.00

Postage - 42 7,000.00

Tel- Tel. 3 2,800.00

Furniture and Equip..... 400.00

Publications ................ 400.00

Miscellaneous .............. 325.00

Audit and Reports ........ 560.00

Education Committee.. 500.00

Sacramento Expenses... 5,000.00

Total. 2 $128,938.12

Marin Chapter |

Public Meeting

November 20

The closing of the Marin

County Family Rehabilitation

Center will be the topic of

the Friday, November 20, Ma-

rin Chapter Meeting. The dis-

eussants will be Messrs. John

Hitchcock and Robert Ralls,

the two probation officers re-

cently suspended for speaking

at a County Supervisors meet-

ing in opposition to the clos-

ing of the Center.

The meeting, open to ACLU

members as well as to the

public, will start at 8 p.m. and

take place in the Community

Meeting Room on the third

floor of the Bank of Marin,

5th and B Streets, San Rafael.

- 23%

Number 11

Memberships

Now Run from

Nov. 1 to Oct. 37

Beginning with the new fiscal

year on November 1, member-

ship in the ACLUNC is on a

fiscal year basis-November 1 to

October 31 of each year. Conse-

quently your membership falls

due on November 1 of each year

and all members except those

who recently renewed have been

sent ietters urging them to re-

enroll for the new fiscal year

that has just started.

Previously, your membership

was in effect for one year from

the time of receipt of your dues.

Thus, memberships required in-

dividual handling and an inordi-

nate expenditure of clerical time

and effort. Keeping track of the

8300 persons on the mailing list

has not been easy. Many errors

have occurred. Therefore, in or-

der to reduce operating costs and

to establish a more efficient sys-

tem of handling memberships,

the Board of Directors author-

ized the new system.

Under the new system, the

handling of memberships has

been simplifed. We no longer

maintain records (account cards

and address plates) by month of

expiration. All members are now

listed in an alphabetical file and

a second monthly expiration file

has been eliminated.

Since 77% of our members

presently renew during the first

six months of the fiscal year, the

change-over to the new system

won't make much diffsrence to

most cf our members. We earn-

estly seek the cooperation of all

our members and especially the

whose memberships and

subscriptions were paid during

the last six months of the past

fiscal year. If you wish further

clarification please write or call

the office.

Meeting `c Discuss the Draft |

U.C. Injunction

Attacked as

Prior Restraint

The healthy encouragement of free speech by officials

at the University of Californ'a in Berkeley was frustrated

on October 16 when Alameda County Superior Court Judge

Lewis Lercara issued a temporary restraining order against

the Regents of the University of California preventing the

use of UC facilities for a meet-

`ing scheduled that evening at

Pauley Ballroom to discuss the

draft. As the direct result of

this injunction, Pauley Ballroom

was closed and what was sched-

`uled as an orderly meeting with

presentation of many points of

view on the draft turned into an

unsanctioned rally on the steps

of Sproul Hall without an organ-

ized program. Incidentally, many

more persons thal. could have

been accommodated at Pauley

Ballroom turned out for the un-

sanctioned meeting.

County Action

The action for the injunction

came on the petition of the

County of Alameda alleging that

the University was permitting a-

meeting on its grounds at which

statements encouraging interfer-

ence with the draft would be

made. The petition was filed

Monday morning and at 1:30 p.m.

the same day Judge lLercara

agreed to hear the matter of the

`temporary restraining order in

his chambers. Present at the

chamber session were three at-

torneys for the County of Ala-

meda, the President of the Ala-

meda County Board of Super-

visors, several attorneys for the

Regents of the University of

California, Chancellor Heyns and

Vice - Chancellor Boyd, and

Marshall W. Krause and Mal-

colm Burnstein, appearing ami-

cus curiae for the ACLUNC.

Public Order

Judge Lercara immediately in-

dicated that he was profoundly

impressed by the threat to pub-

Stays Granted Four More

Death Row Inmates

Four more Death Row inmates

avoided execution last month,

each from a different source. Al-

bert Tahl received a stay from

United States Supreme Court

Justice William O. Douglas, Dor-

man Talbot had his execution

stayed by the United States

Court of Appeals and Leaman

Smith's execution was stayed by

United States District Judge

Sweigert. One other inmate, Mas-

sie, received a stay from Gover-

nor Reagan in order to permit

him te testify in a trial of a co-

defendant. Governor Reagan's ac-

tion was less a stay than a con-

tinuance and Massie is now

scheduled to die on November 2.

Peckham Order

None of these stays was a di-

rect result of the procedure out-

lined in Judge Peckham's order

of August 24 described in last

month's issue of the News.

Smith's application for habeas

corpus and a stay of execution

was patterned along the lines of

the Peckham order but Judge

Sweigert refused to grant

Smith's motion to consolidate his

`case with other Death Row cases

before Judge Peckham for pur-

poses of a hearing.

Contentions Dismissed

After extensive last-minute

briefing and a full day of oral

argument Sweigert held that the

contentions of unconstitutional-

ity urged by Smith and other

Death Row inmates supported by

the NAACP-ACLU suit were

without merit and required no

evidentiary hearing. Sweigert

concluded, however, that the con-

stitutional contentions were not

"frivolous" and therefore issued

a certificate permitting Smith to

appeal his ruling to the United

States Court of Appeals for the

Ninth Circuit. Sweigert stayed

Smith's execution pending the

outcome of the appeal.

Conflicting Procedures

Judge Sweigert's order now

presents Death. Row inmates with

two conflicting modes of proced-

ure for vindication of their con-

stitutional rights. Whether an

inmate will be able to partici-

pate in the hearing before Judge

Peckham or whether he will

have to appeal directly to the

Court of Appeals will depend on.

which federal judge receives his

petition for writ of habeas cor-

pus. The only happy note is that

under either procedure so far

adopted by the local federal

court, the petitioner will be en-

titled to a stay of his execution.

State Court Cases

In the meantime, two Death

Row inmates, Robert Anderson

and Frederick Saterfield, have

filed petitions for habeas corpus

in the Supreme Court of Cali-

fornia raising the same constitu-

tional questions that have been

raised before Peckham and Swei-

gert. Anderson and Saterfield

are also represented by the

NAACP and ACLUNC and pres-

ently have stays of execution

from Judge Peckham.

lic order, which he believed was

created by the scheduled meet-

ing,. the purpose of which, he

believed, was to "teach these

people how to go in and cause

confusion about this draft." He

further stated: "What right have

you to use University facilities

from 11 o'clock at night until 5.

o'clock in the morning in effect

to teach people to violate the

law?"

Structured Meeting

When Chancellor Heyns was

`allowed to talk he carefully ex-

plained that the meeting was

planned under the sponsorship

of the Associated Students of the

University of California and that

its object was to provide.a wide

variety of opinion about~ the

draft and that current Univer-

sity regulations already forbade

illegal advocacy on campus.

WMegal Acts

The Court said: "And don't

you believe, Chancellor...

whatever it is that they are go-

ing to be taught ways to commit

illegal acts? Aren't you really

convinced of that?" Chancellor

Heyns: "No, sir. If I were I

would not have permitted it...

It is an attempt to present all

sides, all ranges of opinions

about such complex issues ag the

war, the draft, and civil disobedi-

ence .. . and to the best of our

knowledge it will be an educa-

tional affair. It does reflect the

intense interest that students

have in these problems, We

think we have responsible facul-

ty participation which will meet

these , educational objectives.

First of all we have taken the

precaution of being sure that

-Continued on Page 2

Conviction for

Wearing Sign

Appealed

The Army Induction Center at

Oakland has been the center of

protest against the war in Viet-

nam in recent days. Protests

have been going on there for

quite a while and ACLUNC has

been involved in three such cases

which raised freedom of speech

issues. A story about two of

cases appears elsewhere in this

issue.

A third case is that of David

Long. Long appeared for an ex-

amination at the Induction Cen-

ter wearing a sign critical of the

President and his policies in

Vietnam. When Long refused to

remove his sign he was arrested

as a public nuisance. The Dis-

trict Attorney's office iater

changed the complaint to tres-

pass and Long was convicted of

the offense of trespass in the

-Alameda Municipal Court on

July 25.

Long's conviction is being ap-

pealed to the Superior Court.

ACLUNC maintains that Long

cannot. be constitutionally pun-

ished under a trespass statute

because of the views expressed

on a sign that he wore, espe-

cially since his presence in the

building was required by the fed-

eral law.

The ACLUNC brief was pre-

pared by Paul Halvonik with the

assistance of cooperating attor-

ney Michael Ballachey, who rep-

resented Long at his trial.

Telephone Message Service

Suit Challenges

PUC's Denial

Of Anonymity

Last month ACLU attorneys filed a petition for writ of

review with the State Supreme Court on behalf of Fred E.

Huntley, the operator of a telephone message service with

a "right-wing" or "patriotic" point of view. Huntley and the

American Civil Liberties Union are protesting a rule im-

posed by the State Public Utili-

ties Commission (over the dis-

sent of Commissioner Bennett)

that operators of such services

must identify themselves by

name and address with the ex-

ception that, if the address is

included in a current telephone

directory, it need not be in-

cluded in the message itself. The

PUC imposed this requirement

at the request of Pacific Tele-

phone and Telegraph Company

whose parent organization, the

Beli System, had received com-

plaints that such messages used

in other parts of the country

were slanderous and anti -Se-

mitic.

No Complaints

As the case developed in Cali-

fornia, however, there had been

ho complaints whatsoever con-

cerning Mr. Huntley's service

and, in any event, the Pacific

Telephone and Telegraph Com-

pany kept on file Mr. Huntley's

hame and address which were

available for any person seeking

legal redress for alleged damage

caused by the message. This lack

of a showing for a real need for

identification within the message

is at the heart of ACLU's pe-

tition to the Supreme Court to

overturn the decision of the Pub-

lic Utilities Commission. The pe-

_ tition was prepared by volunteer

attorney Reed H. Bement with

the assistance of staff counsel

Marshall W. Krause.

Compelling Interest

It points out that a rule dic-

tating the partial contents of a

political message is indisputably

an abridgement of free speech

and then cites the many cases

holding that speech can only be

abridged, even as an incidental

factor in regulation, where there |

is a compelling state interest to

be served by the abridgement.

In this case there is no compell-

ing state interest, the only dis-

Berkeley-Albany

Chapter Forum

November {3

A general membership

meeting of the Berkeley/Al-

bany Chapter on Monday, No-

vember 13, in the auditorium

of the Washington School,

Grove and Bancroft Streets,

Berkeley, will feature a dis-

cussion on "Will You Take

My Case?"

Starting at 8 p.m. Professor

Van D. Kennedy, Chairman of-

the ACLUNC Branch Board

of Directors, and Professor

Albert Bendich, former ACL-

UNC staff counsel, presently

serving on the Branch Board,

will take up the subject. Hen-

ry Elson, a member of the

Berkeley Chapter Board and

volunteer ACLUNC atterney

will moderate.

' At the conclusion of the dis-

cussion refreshments will be

served. The meeting is open

to the public and ACLU mem-

bers are urged not only to at-

tend, but to bring their

friends.

ACLU NEWS |

NOVEMBER, 1967

Page 2

cernible interest being the de-

sire of the Bell System to satis-

fy the political critics of the re-

corded announcements.

Justification

The only justification found

by the PUC is that the telephone

company has the right to dis-

associate itself from recorded

announcements so that people

dialing such numbers will not

be misled into thinking that it

is responsible for the contents.

The petition' attacks this argu-

ment as specious and flimsy

since no reasonable person as-

sumes the telephone company is

responsible for whatever is said

over a telephone, unless the tele-

phone company is itself called.

The petition goes on to point

out the importance of the right

of anonymity, protected by the

U.S. Supreme Court in Talley v.

California, where it was held

that a person could not be pun-

ished for the distribution of

anonymous political handbills.

The Supreme Court pointed out

the significance which anony-

mous handbills have had in the

history of America, from the Fed-

eralist papers to the present day.

Here again the Public Utilities

Commission had a frivolous an-

swer, namely, that the handbill

cases involved "primary actors"

whereas the present case in-

volves an "intervening commer-

cial instrumentality," to wit,

the telephone company. Since

anonymity is protected because

many people believe that there

might be harmful. retaliation if

their views were publicly ex-

pressed, the fact that a telephone

is used for the message does not

seem relevant. Secondly, the per-

son distributing a political mes-

sage may believe it enhances his

message to have it distributed

anonymously.

Equal Protection

The petition's last argument is

that the equal protection of the

laws has been violated by the

PUC's ruling. This violation

arises from the fact that the

classification is unreasonable

. Since live telephone, messages

are not affected and only record-

ed messages cannot be anony-

mous and, secondly, from the

fact that only Pacific Telephone

subscribers are affected by the

requirement, whereas subscrib-

ers served by General Telephone

or other California telephone

companies are not affected by

the requirement.

It is expected that the State

Supreme Court will decide

whether to grant a review of the

Public Utilities Commission

order some time in December.

Mt. Diablo

Members Meet

November 21

A membership meeting of the

Mt. Diablo Chapter ACLUNC

will be held at the home of

James Utz, 1789 Ivanhoe Ave.,

Lafayette, Tuesday evening, No-

vember 21 at 8 o'clock.

Assemblyman James Dent will

be the main speaker. He will

discuss civil liberties issues in

the California Legislature.

High School

National

Debate Topic

Students and teachers con-

cerned with the 1967-1968 na-

tional high school debate topic

- Resolved: That the Congress

of the United States Should Es-

tablish Uniform Regulations for

the Investigation of Criminal Ac-

tivities, will be interested to

jearn that the Legislative Refer-

ence Service of the Library of

Congress has issued a _ publica-

tion entitled "Combatting Crime

in' the United States; Selected

Excerpts and References Relat-

ing to the National Debate Topic

for American High Schools, 1967-

1978." It was issued in May, 1967,

as Senate Document No. 26, 90th

Congress, first session. Inquiries

should be made directly to the

Legislative Reference Service of

the Library of Congress, Wash-

ington, D.C., or the Superintend-

ent of Documents, U.S. Govern-

ment Printing Office. Persons

wishing to consult it doubtless

will find it in public and uni-

versity libraries. -

In addition, the National

ACLU has a small kit of mate-

rials, which will be sent upon re-

quest to ACLU, 156 Fifth Ave-

nue, New York, N.Y. 10010. The

price, including postage, for

each kit is $1.00.

Fresno Chapter

Dinner Meeting

Thursday, Nov. 9

A dinner meeting of the Fres-

no Chapter of ACLUNC will be

held Thursday evening, Novem-

ber 9 at the Basque Hotel at

7:30 o'clock, preceded by a so-

cial period at 6:45. -

Participating in a discussion of

Capital Punishment will be Ros-

lyn Deinstein, attorney at law

and a member of the Fresno

Chapter Board of Directors, the

Rev. Henry Hayden, Minister of

College Community Congregation

Church and a long-time ACLU

member and Paul N. Halvonik,

Legislative Representative and

Assistant Staff Counsel of the

ACLUNC who is presently ap-

pearing as one of the attorneys

in a series of Death Row test

cases.

The moderator for the discus-

sion will be Roy Greenaway, Ap-

praiser and teacher. The public

is invited.

Berkeley-Albany

Theatre Party

On January 7

The Berkeley-Albany Chapter

_has reserved the Opening Night

Performance of "In White

America," presented by the

American Conservatory Theatre

on Sunday, January 7th, 7:30

p.m., at the Marines Memorial

Theatre, for a benefit party to

support chapter activity in the

Berkeley- Albany, Kensington

area.

"In White America," a docu-

mentary of the Negro in Ameri-

ca for the past 300 years, will

be presented by A.C.T. for the

first time in San Francisco on

this occasion. Judging by out-of-

town reviews, it promises to be

an exciting and compelling the-

atre experience. `

Tickets for the performance

and a special ACLU reception

with members of the cast after-

ward, may be ordered from the

Berkeley-Albany Chapter, 1919

Berkeley Way, Berk. 94704. All

orchestra seats are $6, balcony

$5. The theatre seats only 600,

and seats will be sold on a first-

come, first-served basis.

U.C. Injunction Attacked

As Prior Restraint

Continued from Page 1-

the content itself does not have

these characteristics and, second-

ly, we have repeatedly insisted

that there will not be any viola-

tions of law." The Court: "Have

you seen the tapes of the

speeches that are going to be

given?"

Proof Lacking

Even the petition filed by Ala-

meda County did not supply any

facts showing that there was an

immediate danger that the law

would be violated or that if some

persons at the meeting violated

the law they could not be ade-

quately handled by University

and police authorities. The only

thing that would satisfy Judge

_ Lereara and Alameda County was

to stop the University-sponsored

meeting. ACLUNC attorneys ar-

gued vigorously that the Judge's

action was a prior restraint on

free speech in which he was re-

lying on hearsay allegations from

newspaper sources as to what

would happen at the meeting and

further that the mere fact that

some persons might get up at a

meeting and advocate illegal

conduct is not a sufficient ex-

cuse to cancel the whole meet-

ing.

Satisfying the Public

However, the Judge was in no

mood to be moved by mere con-

stitutional principles and it was

enough for him that a speaker

may advocate a violation of the

draft law or even explain how to

get around the draft law. The

Judge said: "You have got a sit-

uation where the public is clam-

oring, believe you me. We are

going to have anarchy and revo-

lution around these parts if there

isn't some protection given the

public, and the taxpayers keep

this University going, and it

seems to me when we with our

eyes open in effect invite people

to come and use the campus to

advocate, and they are going to

advocate something like this, and

if we don't have this meeting,

and believe you me if they go

down to the Induction Center

and they block that and they do

that and another thing, that is a

problem for the police, and the

public is going to feel it is just

one of those things. But if I al-

low this meeting to go on and

there is this kind of advocacy

and then these things happen,

they are going to say, `That is

the University of California.

That is Berkeley. It is a bunch

of communists out there run-

ning this thing. That is a com-

munist judge, a liberal judge.'

They don't like the courts any-

way."

Students Denied Relief

Since the Regents of the Uni-

versity were the only official de-

fendants of the action, an at-

tempt to get a writ of prohibi-

tion on behalf of students at the

University was rebuffed by the

Court of Appeal on the ground

that they were not parties to the

case. The counsel for the Re-

gents took the position that he

could not appeal the case until

he had conferred with the Re-

gents at their meeting later in

the week.

Issue Moot

Before there could be any ap-

peal or more than a preliminary

determination on the question of

the restraining order, the County

of Alameda dismissed its lawsuit,

thus mooting the whole issue.

The County evidently feels that

they have established the prin-

ciple that the courts are free to

enjoin meetings on public facili-

ties on an allegation that some-

thing illegal might be said at

these meetings. This is a prin-

ciple that has been denied over

and over again by higher courts

and the ACLUNC is confident

that when this issue receives de-

liberate attention from the

courts, action such as Judge Ler-

cara's will be held to be void.

Unauthorized Meetings.

Meanwhile, many students at

the University of California face.

disciplinary proceedings for par-

ticipation in "unauthorized"

meetings held because of the

cancellation of norma] meeting

facilities by Judge Lercara's

order. If the only reason these

meetings were unauthorized is

because of Judge Lercara's

order, it is doubtful that such

disciplinary proceedings can be

legally maintained.

"Love Book'

Appeal Delayed

The several months which

have passed since the conviction

of the three booksellers for sell-

ing Lenore Kandel's "Love

Book" have been occupied with

legal disputes over preparation

of the record on appeal. Since

the three defendants are without

funds, they have a right to a

transcript paid by the county but

the trial judge, Lawrence S.

Mana, insists that the full tran-

script is not necessary for the

appeal.

Judge Mana last month ruled

that no defense testimony would.

be transcribed at county expense

and that such testimony. could

be summarized for use of the

appellate court. ACLU attorneys,

representing the defendants,

take the position that numerous

errors committed during the tes-

timony of defense witnesses re-

quire that their testimony be

transcribed. They also take the

position that the testimony of the

defense is convincing as to the

social value of "The Love Book"

and that an appellate court could

not properly do its job without

seeing this testimony.

Because of the ruling of Judge

Mana, a petition for writ of man- -

date will have to be sought to

obtain the order that this testi-

mony be transcribed at county

expense,

Sonoma Council

Dinner Meeting

Saturday, Nov. 11

Members and guests are urged

to attend the Second Annual

Dinner Meeting of the Sonoma

County Council of ACLUNC at

Las Robles Lodge, in Santa

Rosa, on November 11. Dinner

will be served at 7:30, a no-host

social hour preceding.

A brief business session at

which members will be elected

to the 1968 Board of Directors

of the Couucil will be followed

by a talk by Mr. Lou Gottlieb

of Morning Star Ranch on "The

Alternate Society and Civil Lib-

erties."

Reservations should be made

promptly with Harold Hill, of

405 Woolsey Road, Santa Rosa,

95401, telephone Santa Rosa

542-4106. The cost of the dinner

is $3.50, and checks should be

made payable to ACLUNC-So-

noma County.

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION NEWS

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern Californias

Second Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, California

ERNEST BESIG ... Editor

503 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105, 433-2730

Subscription Rates -~ Two Dollars a Year

Twenty Cents Per Copy

p 151

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

County Jail

In Adderley v. Florida the

Court affirmed 32 trespass con-

victions, retreating from the po-

sition it took two years before

regarding civil right demonstra-

tions in Edwards v. South Caro-

lina. Defendants, students at Flor-

ida A. M University, participated

in a peaceful demonstration at a

county jail. They were protest-

ing both the previous day's ar-

rest of other students who had

attempted to integrate segre-

gated motion picture theatres

and the state and local policies

of racial segregation in general,

and at that jail in particular.

The demonstrators were in every

way cooperative with the jail-

keepers; the only order they re-

fused to obey was that which

told them to leave. Justice Black,

writing for the Court, rejected

the argument that nonviolent

conduct which serves a com-

municative function is speech

protected by the First Amend-

ment. He wrote that a jailhouse

is not a proper place for peace-

able assemblies or to petition

the government for a redress of

grievances. Thus, none of the

First Amendment's protections

was sufficient to overcome the

convictions.

Not Open to Public

Justice Black's ruling that a

jail is not a proper place to as-

semble peaceably or to petition

for a redress of grievances poses

difficult problems. His conclu-

sion was based on his concep-

tion of the purposes which the

public property involved serves.

In 1962, Justice Black joined the

Court's opinion in Edwards v.

South Carolina which overturned

breach-of-the-peace convictions

founded upon a demonstration

at a state capitol. State capitol

grounds are traditionally open to

the public, but jails are not.

Therefore, according to the Ad-

derley majority, state capitol

grounds are appropriate places

for peaceful demonstrations but

jails are not.

Adderley requires courts to

draw lines, through case-by-case

determinations, separating those

public places which are appro-

priate places for demonstrations

from those which are not. The

result in each case turns upon

how the Court characterizes the

purpose of the public place.

University Campus

One might well wonder how

the court would rule on a tres-

pass conviction founded upon a

demonstration conducted on a

state university campus to pro-

test racial segregation on that

campus. The university's pri-

mary function is educating its

student body and it is not wholly

open to the public. Thus the Ad-

derley rationale seems to require

the court to affirm such a con-

viction. But if that is true, the

logical and probable result of

the Adderley decision would be

to limit the places in which a

citizen could exercise his right

to petition for a redress of griev-

ances to seats of government.

Dissents

Justice Douglas joined by

Chief Justice Warren and Jus-

tices Brennan and Fortas dis-

sented and stated the Court

would more adequately protect

the important right to petition

for a redress of grievances by

determining whether the place

the demonstrators chose seems a

natural selection. Surely it is

natural to demonstrate at a uni-

versity campus rather than at

the building housing the state

legislature if it is the campus

officials who practice racial seg-

regation. It is natural to demon-

strate at a jailhouse if it is the

jail-keepers who segregate the

prisoners.

Legislator

Bond v. Floyd affirmed a

Georgia legislator's right to sit

in the legislature free of dis-

qualification for having taken a

public stand on a controversial

issue. If the First Amendment

protects a private citizen from

prosecution for making certain

statements, it also protects the

legislator from disqualification

for making those same state-

ments.

Public Figures and Libel

A split on the Court concern-

ing the right to recover civil

damages in libel cases is shown

by Curtis Publishing Company v.

Butts and Associated Press v.

Walker. Justice Harlan, writing

for himself and three other Jus-

tices, said that a person who is in

the public eye - a "public fig-

ure" - but who is not a public

official, need not show malice on

the defendant's part to recover

a libel judgment. He may recov-

er "for a defamatory falsehood

whose substance makes substan-

tial danger to reputation appar-

ent," on a showing of highly un-

reasonable conduct constituting

an extreme departure from the

standards of investigation and

reporting adhered to by respon-

sible publishers, even though the

publisher did not knowingly or

recklessly disregard the truth.

He reviewed the evidence in both

cases in detail and decided that

Butts, whom the Saturday Eve-

ning Post had said conspired to

fix a game between Georgia and

the University of Alabama, could

recover. However, General Walk-

er, who the Associated Press

said, led a charge on federal.

troops: at the University of Mis-

sissippi to aid James Meredith's

enrollment, could not recover.

The difference seemed to turn

on the amount of time the pub-

lishers had to check on the accu-

racy of their stories. For the

Butts article the Saturday Eve-

ning Post had a great deal of

time to investigate, but failed to

do so. Furthermore, there was

no public information which

would lend credence to the story.

However, for the Walker article,

the Associated Press had little

time to investigate; the news "re-

quired immediate dissemina-

tion." And General Walker's

prior statements were such that

the story was not unreasonable.

The Chief Justice concurred in

the result and adhered to the

New York Times v. Sullivan rule

which requires the plaintiff to

prove bad intent on the part of

the defendant. Since General

Walker is a public figure and

did not prove that the defendant

was malicious, he could not re-

cover. Chief Justice Warren be-

lieved the Butts jury verdict was

in accord with New York Times.

Justices Black and Douglas con-

curred in Walker and dissented

in Butts. They said the Court

could avoid uncertainty in the

law of libel and the constitution-

al problems involved in review-

ing factual issues if it would in-

terpret the First Amendment as

prohibiting all libel laws.

Right to Privacy

Time, Inc. v. Hill expanded the

New York Times v. Sullivan rule

for libel cases to right to privacy

actions. In a right to privacy ac-

tion a plaintiff/can recover if he

shows the information published

was not of public record before

the publication and that the sub-

ject matter was not of "public

interest." On the other hand, in

a libel action, the plaintiff must

show that his reputation was

damaged by a false statement.

Hence, before Hill, truth was a

complete defense to a libel ac-

tion, but might not be to a right

to privacy action. Now, under

the Hill decision, once the de-

fendant establishes that the sub-

ject matter is of public interest,

the plaintiff must demonstrate

the material's falsity and show

that the defendant was malicious

-that he knowingly or reckless-

ly disregarded the truth. This

test applies whether or not the

plaintiffs are public officials.

Hence, a right to privacy action

brought by a private person who

was a participant in an incident

of public concern is subject to

the New York Times rule that

the jury must find that the de-

fendant was malicious before it

can return a verdict in favor of

the plaintiff. Justices Brennan

and White concurred in Walker

and dissented in Butts.

Obscenity

"Obscenity" remained an ex-

ception to the First Amendment

even though the Court could find

no majority for any definition

of the term and reversed with-

out explanation all but one of

the 18 obscenity convictions be-

fore it.

FREE ASSOCIATION

Loyalty

In Keyishian v. Board of Re-

gents of New York, the well-es-

tablished doctrine of void-for-

vagueness and the relatively new

concept of overbreadth were

used to hold New York's Fein-

berg Law and parts of its Civil

Service Law _ unconstitutional.

The Feinberg Law provided that

uttering a treasonable or sedi-

tious word or doing a treason-

able or seditious act was grounds

for dismissal from the public

school system. The Civil Service

Law disqualified from educa-

tional employment any person

advocating the overthrow of the

government by force, violence or

any unlawful means or publish-

ing material or joining a group

statute which prohibits a citizen

from departing or entering the

United States without a valid

passport, to cover a situation in

which a citizen with a passport

goes to a country for which the

State Department requires a spe-

cial passport validation without

having first obtained such valida-

tion. In the past the State De-

partment had publicly declared

that the requirement of a speci-

fic validation was designed to en-

sure that citizens desiring to

travel to those nations would

know that they could not expect

U.S. government protection. The

Department had expressly dis-

claimed the possibility that viola-

tion of such a restriction would

carry criminal sanctions. Justice

Fortas said that the government

could not now contend other-

wise.

Foreign Election

In Afroyim v. Rusk a closely

divided Court overruled Perez v.

Brownell and declared that Con-

gress has no power to provide

for involuntary loss of citizen-

ship. Beys Afroyim became a

naturalized American in 1926 and

went to Israel in 1950. In 1951 he

voted in the Israeli parliamen-

tary elections; the Nationality

Act of 1940 provides that a Unit-

ed States Citizen shall lose his

citizenship. Perez upheld this

Review of

Significant

U. S$. Supreme

Court Decisions

1966-67

By GEORGE R. POEHNER

ACLUNC Summer Intern 1967 - Third Year Student

Univ. of California Law School

so advocating. The court found

the word "seditious" unconstitu-

tionally vague because New

York law provided no exact, defi-

nition of the term. Thus, a teach-

er in New York could not de-

termine by examining the law

what kinds of advocacy or con--

duct would be grounds for his

dismissal. Furthermore, the sec-

tions were overbroad in that

they proscribed distributing ma-

terial containing or advocating

forceful overthrow of the gov-

ernment. Thus, these sections

prohibited advocating an ab-

stract doctrine, although Consti-

tutionally protected (as con-

trasted with advocating immedi-

ate, violent, overthrow, which is

not). Under the concept of over-

breadth, if a statute could be ap-

plied to prohibit constitutionally

protected speech, it is void, even

though it could also have lawful

applications. Finally, the Court

implicitly overruled several

cases which permitted states to

put an employee to the choice of

retaining his public employment

or remaining a member of a dis-

favored erganization. After Key-

ishian, states may not discharge

an employee for belonging to an

organization which is generally

considered subversive unless he

himself participates in the or-

ganization's unlawful goals.

TRAVEL, CITIZENSHIP

AND DEPORTATION

Passport Issue j

In United States v. Laub, the

Court unanimously declined to

permit the Government to prose-

cute an individual for traveling

to Cuba on a passport not speci-

fically validated for travel to

Cuba. For the Court, Justice

Fortas refused to extend the

provision as a proper exercise of

Congress's power, Justice Black,

writing for the Afroyim majority

rejected the notion that Con-

gress in sovereign in this field.

Thus, if Congress has power to

provide involuntary expatriation,

the Court must find it in the

Constitution. The clause of the

Constitution which gives Con-

gress power to prescribe a uni-

form law of naturalization is ex-

hausted by the exercise of that

power alone; it gives Congress

no power to provide for denat-

uralization. Furthermore, the

Fourteenth Amendment's literal

language seems to be an express

and unconditional grant of citi-

zenship to all who are natural-

ized or who are born in the

United States. Finally, Justice

Black found a large body of ju-

dicial and Congressional history

indicating that Congress has no

power to expatriate citizens with-

out their consent. Justice Har-

lan, joined by Stewart, White

and Clark, dissented and ad-

hered to the sovereign power of

Congress rationale of Perez.

Homosexuals

Boutelier v. Immigration Serv-

ice reaffirmed the plenary pow-

er of Congress to adopt stand-

ards for aliens who desire to en-

ter the United States. For the 6

to 3 majority, Justice Clark

found that the section of the Im-

migration and Nationality Act

which requires the exclusion of

aliens suffering from a "psycho-

pathic personality" was properly

applied to deport an alien who

had engaged in homosexual con-

duct before his entry into this

country.

Evidence

Woodbey v. Immigration Serv-

ice held that in deportation pro-

`produce financial records.

_ ceedings the Government had to

establish the facts showing de-

portability by clear, unequivocal

and convincing evidence, This

burden of proof is somewhere

between the lax "preponderance

of the evidence" standard util-

ized in negligence cases and the

more stringent "beyond reason-

able doubt" criminal standard.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 4th

and 5th Amendments

Ambulance Chasing

During its last term the Su-

preme Court took major steps in

interpreting the self-incrimina-

tion privilege. Spevack v. Klein

was concerned with the ways in

which the states can remove the

privilege from one from whom

it desires information. The New

York Bar Association was con-

ducting an investigation of `am-

bulance chasing" and issued a

subpoena ordering Spevack to

He

neither honored the subpoena

nor complied with an order to

testify at the inquiry, and the

New York Courts disbarment on

exactly the same facts. In Spe-

vack the Court overruled its pri-

or holding. Justice Douglas wrote

an opinion for himself, the Chief

Justice, and Justices Black and

Brennan, in which he stated that

the Court would neither apply a

diluted version of the privilege

to lawyers merely because of

their position with respect to

the courts and society, nor allow

the states to make assertion of

the privilege costly. Justice For-

tas concurred, but said that a

state might make a sufficiently

particularized demand upon an

attorney for records which it re-

_quired to keep without violating

his privilege against self incrim-

ination. This majority of five ap-

parently rejected Justice White's

dissenting point that since New

York could allow a subsequent

criminal prosecution it could not

be said to be requiring Spevack

to incriminate himself, so that

the disbarment was proper.

There are two possible interpre-

tations of the majority's rejec-

tion of White's position, First,

' they may be saying that "incrim-

ination" includes "disbarment"

so that the Fifth Amendment

prevents the states from requir-

ing an attorney to give informa-

tion at his own disbarment pro-

ceeding. Second, they may be

saying that merely granting im-

munity from use of the evidence

adduced from an attorney at the

proceedings is not enough to pro-

tect his Fifth Amendment privi-

lege; that the state must grant

him immunity from all conse-

quences. The latter is the more

likely interpretation, in view of

the Chief Justice's and Justice

Brennan's prior opinions which

validated statutes which take

away a person's privilege against

self-incrimination by granting

him immunity from prosecution.

`Public Officer

Garrity v. New Jersey held

that the Fourteenth Amend- .

ment's protection against coerced

confessions prohibits a state from

using in a subsequent criminal

prosecution statements obtained

from a public officer under

threat of removal from office.

Comment

Chapman v. California diluted

the principles announced in

Griffin v. California by holding

that not all of a prosecutor's

comment upon the defendant's

failure to testify in his behalf is

reversible error. If the state

shows beyond a reasonable doubt

that the prosecutor's comment

did not prejudice the defendant,

the comment, in itself, will not

be sufficient for a reversal. Gil-

bert v. California involved hand-

writing examples taken from a

suspect without advice as to

right to counsel or warning as.to

self-incrimination. As with last

-Continued on Page 4

ACLU NEWS

NOVEMBER, 1967

Page 3

Review of Significant

Supreme Court Decisions

Continued from Page 3-

year's blood extraction case, the

examples were said to be "real"

evidence and not "testimonial"

evidence. Thus the defendant

may not exclude them from evi-

dence as self-incriminating un-

der the Fifth Amendment.

Scope of 4th Amend.

The Court took significant

steps toward defining the scope

of the Fourth Amendment right

against unreasonable searches

and seizures during the last year.

Teamster President James Hoffa

took two of the cases to the

Court; the first involved inform-

ers and the second, electronic

eavesdropping. In the informer

case, the Court said that the

Fourth Amendment did not pre-

vent the government from decep-

_-tively placing a secret informer

.- among the defendant's party.

"That amendment protects the

security a man relies on when he

places himself or his property

within a constitutionally pro-

tected area. If a defendant has

conversations in his hotel room

in the presence of others, he is

not relying on the security of the

hotel room, but on his confidence

that those others will not reveal

the content of the conversation.

Thus, those who overheard or

participated in the defendant's

conversation with his knowledge

do not infringe his Fourth

Amendment rights when they

reveal what was said. In Hoffa's

electronic eavesdropping case,

the Court held that the mere fact

of eavesdropping without the

consent of the possessor of the

property in which the govern-

ment installed the bug was not

enough to require reversing a

conviction. As long as the evi-

dence thus obtained was not in-

troduced at the trial and did not

furnish investigative leads, the

defendant was not entitled to a

new trial.

Electronic Eavesdropping

Ruling on the right of the po-

lice to use electronic eavesdrop-

ping equipment to obtain evi-

dence, in Berger v. New York,

the Court held New York's eaves-

drop statute unconstitutionally

permissive. The statute permit-

ted a judge to issue an order au-

thorizing a trespassory electronic

eavesdrop upon a showing that

law enforcement officials had

reasonable grounds to believe

they would thereby obtain evi-

dence of criminal conduct. The

statute was found overbroad be-

cause it did not conform to the

Fourth Amendment's require-

ments that a search warrant de-

scribe with particularity the

place to be searched and the per-

sons or things to be seized. In

Osborn v. United States on the

other hand, the Court held ad-

missible a recording of a conver-

sation made pursuant to a

judge's order in a jury tamper-

ing investigation. The order

specified the type of conversa-

tion the government agent was

authorized to record and fulfilled

the other conditions for a search

warrant.

Undercover Agents

Lewis v. United States reas-

serted the government's right to

use undercover agents to en-

force the drug laws. No unreason-

able search and seizure is in-

volved when an agent buys mari-

juana from a pusher without

disclosing that he is a policeman,

as long as the agent does only

what a private person would do

in making similar purchases.

Routine Inspection

In Camara v. Municipal Court

an exception to the Fourth

Amendment's requirement that,

absent an emergency, state offi-'

cials must obtain a warrant be-

Page 4

ACLU NEWS

NOVEMBER, 1967

fore they search private property

was removed. Only eight years

earlier the Court had approved

the doctrine of administrative |

searches, which permitted state

agents to search private property

if the searchers were "part of a

regulatory scheme which is es-

sentially civil rather than crimi-

nal in nature, inasmuch as the

right of inspection is limited in

scope; and may not be exercised

under unreasonable conditions."

At the time the Court held that

the citizen's interest in denying a

search of his premises was that

the resultant evidence could lead

te a criminal conviction, which

interest. is protected by both the

Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

In Camara the Court rejected

the premise that the right to

privacy is less protected than the

right to be free of a search for

criminal evidence. Consequently,

the Court also rejected the doc-

-trine of administrative searches

free of Fourth Amendment re-

quirements and required health

inspectors to obtain a search

warrant before going upon pri-

vate premises. However, finding

inherent differences between

criminal and health problems,

the Court diluted the protection

it had just granted by holding

that health officials do not need

probable cause to believe that a

particular residence presents a

health hazard in order to get a

warrant. Thus, magistrates may

issue warrants for general area

searches if there are reasonable

grounds for the search. See v.

Seattle applied the Camara rea-

soning to commercial structures

as well as private residences.

Seizing Property

In Maryland Penitentiary v.

Hayden, the Court rejected the

rule that the Fourth Amendment

limits police seizure powers to

the actual instruments and fruits

of crime. According to Justice

Brennan, this rule - the "mere

evidence" rule-was based upon

judicial concern for the right to

privacy, and in applying it, the

courts believed that they would

somehow protect that right by

limiting the type of property

which the police could seize dur-

ing a lawful search. The Court

rejected this rationale for the

"mere evidence" rule and found

that it is the search itself, rather

than the seizure, which infringes

the right to privacy. Under this

decision if the police have prob-

able cause to believe that speci-

fic property which they find in

`the course of an otherwise law-

ful search will aid them to appre-

hend or convict the perpetrator

of the crime they are investigat-

ing, they may seize it.

: Line-Ups

United States v. Wade rein-

forced a criminal defendant's

right to counsel by requiring the

police either to permit him to se-

cure his own counsel or to pro-

vide him with an attorney before

they require him to participate

in a line-up. Because most juris-

dictions have relied on the be-

lief that suspects had no right

to an attorney when they were

in a line-up, Stovall v. Denno said

. that the Wade rule would apply

only to trials taking place after

the date on which the Court de-

cided Wade and to cases then

pending on appeal.

Right to Counsel

Anders v. California clarified

the Sixth Amendment right to

counsel when an attorney ap-

pointed to represent an indigent

on appeal thinks that his client's

appeal lacks merit. Now he may

request from the Court permis-

sion to withdraw, but he must

submit with his letter a brief,

pointing to facts in the record

which support the appeal. If thd

Court finds any of the appel-

lant's points arguable, it must

afford him counsel] to argue the

appeal. Only if it finds that none

of the points are arguable can

it either dismiss the attorney or

decide the case without argu-

ment.

Free Transcript

The Court also announced a

logical extension of the crimi-

nal defendant's right to a tran-

script for appeals purposes.

Long v. District Court of Lowa

required the state to furnish an

indigent prisoner with a _ tran-

script of habeas corpus proceed-

ings for his use in appealing an

adverse decision in those pro- -

ceedings.

Confessions

Clewis v. Texas laid out three

factors which the Court consid-

ered important to a determina-

tion that a confession is invol-

untary, thus inadmissible at the

defendant's trial. First, the po-

lice did not warn him of his

right to counsel, of his right to

remain silent and of their right

to use anything he said against

him, Second, the police arrested

him without probable cause and

intermittently interrogated him

for an extended period. Third,

the record contained substantial

evidence that his faculties were

impaired by inadequate food and

sleep, sickness and long subjec-

tion to police custody with little

or no contact with anyone but

police. Sims v. Georgia held that

when the testimony on the issue

of the voluntariness of the de-

fendant's confession is in dis-

pute, the trial judge must first

decide that issue, before submit-

ting the confession to the jury.

Juvenile Hearings

In re Gault revolutionized

juvenile hearing procedures in

most states. The Court granted

to juveniles the rights to coun-

sel, to confront and cross-exam-

ine witnesses against them, to

timely and adequate notice of the

charges against them and of the

time of their hearing, and to re-

frain from incriminating them-

selves as well as a warning from

the judge that they have that

right. The Court refused to rule

`on the question whether juve-

niles are constitutionally entitled

to appellate review or to a tran-

script of the proceedings. Justice

Fortas's opinion limited its con-

sideration to the jurisdictional

stage of the juvenile proceed-

ings, and specifically disclaimed

intent to rule on the procedures

the state must provide at the dis-

positional stage. At the jurisdic-

tional stage, the juvenile court

determines only whether the de-

._fendant is a delinquent; at the

dispositonal stage the judge

decides what to do with the juve-

nile. He has almost unlimited

discretion in imposing sentence

and can do anything from plac-

ing the child on probation for a

few months to incarcerating him

until he becomes 21. In view of

this vast amount of discretion, it

is likely that many juvenile de-

fendants will feel pressure to co-

operate - maybe even to the ex-

tent of waiving many of their

new-found rights. To this extent,

then, that the judge's discretion

so coerces a child, his important

rights to counsel and against

self-incrimination are less valu-

able than they are to an adult

defendant in criminal court.

CIVIL RIGHTS

Interracial Marriages

Loving v. Virginia held a stat-

ute which prohibited interracial

marriages unconstitutional. The

Court held that a statute which

made conduct criminal merely

because of the color of the act-

or's skin violates the equal pro-

tection clause. The state must

show a vital and substantial rea-

son for differentiation on the

basis of race if the statute is to

withstand the equal protection

"You and

The Police'

Ready Soon

ACLUNC's legal committee,

chaired by Board Member How-

ard Jewel, has now completed

the wording of a series of sim-

ple rules which can be used by

persons coming into contact with

police authorities. It is expected (c)

that some time this month a

large order will be placed with

the printer for production of this

advice on a card capable of be-

ing catried in one's wallet or

purse which will be widely dis-

tributed in Northern California

by the ACLU and other inter-

ested groups. The text is now be-

ing translated into Spanish and

soon will be translated into Chi-

nese so that a broad spectrum

of the community will be able

to use the advice.

The text starts with the state-

ment, "The police work for YOU

as a citizen of this community,

whatever your age, your race, or

job. The police must respect

your rights; it will help if you

respect their job." Following this

are three rules to follow if you

are questioned by a policeman

and six additional rules to follow

if you are arrested or held by a

policeman. Next month's NEWS

should contain a full text and

instructions on how to get a sup-

ply of the cards.

Besig Speaks

At Santa Cruz

Meeting Nov. 9

The annual meeting of the

Santa Cruz Valley Chapter of the

ACLUNC will be held at the

Salinas Valley Savings and Loan

Assoc., 75 River St., Santa Cruz

at 8 p.m., November 9.

The meeting will be addressed

by Ernest Besig, executive direc-

tor of the ACLUNC. He will

speak on "Recent Important

ACLU Cases." Mrs. Norman Le-

zin, Chapter chairman, will pre-

side.

attack. The only purpose anti-

miscegnation laws can fulfill is

white supremacy, which is not a

vital and substantial state inter-

est.

Fair Housing

Reitman v. Mulkey invalidated

California's Proposition 14,

which both repealed all fair

housing legislation and declared

the legislature powerless to en-

act such legislation in the fu-

ture. The Court accepted the

California Supreme Court's find-

ing that the measure was racial-

ly motivated and said that legis-

lative acts which are so moti-

vated and which impose disabili-

ties upon the "inferior" race vio-

late the equal protection clause

of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Fae right of a citizen

Is the right

To be responsible

AMERICAN CIVIL

Foothill Boys

Must Wear Sox

With Sandais

A student at Foothill Junior

College who was summarily dis-

missed by Dr. Calvin C. Flint,

Superintendent of the Foothill

Junior College District, for fail-

ing to wear sox with his sandals

was reinstated when it was dis-

covered that the Superintendent

had acted contrary to regula-

tions.

The regulations provide that

"The Executive Council of the

Associated Students acts as a ju-

dicial body in reviewing infrac-

tions reported to them. The

Council will recommend appro-

priate disciplinary action to the

College Administration." In this

case, the Superintendent simply

ignored the Executive Council.

Dr. Flint told the ACLU both

men and women are allowed to

wear sandals on campus and

while women are not required

to wear sox with their sandals,

men must do so. There was no

question of hygiene, according to

Dr. Flint, but simply that men

customarily wear sox with san-

dals. The school Dress Code does

not specifically spell out the re-

quirement about sox. In the par-

ticular case, however, the Super-

intendent had admonished the

student to wear sox and when

he caught him without sox his

registration fee was returned.

Once reinstated the boy elected

to wear SOX.

Move to Repeal

ACLU Loyalty

Resolution

The ACLUNC Board of Direc-

tors last month petitioned the

national board to amend its Con-

stitution to provide merely that

the officers and staff of the

ACLU "shall be unequivocally

eommitted to the objectives of

this Union .. " The object of

the ACLU "shall be to maintain

and advance civil liberties..."

The above proposal would re-

place the Resolution of Febru-

ary 5, 1940, which provides, in

part, that it is "inappropriate for

any person to serve on the gov-

erning committees of the Union

or on its staff, who is a mem-

ber of any political organization

which supports totalitarian dic-

tatorship in any country, or who

by his public declarations indi-

cates his support of such a prin-

ciple."

A recent effort to water down

this requirement was opposed

by the branch board on the

ground that the Resolution

should be eliminated. It is ex-

pected that two other branches

will join Northern California in

urging the change and the issue

will then be presented to the

members of the corporation for

a vote.

we

JOIN TODAY

Su

LIBERTIES UNION

OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

Patron Membership ...........--

Sustaining Membership ...

Business and Professional Membership ..........--

Family Membership .........

Associate Membership ..........-ecececeeesecees

Annual Membership ...... 3

eocoveovovseeve ee eo and o and

+... 9100

oe 0

25

15

10

ececveeeoe eve eee eo 8 0 6 Oo oe

Student Membership ..... oe

ACLU News Subscripton

ADDRESS and ZIP CODE ..... se

TELEPHONE NUMBER ...........

See 0

weve vreeeeeoe eos ee

one AMT. ENCLOSED.........-

503 Market Street

San Francisco, 94105