vol. 38, no. 2

Volume XXXVIII

Affirmative Action policy discussed

San Francisco, February 1973

at meeting, awaits Board action

While few solutions evolved from the Special Meeting

of the Board last month on Affirmative Action programs,

the depths of the dilemma ACLU faces were apparent.

Now the Board must decide what ACLU's policy should

be on programs which would give preferential treatment

to' women and minorities in employment and college

admissions.

Opinions on the panel discussion spanned from an

insistence on mandatory quotas to loosely enforced goals

and even one speaker who urged that the ACLU take no

position on the matter. ACLU-NC Chairman of the

Board, Howard Jewel, called it ``one of our most per-

plexing problems.'' He explained that ACLU_ has

traditionally opposed any policy which would treat people

as members of a class rather than as individuals but he

wondered whether a reversal was now necessary.

THELTON HENDERSON - "history of half-way

measures"

Navy reluctant to grant rights in trial |

Thelton Henderson, assistant dean of Stanford Law

School in charge of minority recruitment, related the

history of race relations in America as a series of *`half-

way measures' at providing equal opportunity for Blacks.

He claimed that the establishment of quotas would not

_ deny the majority of their rights, `"but only abuse them of

their expectations. They don't expect to compete with

Blacks.'' He did not object to the possibility that it will be

harder for some white males to find jobs.

Thomas Kerr, a professor at Hastings Law School,

suggested that while individual members of the ACLU

may be personally inclined to support affirmative action

programs, the ACLU as an organization must oppose any

method of reverse discrimination on principle. He

stressed that ``the strength of the ACLU is the principles

for which it stands and the principle is that each in-

dividual must be judged regardless of any ascribed class."'

The third panelist was Deputy General Counsel of the

Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund,

Ben Moya. He agreed with Henderson that in light of

historical realities, priorities must be reversed to improve

the plight of minorities in America. Moya stressed that

equal opportunity in education was probably more crucial

than even in employment. ``What minorities need most is

well-prepared leaders,'' he stated.

The final panelist was Earl Raab, the executive director

of the Jewish Community Relations Council and a

member of the San Francisco Human Rights Com-

mission. He stressed that any ``exclusionary quota,''

whether it denied opportunities to minorities or to white

males, works an injustice which must be opposed by

ACLU. He conceded, however, that when an employer

steadfastly refuses to provide opportunity to all, some

No. 2

BEN MOYA (center) responds to a question from

the audience as panelists (1. to r.) Thelton Hen-

derson, Thomas Kerr, Earl Raab, and Anthony

Amsterdam listen.

minimal use of quotas is necessary but only in special

circumstances. Raab stressed that any program for in-

creased opportunity must be tied to a program for ex- .

panding the economy, ``otherwise, marginal groups will

be pitted against marginal groups,'' he said.

The specific proposals for Board action arise from two

National ACLU committees. The Equality Committee

has recommended **compensatory treatment to remedy...

discrimination in employment.'' Their report endorses

the use of "`minimum quotas'' as a justifiable means of

offsetting past wrongs. :

On the other hand, the Academic Freedom cor ee

rejected quotas unless there is overwhelming evidence of

``discriminatory hiring and a-clear failure to act to

`remedy this in good faith.'' In all other circumstances,

C2

the Committee declared ``quotas'' to be ``invidious to

civil liberties and menacing to academic freedom.''

(R) @ - {

Nominations please

Kasic civil liberties such as right to

counsel, public trial, jury of one's peers,

or bail can seldom be taken for granted in

court-martials. ACLU-NC has entered a

case this month which contains all of these

elements of tenuous rights afforded in

military justice proceedings.

Seaman Patrick Chenoweth is facing a

Naval Court Martial for alleged war-time

sabotage. The Navy has charged him with

causing $800,000 damage to the USS

Ranger by dropping a paint scraper into

the reduction gears of the carrier before its

INSIDE THIS

MONTH'S NEWS

Highschool Censorship

Suit...p.2

1972 Legislative

- Report...p.3

How the Nixon Court

Erodes Rights...p.5

Dick Tracy and Civil

Liberties...p.7

Financial Merger

Termed Success...p.8

scheduled departure from Oakland for

Vietnam.

Since his arrest last ~August,

Chenoweth has been held without bail

while he awaits trail. Besides the bail

denial, disputes over composition of the

jury and location of the trail have raised

serious constitutional questions in which

the ACLU has become involved.

On the jury matter, Staff Counsel

Joseph Remcho entered into negotiations

with the commandant of the 12th Naval

District, Admiral Van Arsdall, and

secured from him a promise to compose

the jury of lower-ranked enlisted men

along with officers. The jury has not yet

been picked and its final composition will

_ determine whether it will be necessary to

challenge the jury selection process in the

courts.

After repairs were completed, the

Ranger shipped out into waters off

Vietnam along with most of the witnesses

for the trial. Shortly afterward, the

government announced that the court-

martial was being moved to Subic Bay in

the Phillipines. This creates severe

problems for Chenoweth's defense and for

the ability of the press to cover the trial.

Members of the National Lawyers -

Guild have been banned from the

Phillipines by the Marcos government and

Chenoweth's attorney, Eric Seitz, is a

member of the Guild. The Navy has

expressed its regrets, but claimed it would

be powerless to protect Seitz from

deportation by the Phillipine government

if he went there to defend Chenoweth.

Meanwhile, the Navy proceeded with -

plans to move the trial.

Seitz challenged the change of location

decision by asking the Military Court of

Appeal to reverse it. Thus far, that Court

has requested the Navy to explain its

reasons for wanting to change the place of

the court martial.

If the Navy is allowed to transfer the

trial, ACLU-NC will intervene on behalf

of Chenoweth in Federal Court to prohibit

the move. Remcho explained that

`"convenience for the Navy is no excuse :

`or effectively denying Chenoweth his

cight to civilian counsel nor can it justify

denying the press and the public their

sight to report and attend a public trial.''

Another issue which ACLU will

challenge, in an amicus brief, is whether

the U.S. was at war when Chenoweth was

charged. The presiding judge in the court

martial has already ruled that war existed

and that therefore the charge carries a

maximum sentence' of 30 years. If no state

of war existed, the maximum sentence

would be only 5 years.

The U.S. Supreme Court decided in a

1968 case that a state of war indeed

existed then, but based that decision on

the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. When the

alleged sabotage took place on the Ranger,

the Tonkin Resolution had been repealed

by the U.S. Senate. :

Finally, Remcho is preparing amicus

support for Chenoweth on the issue of bail.

`*The Eighth Amendment does not except

servicemen and women from its guarantee

of the right to bail and it is about time the

courts stopped reading it as if it did,'' he

argues. One thing is certain, it looks like it

will be some time before civil liberties are

secure in the military justice system.

6

(

Was

?

)

) nomination must be accompanied by a

summary of qualifications and the written

,

(

} Jerome Falk, Michael Harris, Clifton

Nominations

ACLU can suggest names for con-

between now and March 30. Fur-

`the Union may themselves submit a

nomination directly to the Board by

submitting a written petition not later

than May Ist to be considered along with

the nominations from the nominating

committee. No member may sign more

than one such petition and _ each

) consent of the nominee. Petitions must be

' received by May 1.

" Since six new positions were added to

)the Board this year to accommodate

) greater representation of women, the

Pmay serve two consecutive three-year

terms. Ten offices become vacant this

) year.

" Ofthe ten terms which will expire, nine

of the incumbents are eligible for re-

yelection. Van Kennedy, who has served

two three-year terms, is not eligible. The

nine others may be reelected. They are:

Jeffers, Regino Montes, Richard Wer-

ithimer, Richard DeLancie, Kenneth

Kawachi, Virginia Fabian and Howard

Schachman. ;

Please send your suggestions or

y nominations to ACLU, 593 Market

sStreet, Suite 227, San-~ Francisco,

California 94105.

are now open for 0x00A7

members-at-large to the Board of |

Directors of ACLU-NC. Members of the

sideration to the nominating committee

thermore, any fifteen or more members of

) Board now consists of 36 members who

PPE

SPS

f

a RF

VFS

BLP BIAS

Fra Beem Mass tc Siti ~~

February

aclu NEWS

LEGAL

ACLU sues school officials for censorship

TRUDY MARTIN, former editor of

the

criticizing censorship of the paper.

Viking Press,

was

Last November, a student newspaper

called the Viking Press ran an article in

which the following sentence appeared:

"It is impossible to deny that Mills

contains, like most upper-middle class

campuses, a relatively high proportion of

users of psychedelics.'' The students

printed 800 copies of the paper but only

about 200 were distributed. The rest

ended up in the briefcase of Leonard

Froomin, a teacher at Mills High in

Millbrae. s

As a result of that action and sub-

sequent actions by Froomin and the

principal at the school, Dwight Moser,

ACLU-NC volunteer attorney Michael

Sorgen filed suit on behalf of three

students at Mills, two of whom were

former and one of which is the current

editor of the Viking Press. The complaint

which was filed in U.S. District Court in

San Francisco, charges that Froomin and

Moser violated the First and Fourteenth

Amendments of the U. S. Constitution

and the Civil Rights Act through "un:

warranted censorship and prior restraint''

of the students' newspaper.

Shortly after Froomin confiscated the

fired for

MORE CAMERAS PLANNED

Camera surveillance threatens rights

November issue of the paper, Ronald

Redenius, who was editor of the paper,

was dismissed from his position and

replaced by Trudy Martin. Martin never

got her first issue to the presses because

_ she had planned to include an editorial and

two letters critical of the censorship of the

previous issue. When Froomin learned

this, he forbade the printing of the next

Viking Press on the grounds that it

"`referred to something that never

existed,'' the issue of the paper which he

confiscated.

As a result of this, Martin and other

members of the editorial staff of the paper

formed an informational picket line on the

campus to inform their fellow students of

their greivances. According to Martin,

this activity also involved a ``relatively

high proportion'? of Mills students.

Several of the editors met with Froomin

and Moser in an attempt to negotiate a set

of editorial policies which the students felt

would not be repressive. No agreement

was reached. When they returned from

Christmas break, Martin and some of the

other editors were notified that they were

no longer on the Viking staff.

Daniel Carson was then installed as

editor of the paper and is, along with

Redenius and Martin, asking the court for

an injunction prohibiting further violation

of the students' right to freedom of ex-

pression as guaranteed by the Bill of

Rights.

Martin believes that the censorship is a

"direct result of irrational fear of

overreaction by a vocal minority in the

community. We sympathize with those

who fear, but we cannot condone fear as

an excuse for censorship or a substitute for

educational and constitutional processes."'

Sorgen called the situation at Mills

typical of the atmosphere in the school

systems where "`students are supposed to

learn the values of freedom and democratic

government while forced into the

authoritarian society the schools

represent.""

When the suit was filed, Judge Robert

Peckam ordered a hearing for February 7.

The matter is now under submission

awaiting a decision.

At a cost of $39,000, the San Francisco Police

Department installed a closed-circuit television camera at.

the corner of Fifth and Mission Streets last month. This

initial camera, if it proves successful, is the planned

forerunnner of 31 more.

Police sources claim the purpose of the camera is to

`monitor ttaffic at the busy iritersection and to enable

traffic bureau. officers to react to traffic problems.

However, a police spokesman admitted that the camera

will also be used for crime surveillance. He said sur-

veillance is a secondary objective but it will aid police in

spotting criminal activity.

' Capabilities of the camera do not limit its powers to

yaffic surveillance. It can look in any direction and is

_ equipped with a zoom lens which can focus on an object

1000 feet away.

`*I'm unalterably opposed to these cameras,'' was the

reaction of ACLU-NC General Counsel Paul Halvonik.

He charged that ``it's another example of the state in-

vading our privacy." :

Similar camera systems have been in use elsewhere in

the country, some for the express purpose of surveillance.

Police officials claim they have been wildly successful in

reducing crime but a recent report by the National

Lawyers Committee on Civil Liberties claims the real

Man jailed five months and char ged

result is that crime has simply moved to other areas

beyond the purview of the camera.

Legal Director Charles Marson stated that the single

camera may not be a major threat to civil liberties but the

probable long range effects could be very damaging. He

cautioned that if there is little opposition to this initial

camera, we will be helpless when they increase in

numbers and expand in technological capabilities.

Marson explained that the spectre of "`Big Brother''

will be far more clear when there are more than 30

cameras spread through the city, some in residential

areas, and they are equipped with lightmagnification

devices, video tape and long range microphones. San

Francisco police admit that the camera which is currently

in use can be adapted for video tape and sound. He

concluded that if such powers are granted to the police,

"we must assume they'll use them. I don't trust their

will power in avoiding temptation.''

ACLU-NC urges citizens of San Francisco to inform

their supervisors of their opposition to the expenditure of

vast sums of money for expansion of the surveillance

system. If no opposition is heard, it will surely expand and

the fact that people accept being watched is more

- anguishing than the fact that the ough watches

them.

an times but denied speedy ies

ACLU-NC Foundation filed an amicus brief last week

that was prepared by volunteer attorney, Robert Parker,

in the California Court of Appeals which argued that a

man charged with burglary by Santa Cruz County has

been denied his rights to a speedy trial and due process of

law.

Rick Miller was jailed five months ago and the Santa

Cruz District Attorney has still failed to bring the

matter to trial though Miller has been charged seven

eparate times for the same alleged offense.

Thus far, charges against Miller have been dismissed

by the Superior Court in Santa Cruz six times. Three of

those resulted from failure to prosecute by the District

Attorney. Twice the case was dismissed following

preliminary hearings for "`lack of reasonable cause,"'

once on a motion to set aside the indictment and once on a

habeus corpus petition.

Meanwhile, Miller's attorney has objected to the

continuances requested by the DA's office and has not

waived his right to a speedy trial. Nevertheless, the DA

has never sought to justify the successive re-filings of the

case by claiming discovery of new evidence, fraud,

perjury in a preliminary hearing or unavoidable surprise.

In fact, evidence which is mentioned in the most recent

filing, the seventh, has been known to the District At-

torney's office since prior to the first preliminary hearing.

Parker argues that the seven successive complaints

amount to "intentional harassment or gross negligence''

on the part of the District Attorney,in clear violation of

the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U. S.

Constitution which guarantee due process and a speedy

trial. The result, he claims, is that if the case does come

to trial, Miller's defense has been prejudiced by' the

prosecution's delay since he has been unable to work on

his defense.

The brief asks the court to grant a writ of prohibition

which would-prevent any further prosecution of Miller as

well as a writ of habeus corpus which would discharge

Miller from jail.

a da iim Su ~~ il ila

)

The December 1972 legal docket inadvertently }

failed to credit attorneys John Hansen and Michael

Weiss, 555 Polk Street, San Francisco, and At-

)

)

)

?

}

) torney Robert Rivkin for having briefed and argued

CCCO vs. Fellows. The case is an injunctive action

" on behalf of the CCCO military counseling agency,

whose members were prevented from leafletting in 9

) the public area of the San Francisco Presidio army

) post.

Penson tlie

Drawing by Sandy Huffaker

Court returns child

The California Court of Appeal ruled last month that

the Practice of the state removing an adopted child from

its foster home with unrestricted discretion is un-

constitutional. ACLU-NC participated in the case with an

amicus brief prepared by volunteer attorney Larry

Karlton.

In Covey v. Superior Court, the court found the state to

be applying impermissibly vague standards and denying

procedural due process by terminating the adoption

relationship for undefined reasons and without any right

to a hearing or appeal. The case arose when Dori Covey

was reclaimed by the Department of Social Welfare

because a social worker learned that Mr. Covey was at-

tending an alcoholic rehabilitation program. Karlton

argued that the statute which permits ``the Department

of Social Welfare to terminate the placement in its ab-

solute discretion is facially void for vagueness.''

fThe stated reason for the termination by the Welfare

Department was that the agency had ``lost faith'' in the

parents since they did not inform them of Mr. Covey's

participation in therapy. The agency admitted, however,

that Dori was "`happy'' in her foster home and that they

had no evidence that the Covey's were unfit as parents.

Nevertheless, until the Court of Appeal ruled in their

favor, the Cae s had no means of having their child

returned to them. The Court found that citizens have a

right to prior notice and a hearing on the merits of the

agency's decision ``before an individual suffers govern-

mental deprivation of a fundamental interest.'' The

decision concluded that present policies ``omit any

safeguard against arbitrary agency action."'

Dori Covey was ordered returned to her parents by the

Court.

LEGISLATIVE

`February

aclu NEWS

By JOSEPH REMCHO

The following is a review of the major

(and sometimes not so major) civil

liberties bills considered by the California

Legislature during the 1972 legislative

year. The summary includes action taken

by the Legislature and by the Governor on

those bills, their relationship, if any, to

recent court action, and the future

prospect of legislation in each particular

area. Because of space limitations, the

analysis is necessarily brief. Of these 1609

bills were sent to the Governor. The

Governor signed 1,442 of them. ACLU

followed 634 of the 4,108 bills introduced

during the year.

Women's Rights

The most critical of women's rights

bills was Senate Joint Resolution 20, the

Equal Rights Amendment authored by

Senator Dymally (D-Los Angeles) and

passed by the legislature in November. A

similar Assembly Resolution was

authored by Assemblyman Walter

Karabian. California became the 22nd of

the 38 states whose ratification is

necessary to make the Equal Rights

Amendment, effective. A Senate Con-

current Resolution (SCR 83) by Senators

Dymally, and Moscone which would

have set up a joint committee to conform

California law to the Equal Rights

Amendment, died in the Assembly Rules

Committee.

The Legislature passed A. B. 791

(Ralph, D-Los Angeles) and S. B. 837

(Dymally, D-Los Angeles) which would

have given California's Fair Employment

Practices Commission authority to initiate

complaints on sexual discrimination in

employment (as well as in race, religion,

etc.). The bills were vetoed by the

Governor and the FEPC must still wait. for

persons to file complaints.

Bills to prohibit employment

discrimination by public utilities (S. B.

335 = Alquist, W-Santa~ Clara): "to

specifically add sex discrimination

prohibitions to the Unruh Civil Rights

Act (A. B. 764 - Keysor, D-San Fer-

nando); and to provide procedures to

challenge discrimination against women

in college admission (S. B. 1301 -

Dymally, D-Los Angeles; A. B. 1758 -

Johnson, D-E] Monte) died in committee.

Similarly, bills prohibiting discrimination

based -on sex in housing (A. B. 2032,

McCarthy, D-San Francisco) and em-

ployment (A. -B. 1018, Ralph, D-Los

Angeles) died in committee. A. B. 489

(Greene - D-Los Angeles) which would

have permitted the use of "*Ms.'" instead

of `*Miss'' or ``Mrs'' on state forms,

particularly election registration forms

also died.

Although the bills banning

discrimination in employment and

housing are important bills setting forth

state policy and the means of im-

has already been held to be banned by the

Unruh Civil Rights Act. The ACLU will

put special emphasis in the coming session

on legislation which will provide funds to

expand the ability of the Fair Employment

Practices Commission to aggressively

move for equality in employment.

Three bills relating to the rights of

female prisoners were chaptered into law.

AB 1004 (Brathwaite, D-Los Angeles)

prohibits institutions from imposing any

additional restrictions on abortions for

female inmates other than requirements

set down in the state's Therapeutic

Abortion Act (see below) and Assem-

blywoman Barthwaite's A. B. 1003

permits a female inmate to call the private

physician of her choice for a pregnancy

examination. The Governor also signed

A. B. 1239 (Fong, D-Oakland) requiring

that female prisoners be provided with

feminine hygiene materials.

Senator Beilenson's (D-Los Angeles)

bill (S. B. 433) to allow doctors to

prescribe contraceptives for ``sexually

active minors'? without the need of

parental consent was vetoed by the

Governor. |

The Governor signed bills permitting a

woman to use her own residence rather

than her husband's, if this enables her to

meet state residency requirements for

lower tuition for California residents at

state colleges and universities (A. B. 666 -

Greene, D-Carmichael; A. B. 337-

Meade, D-Oakland). He also signed

Assemblyman Waxman's.- (D-Los

Angeles) bill (A. B. 566), which entitles a

woman who has established _ California

residency to maintain it even if her

husband moves out of the state. He also

signed A. B. 662 (Dunlap, D-Vallejo)

which provides that the wife will no longer

be automatically given preference in child

custody cases.

Also signed into law was Assem-

blywoman Brathwaite's A. B. 675 which

allows women who voluntarily leave work

because of pregnancy and who cannot find

reemployment after birth to collect

unemployment benefits. However, the

Governor vetoed a bill bringing everyone

down to a lowest common denominator.

A number of abortion bills were in-

troduced, some of which would have

restricted further the right of women to

obtain abortions (e.g., A. B. 1552, A. B.

1549 (Burke - R-Huntington Beach), A.

B. 1718 (Wakefield - R-Downey) ) and

some of which would have liberalized state

laws (S. B. 283 (Beilenson - D-Los

Angeles) ). The decision of the California

Supreme Court in People v. Barksdale, 8

Col. 3d 320 (1972) and the recent

decision of the United States Supreme

Court in-Roe v. Wade (No. 70-18, 41

USLW 4213, January 22, 1973) probably

mean that there will be little but corrective

legislation on the abortion issue in the

coming term. Under new federal con-

.Stitutional guidelines, the state may not

interfere in any way with a woman's

right to.terminate pregnancy during the

first three months. It may do so only by

plementing that policy, suchdiscrimination requiring hospital standards during the

Howard Jewel, Chairman of the Board

aclu NEWS

9 issues a year, monthly except bi-monthly in March - April, July - August,

and November-December

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Second Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, California

Jay Miller, Executive Director

Mike Callahan , Edttor and Public Information Director

593 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-433-27 50

Membership $15 and up of which $2.50 is the annual subscription fee for aclu News.

1972 Legislative Report

second three months. In the last three

months abortion may be restricted to cases

in which the life or health of the mother is

in danger.

The 1972 term was, in fact, a good one

for women's rights isues, if for no other

reason than passage of the Equal Rights

Amendment. The most perplexing

problem remaining is that of community

property laws and enforcement of current

anti-discrimination laws.

Age Discrimination

ACLUN_1946 ACLUN_1946.MODS ACLUN_1947 ACLUN_1947.MODS ACLUN_1948 ACLUN_1948.MODS ACLUN_1949 ACLUN_1949.MODS ACLUN_1950 ACLUN_1950.MODS ACLUN_1951 ACLUN_1951.MODS ACLUN_1952 ACLUN_1952.MODS ACLUN_1953 ACLUN_1953.MODS ACLUN_1954 ACLUN_1954.MODS ACLUN_1955 ACLUN_1955.MODS ACLUN_1956 ACLUN_1956.MODS ACLUN_1957 ACLUN_1957.MODS ACLUN_1958 ACLUN_1958.MODS ACLUN_1959 ACLUN_1959.MODS ACLUN_1960 ACLUN_1960.MODS ACLUN_1961 ACLUN_1961.MODS ACLUN_1962 ACLUN_1962.MODS ACLUN_1963 ACLUN_1963.MODS ACLUN_1964 ACLUN_1964.MODS ACLUN_1965 ACLUN_1965.MODS ACLUN_1966 ACLUN_1966.MODS ACLUN_1967 ACLUN_1967.MODS ACLUN_1968 ACLUN_1968.MODS ACLUN_1968.batch ACLUN_1969 ACLUN_1969.MODS ACLUN_1969.batch ACLUN_1970 ACLUN_1970.MODS ACLUN_1970.batch ACLUN_1971 ACLUN_1971.MODS ACLUN_1971.batch ACLUN_1972 ACLUN_1972.MODS ACLUN_1972.batch ACLUN_1973 ACLUN_1973.MODS ACLUN_1973.batch ACLUN_1974 ACLUN_1974.MODS ACLUN_1975 ACLUN_1975.MODS ACLUN_1976 ACLUN_1976.MODS ACLUN_1977 ACLUN_1977.MODS ACLUN_1978 ACLUN_1978.MODS ACLUN_1979 ACLUN_1979.MODS ACLUN_1980 ACLUN_1980.MODS ACLUN_1981 ACLUN_1981.MODS ACLUN_1982 ACLUN_1982.MODS ACLUN_1983 ACLUN_1983.MODS ACLUN_1983.batch ACLUN_1984 ACLUN_1984.MODS ACLUN_1985 ACLUN_1985.MODS ACLUN_1986 ACLUN_1986.MODS ACLUN_1987 ACLUN_1987.MODS ACLUN_1988 ACLUN_1988.MODS ACLUN_1989 ACLUN_1989.MODS ACLUN_1990 ACLUN_1990.MODS ACLUN_1991 ACLUN_1991.MODS ACLUN_1992 ACLUN_1992.MODS ACLUN_1993 ACLUN_1993.MODS ACLUN_1994 ACLUN_1994.MODS ACLUN_1995 ACLUN_1995.MODS ACLUN_1996 ACLUN_1996.MODS ACLUN_1997 ACLUN_1997.MODS ACLUN_1998 ACLUN_1998.MODS ACLUN_1999 ACLUN_1999.MODS ACLUN_ladd ACLUN_ladd.MODS ACLUN_ladd.bags ACLUN_ladd.batch add-tei.sh create-bags.sh create-manuscript-bags.sh create-manuscript-batch.sh fits.log A. B. 1206 (McCarthy -- D-San

Francisco) will give the Fair Employment

Practice Commission enforcement power

and control of state laws barring job

discrimination because of age. The Bill

discrimination because of age. The bill

bars discrimination against persons

between the ages of 40 and 64 on account

of their age. It will not affect the com-

pulsory retirement provisions at age 65.

Welfare

There was little legislation in the

welfare area last year. One exception,

however, was the so-called ``relative

responsibility'' provisions of the Welfare

Reform Act of 1971, provisions which

have frequently been the cause of com-

plaints to the ACLU. Those provisions

require children to make monthly support

payments to the state if their parents are

on welfare.

Senator Dills (D-Los Angeles) bill (S. B.

42) which would have lowered payments,

but the governor vetoed it. Senator Dills

has introduced a new bill in the 1973-

1974 Legislature (S. B. 7) which would

completely delete the provisions of the

relatives' responsibility law. Welfare

reform will probably not be a major issue

in the coming year.

Aliens

A.B. 1986 (Powers-D-Sacramento)

deletes the requirement of U. S.

citizenship where it now exists in the

licensing and professional codes of the

state. The statute follows recent State

Supreme Court holdings that aliens may

not be discriminated against by reason of

their alienage in job preference.

Privacy

Perhaps the most serious threat to-in-

- dividual privacy which has arisen in recent

years is the phenomenal ability of com-

puters to store and return vast amounts of

information on individuals. A major

concern of the Americn Civil Liberties

Union has been the tremendous

possibilities for abuse when material

` gathered from a wide variety of sources

can be brought together in one place and

made available indiscriminately. S. B.

1503 (Teale, D-Alpine) must on balance

be considered a set-back. The new law

consolidates some 25 computer operations

into four computer centers supervised

by the Departments of Justice, Business

and Transportation, Agriculture, and the

Human Relations Agency. |

The centralization makes it more likely

_ that large amounts of information will be

available to persons who might abuse that

information. The bill does prohibit the

intercoupling of data from one computer

center to another but there is now much

more data in each computer. Persons in

charge of, or with access to, one of the

four major computer centers will be

unable, theoretically, to gain access to

information contained in the other three

computers, but enforcement of. those

provisions is another matter. Such

retrictions are essential if there is to be any

hope of maintaining a semblance of

pfivacy in an increasingly technoligical

and computerized government.

The most potentially far-reaching

legislative event of the year was passage of

Proposition 11 on the November ballot.

Proposition 11 started as ACA 51 (Cory-

D-Garden Grove) and adds the right of

"`privacy'' to those rights guaranteed by

the state constitution.

Criminal Justice

DEATH PENALTY

Some 18 bills were introduced in efforts

to restore the death penalty in California

following the decision of the California

Supreme Court in People v. Anderson

February

aclu NEWS

LEGISLATIVE

1972 Legislative Report

(1972) 6 Cal. 3d 628, and the decision of

the United States Supreme Court in

Furman v. Georgia (1972) 408 U. S. 238.

Anderson .was arguably overturned by

Proposition 17, but Furman strictly limits

the use of the death penalty. The Supreme

Court held that the arbitrary and

discriminatory use of the death penalty

constituted a "`cruel and unusual pun-

ishment,'' but suggested that mandatory

death penalties for specific offenses may be

constitutional ?

At present, there are four crimes `in

California which mandate the death

penalty:

1. Train wreck causing major injury;

2. Perjury in a capital case;

3. Killing of a non-inmate by a prisoner

serving a life term, and;

4. Treason against the State of California.

None of the death penalty bills passed

last year, but in the first two weeks of the

new session bills have already been in-

troduced to provide for a mandatory death

penalty in air piracy cases (S. B. 59, in-

troduced by Senators Carpenter,

Gregorio, Harmer and Wedworth), and to

make murder of a peace officer punishable

by a mandatory death penalty (S. B. 28,

introduced by Senators Richardson,

Berryhill, Bradley, Coombs, Harmer,

Lagomarsino and Marler).

Opposing death penalty legislation will

be a major effort of the ACLU in the

1973-1974 year.

_ OBSCENITY

Senator Harmer (R-Los Angeles)

unsuccessfully introduced a number of

bills to ban what he termed to be obscene

matter. The bills were similar in form to

Proposition 18 which was roundly

defeated by the voters in November,

1972.

MARIJUANA LAWS

The Legislature passed A. B. 1778

(Sieroty

would have made a first offense conviction

of marijuana possesssion a misdemenaor

punishable by a maximum 6-months

imprisonment and a $500 fine. Under

current law, a first offense may be

punished as a felony. The measure was

vetoed by the Governor but Assemblyman

Sieroty plans to reintroduce it this session.

Futher legislation on the order of

Proposition 19, which would have

repealed laws punishing possession of

marijuana for personal use, will probably

be introduced this year. Legislation

making the criminality of possession of

marijuana a matter to be decided within

each county is also likely to be introduced.

The ACLU supported a bill, signed by

the Governor, which deleted the

- requirement that persons convicted of

possession of marijuana must register as

narcotics offenders in places where they

live (A. B. 414, Sieroty - D-Los Angeles).

S. B. 714 (Deukmejian - R-Los

Angeles) providing for drug rehabilitation

treatment rather than jail for narcotics

first-offenders was signed by the

Governor.

PRISONER'S RIGHTS

Several bills relating to the rights of

women in prison were passed and are

discussed above in the Women's Rights

section. A number of important bills were

passed but vetoed. S. B. 1419 (Roberti - D-

Los Angeles) would have given pfisoners

the unlimited right to engage in oe

correspondence.

D-Beverly Hills) which'

A. B. 807 (Sieroty) would have per-

mitted prison inmates to receive ``any and

all newspapers, periodicals, and books

accepted for distribution by the United

States Post Office." The Governor also

vetoed A. B. 2268 (Crown - D-Oakland)

which attempted to set up rules on the

dissemination of information in prisoners'

files to non-judicial agencies and A. B. 5,

by Assemblyman Frank Murphy (R-Santa

Cruz) which would have set up an om-

budsman to monitor and act on complaints

from prisoners.

Bills which would have provided

`temporary release of women prisoners for

pregnancy, birth control devices for

- female inamtes, medical standards for the

treatment of inmates, and permission for

male and female inmates at county farms

to mingle during meals, work and classes,

all died in legislative committees.

The Legislature did pass a pay raise for

correctional officers and allied help and set

aside $625,000 for the training of

correctional personnel. The Governor cut

out 2/3 of that amount for training,

however.

JURIES

Spurred by recent United States

Supreme Court decisions holding that the

right to trial by 12-person and unanimous

juries is not constitutionally mandated in

state courts, conservatives introduced and

fought for a number of bills which would

have limited the size of juries and per-

mitted conviction on less than unanimous

verdicts. None of these bills, strongly

opposed by the ACLU, passed. The same

bills, or similar ones, will undoubtedly be

introduced in the coming session.

They represent an assault on what is (c)

one of the most fundamental of rights

available to a criminal defendant and those

_ permitting conviction on non-unanimous

verdicts make a mockery of the notion that

- a person may be convicted only if there is

no reasonable doubt in the minds of jurors

that she or he is guilty. At.empts to limit

the participation of counsel in the voir dire

of prospective jurors, S. B. 880 (Deuk-

mejian - R-Los Angeles) also died in

committee. A complete voir dire by

counsel has proven itself time and again to

be often the only way to detect racial or

other bias on the part of jurors.

SEX OFFENSES

Assemblyman Willie Brown's A. B.

470, which would have repealed

prohibitions on private consenting adults'

sexual activity, died in committee. It will"

be reintroduced during the coming

session.

BAIL

No change was made in state provisions

regarding bail during the past term. Most

significant of the bills introduced was S.

B.1113 (Gregorio - D-San Mateo). That

bill would have set up the so-called 10 per

cent cash bond system now used in0x2122

Illionios and in the City of Philadelphia.

Under the present system, when bond is

set, a defendant may either pay the full

amount or he may pay 10 per cent to a bail

bondsman who then guarantees payment

of the full amount to the state should the

defendant not show up at the required-

court appearances. The bail bondsman

keeps the 10 per cent whether or not the

defendant appear.

Under the proposed system, a defendant

would be able to deposit the 10 per cent

with the court,

bondsman, and sign an agreement

promising to pay the reamining 90 per

cent if he defaults. If he makes all of his

_ appearances, the 10 per cent is returned

less a surcharge of 1 per cent of the total

bond, which is used for administrative

costs. The 10 percent system would make

it far easier for indigent defendants to

make bail, since they can be assured that

they will receive almost all of the deposit

back if they appear. The bill was supported

by a wide range of groups, and even found

the District Attorney's Association and

the ACLU on the same side of an issue. It

was strongly opposed by the bail bond-

smen, who would be driven out of their

business by the bill, and it was defeated.

Senator Gregorio has reintroduced the

bill as S. B. 74 in the current session.

- Prospects for passage are marginal at best.

First Amendment

There has been little activity in the First

Amendment area this session. The ACLU

and the First Amendment suffered its

most serious defeat with A. B. 1724, the

so-called tax bill credit bill introduced by

Assemblyman McCarthy (D-San Fran-

cisco). The bill provides for a tax credit of

$125 for parents who send their children

to parochial schools. It was vigorously

opposed by the ACLU_and clearly violates 0x00B0

the constitutional mandate that the

church and the state be kept separate.

Since the vast majority of children in

non-public schools of the state go to

parochial schools, the tax credit would give

them a monetary advantage -.which may

be seen as incentive to send their children

to religious schools and which, in fact,

amounts to state underwriting of the

expense of religious education. Similar

statutes have been struck down, most

recently in Ohio. Both the ACLU Nor-

thern. and Southern ACLU affiliate are

preparing a lawsuit to challenge the

constituionality of the news act.

NEWS PERSON PRIVILEGES

A bill (A. B. 1848) to extend a

newsperson's privilege not to reveal his

sources under subpoena to any judicial or

administrative body was introduced by

Assemblyman William Bagley (R-San

Rafael) and signed by the Governor. It

gives California one of the best journalists'

privilege laws in the country. The Bagley

bill was strongly supported by the ACLU.

The ACLU's traditional concern in the

Legislature has been with the problems

rasied by the administration of criminal

justice, since that is the area in which the

state has the most coercive power and in

which those persons subject to the state's

coercive power are usually least able to

defend themselves.

A major part of our effort has been to

keep anti-civil liberties from passing the

Legislature and the current wave of

support for law and order bills will make

that task even more difficult than in the

past. We are heartened, however, by the

new appointment of Assemblyman Robert

Crown (D-Oakland) as Chairman of the

Assembly Criminal Justice Committee.

Assemblyman Crown has in the past

shown himself to be most sensitive to civil

liberties issues and we hope that he , the

legislative committees and the legislature

will be able to hold the line against a

growing surge for repressive legislation.

rather than with the.

Hawk released

pending appeal

Staff Counsel Joseph Remcho had to act

fast last week when he secured the release

of Juan Corona's Defense Attorney,

Richard Hawk from Vallejo County Jail.

Hawk had been jailed on nineteen

counts of contempt of court resulting from

the Corona trial. Several of the contempt

charges were handed down by Judge

Richard Patton because Hawk violated gag

orders imposed on him by the judge. In

one instance, Patton cited him for con-

tempt because his remarks had caused

criticism of the judge by the public and the

press.

Hawk believed he would not have to

deal with the contempt charges until he

had completed the Corona case. On

February 5, he appeared in Patton's court

to argue a motion for a mistrial on

Corona's behalf because of alleged jury

tampering. Patton denied the motion and

then ordered Hawk to the custody of the

Sheriff to begin serving a sentence of 54

days.

Remcho filed for a write of habeus

corpus and a stay of sentence pending

appeal the next day in the California Court

of Appeal. The ACLU petition charges

that the gag orders were unconstitutional

because they deny access to information

on the trial from the press and public. In

addition, Remcho argued that the judge's

actions were discriminatory against Hawk

and that he was denied due process since

Patton acted on the charges himself.

Now, the arduous task of reviewing the

10,000 pages of transcript from the

Corona trial must be done before appeal on

the contempt citations is argued. In the

meantime, Hawk is out of jail and able to

continue work on his, as well as ae S.

further defense.

ACLU defends

journalist

A euroOMteEMpt Citation agailist a

newspaper editor who criticized a judge

will be challenged by ACLU-NC

volunteer Robert Poswall in Calaveras

County Superior Court.

Oscar A. Mellin, who publishes the San

Andreas Enterprise wrote an editorial

about justice in Calaveras County that

Judge Howard ``Bluejay'' Blewett didn't

like. The editorial concerned a case before

Judge Blewett on a charge of dog

trespassing on his property.

Mellin's editorial stated: ``We have a

ludicrous situation where the judge

deliberately had a neighbor's dog trapped

and then hauled the dog owner into his

court, set the bail and then tried to sit in

judgement on the case.'' Mellin con-

cluded that Blewett's actions amounted to

a "`kangaroo court.''

The contempt citation is believed to be

the first ever issued for comments printed

in an editorial.

ACLU defends

Capt. Heck

National ACLU has agreed to represent

Capt. Michael J. Heck, a B-52 pilot who

submitted his resignation from the armed

forces last month rather than fly his 176th

mission. Heck said "*the goals (in bom-

bing North Viet Nam) do not justify the

mass destruction and killing."'

The ACLU Foundation wiil assist

Heck's effort to get the Air Force to

accept his resignation.

EDUCATION

Subtle Erosion

February

aclu NEWS

Richard Nixon advanced to the White House charging

that Earl Warren's Supreme Court was too ``liberal'' and

`activist' for the good of the country. After becoming

President he specifically indicted the Court for

``weakening the peace forces as against the criminal

forces in our society.'' Having openly accused the Court

of inflating the nation's crime rate - and having im-_

plicitly accused it of simply paying too much attention to

individual rights and liberties - the new President vowed

to straighten out the Court by filling it with judicial

`"conservatives'' and ``strict constructionists.'' So far,

luck has enabled him to make four appointments, more

than any first-term President since Warren G. Harding.

On the brief record to date, it might seem -that the

Court Mr. Nixon has created -has proved far more

`liberal'? than the one he envisioned. Last term, over the

dissent of his four appointees, the Court struck down

almost every death penalty statute in the nation as

violating the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual

punishments. By the same 5-to-4 vote, the Court held for

the first time that a witness need not testify before a

federal grand jury if the government's investigation is

based on illegal wrietapping. And in three other cases, the

Court unanimously established that due process is

required in parole revocation proceedings, it significantly

expanded the right of indigents to free counsel, and it.

overruled the Attorney General's claim that he needed no'

warrants to conduct wiretapping | in cases of suspected

domestic `"subversion.'

Ee RR SIR rg TONLE. LICL ILO LER LIN IOI IR USI AER PA GENES LIGETI,

Paul Bender is a professor of law at the

University of Pennsylvania Law School. He

specializes in criminal and constitutional law. In

1959, he was Supreme Court law clerk for

Justice Felix Frankfurter.

eR SR PPR IN PR IIN GRR LILI IES IAAI PRAIRIE IAI RII ILALILALELNGLEA

Meanwhile, the Warren Court's great decisions - the

desegregation and reapportionment cases, the expansion

of federal civil-rights jurisdiction, the application of many

parts of the Bill of Rights to the states, the exclusion of

trial evidence obtained by unconstitutional police

searches, and the requirement that police warn defen-

dants of their rights before obtaining confessions - have,

so far at least, escaped any frontal assaults by the Nixon

forces.

Is there a Nixon Court or isn't there? In fact, the law

and the country's thinking have come too far in the past

twenty years to permit a new group of Justices openly and

suddenly to discard the major constitutional develop-

ments of that period, even if they have the votes to do so.

No matter how politically committed a Justice may be,

the ambience and majesty of the nation's highest tribunal

often compel him to show some respect for legal

precedents that may repel him. Yet there is a new Court:

far more is going on than meets the eye.

To grasp the dimension of the Nixon judicial

revolution, one must understand how enormous shifts in

constitutional law and attitudes can occur without any

dramatic rejection or overruling of precedents; there are

more subtle devices for change. In their first months as a

team, the Nixon Justices, consciously or not, have used

several of these quiet devices to erode Warren Court

doctrines, and they have also displayed a basic attitude

toward constitutional adjudication that makes continued

erosion likely. This attitude will certainly slow, and

perhaps ultimately stop, the Court's elaboration of in-

dividual rights.

The techniques of subtle erosion begin witn the

common device of limiting or ``distinguishing'" cases.

Often this is quite necessary. To stop the logic of a

-decision from running away with itself, subsequent limits

may have to be imposed. But such limits ought to respond

to the reasons for the original ruling. The new Court

shows signs of neglecting this principle, with grave

consequences for some established rights.

Several years ago, over some dissent, the Court

established the right of a criminal suspect to have a lawyer

witness a police lineup in which the suspect is forced to

`participate. The Court majority held that the presence ot

counsel was essential in preventing an unfair or overly

suggestive lineup, which might result in the identification

_and conviction of the wrong person.

By happenstance, the cases at issue involved lineups

that were held after the defendants' formal indictment by

a grand jury (most lineups are held prior to indictment),

but the Court did not seem to rely heavily upon that fact

in holding counsel necessary. The accused, it said, ``need

not stand alone against the State at any stage of the

`person in a white neighborhood at the

Thanks to Richard Nixon,

the Supreme Court has quietly

begun to extoll the state at

the expense of the individual.

prosecution, formal or informal, in court or out, where

counsel's absence might derogate from a fair trail.''

Yet last term the four Nixon Justices, joined by one of

the dissenters from the earlier cases, seized upon the fact

that those cases involved lineups occurring after in-

dictments - and thereby held that counsel is not required

at the vast majority of lineups that occur before in-

dictment. The Court explained that it did not wish to

``extend'' the earlier ruling. What it seems to have done,

in practical effect, is to obliterate that ruling.

The same technique can work in the opposite direction.

Limits that should be imposed can be omitted. As the

Warren Court began to enforce the Fourth Amendment's

protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, it

became uneasy with the rule that a policeman needed a

high degree of ``probable cause'' before he could forcibly

detain a person on a public street. In some situations,

probable cause did not exist, yet a seasoned policeman

could sense that a violently dangerous act was about to

take place.

To the Court this called for some minimal power

allowing a policeman to detain suspects briefly and frisk

them for weapons in order to protect himself from injury

during his investigation. In Terry v. Ohio (1968), the

Court apptoved such a narrow "`stop and frisk'' power

where a policeman's personal observations over a period

of time had led him to suspect that an armed robbery was

about to take place in Cleveland.

Last term, in an opinion written by Nixon appointee

William Rehnquist, the power suddenly and silently grew

to alarming proportions. In approving a police stop-and-

frisk of a person suspected of possessing narcotics on the

basis of aninformant's tip, the Court purported simply to

be following the Terry case. It failed, however, to require

either that the policeman rely on his own observations or

that he would havea suspicion that anything dangerous to

the public was about to take place.

By PAUL BENDER

which a criminal conviction may be held to be valid on

appeal , even though the Constitution has been violated by

the police, the prosecutor, or the trial court. Since

overuse of this doctrine can nullify many rules of criminal

procedure ,the Court in recent years has refused to ignore

constitutional error unless it was clear, beyond a

``reasonable doubt,'' that the error did not contribute to

the conviction under review. Last term the Court em-

ployed the harmless error rule on some occasions where

the reasonable doubt test would have seemed to call for

reversal. The facts of one of these cases, Moore v. Illinois,

are enlightening.

Moore had been convicted of murder. The principal

issue at his trial was whether he, or someone else, had

killed a bartender in Lansing, Illinois. The eyewitness

identifications at the scene of the crime were con-

tradictory, and Moore introduced employment records

showing that he was actually working somewhere else at

the time of the murder. Even so, the jury was impressed

by a prosecution witness named Sanders, who testified

that two days after the murder he had been at another bar,

where a man called "`Slick'' had bragged that it was

``open season on bartenders,'' and that he, ``Slick,"'

recently had shot one in Lansing. Sanders then positively

identified the defendant Moore to the jury as the `*Slick''

who had bragged about the murder.

After Moore was convicted, the defense obtained

information that seemed to destroy Sanders' testimony

and throw great doubt on the honesty of the prosecution.

Moore, it turned out, had been in Leavenworth

Penitentiary until about two months before the crime.

The defense, however, learned that, shortly after the

crime, Sanders had positively told the police he had met

`*Slick'' for the first time about six months before the

crime, when Moore was still in jail. The prosecution thus

knew, when it put Sanders on the stand, that his iden-

tification of Moore as ``Slick'? was undoubtedly

erroneous, but it did not reveal this fact to Sanders, the |

court, or the defense.

Perhaps even more shocking, the defense also

discovered that when Sanders first saw Moore in the

courtroom, he appeared greatly surprised, and remarked

to the prosecutor and some police officers that Moore did

not look much like the person he knew as ``Slick.'' That

person was about thirty to forty pounds heavier than

ee

The Nixon Justices, consciously or not, have used several devices to erode Warren Court

doctrines, and they have also displayed a basic attitude towards against constitutional

adjudication that makes continued erosion likely. This attitude will certainly slow, and

perhaps ultimately stop, the Court's elaboration of individual rights.

Instead, the Court said Terry had established that a

policeman may forcibly detain and often search any

`suspicious individual.'' What started as an arguably

necessary power to prevent impending violent crime may

have thus become a roving commission to police to in-

terfere with `the liberty of anyone they deem

`*suspicious.'' History tells us that to many policemen

and their informants a ``suspicious individual'? may be

anyone with long hair or funny clothes - or a black

"`wrong'' time.

REDEFINED TESTS FOR OBSCENITY

Small verbal changes in constitutional tests can also

have enormous potential impact. For years a majority of

the Supreme Court has refused to permit any book or film

to be considered ``obscene'' for adults unless it met three

criteria - the work must as a whole appeal to ""prurient''

interest, it must be "`patently offensive,' and it must

have no ``redeeming social value.''

Last term, in reversing a Wisconsin obscenity con-

viction, the Court suddenly and without explanation

dropped the offensiveness and social value parts of the test

for obscenity and said instead that the test was solely

whether the dominant theme of a work could be judged,

in part, by whether it was ``an attempt at serious art,''

but it also said that such an attempt is ` "not inevitably a

guarantee against a finding of obscenity." We won't

know the full impact of this change until the Court affirms

an obscenity conviction in the future. Meanwhile, some

local police and prosecutors will undoubtedly invoke the

new test, with the consequent danger that we may be in

for a new round of zealous obscenity enforcement.

Then there is the doctrine of "`harmless error,'' under

Gua ia a a Su Powwow wr au i i hi i

Moore and did not wear glasses. One of the policemen

responded, ``Well, you know how the jailhouse beans

Sanders was then put on the stand to testify that

Moore definitely was ``Slick."'

Faced with this evidence of massive deception by the

prosecution in securing a murder conviction, Justice

Harry Blackmun nevertheless wrote an opinion

upholding Moore's conviction. The Justice recognized

that Sanders must have been mistaken in his identification

of Moore. (``Slick'', in fact, was someone else, by the

name of Watts, whom the police have never found.)

Blackmun also seemed to recognize that - given the

prosecution's knowledge about the misidentification - it

would have bene unconstitutional to put Sanders on the |

stand, without sharing that knowledge with the defense,

if Sanders' testimony could have affected the jury's

verdict. :

Justice Blackmun, however, came to the quite in-

credible conclusion ``that Sanders' misidentification of

Moore as Slick was not material to the issue of guilt''

because it merely showed that Moore wasn't ``Slick,''

not that Moore wasn't the murderer! If Sanders'

testimony was not ``material,'' why in the world did the

prosecution take such pains to get his identification before

the jury? The President is concerned that we do not deny

to police and prosecutors "`the legal tools they need to

protect the innocent from criminal elements,'' but one

hardly supposes that such tools include the deliberate

suppression of information showing that someone other.

than the defendant is very likely the criminal.

Reprinted from Harpers Magazine, December,

1972. Copyright 1972, Paul Bender.

EDUCATION

| February

aclu NEWS

The Techniques of Subtle Erosion

SURVEILLANCE NOT GROUNDS FOR RELIEF.

Finally, there are numerous pfocedural or jurisdic-

tional hurdles that can diminish or destroy individual

rights by preventing litigation of claims of serious con-

stitutional violations. These devices have their place in

protecting the Court from feigned or wholly hypothetical

cases, but the Nixon Justices seem prone to use them

much more frequently than may be justifiable. In one

important case last term, for example, a.group of citizens

brought suit under the First Amendment seeking to stop

the Army's alleged intensive ``surveillance'' of antiwar

and other "`dissident,'' but lawful, civilian political

activity.

This is the same Army surveillance that has been

reported so extensively in the press in recent months.

The plaintiffs claimed that the Army's activities have had

a `chilling effect'' on political expression, protest, and

dissent. Specifically, they alleged that their fear of finding

themselves on the Army's computers and ``blacklists''

deterred them from openly expressing their views, joining

organizations, etc.

The trial court dismissed the case without hearing

evidence, but the federal appeals court reversed and

ordered the trial court to find out whether the plaintiffs'

charge of improper surveillance and ``chilling'' were

true. The Government appealed this ruling, and the

Supreme Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Burger,

reinstated the dismissal of the case. Burger said that the

plaintiffs had no right to prove their charges because,

even if those charges were true, the plaintiffs were not

being harmed in a ``justifiable'' way. "Allegations of a

subjective. `chill,' = said Justice Berger, ``are not an

adequate substitute for a claim of specific present ob-

jective harm or a threat of specific future harm; `the

federal courts... do not render advisory opinions.' '' But

if the Army is, in fact, acting illegally and if the plaintiffs

are, as a result, intimidated from engaging in open

political activity and expression, that would seem to

deprive them'of rights guaranteed to all of us by the First

Amendment. What more ``specific'' or ``objective''

harm does one need to get judicial relief?

TO APPEASE OFFICIALDOM

Underlying many of the Nixon Justices' opinions so far

seems to be an attitude toward constitutional adjudication

that is quite opposed to the philosophy that emerged

during the Warren Court years. Blatant constitutional

violations, such as statutes that draw discriminatory

racial lines, have become increasingly rare in this county.

Unconstitutionality these days most often lies in the way

things are administered, or in the motives and effect of

legislation, rather than in its abstract text. If good faith

can be assumed in those who enact and enforce the law,

then it may make sense for judges to exercise great

restraint in hearing constitutional allegations.

Many of the Warren Court decisions, however, seemed

grounded on a deep and growing skepticism about

whether officials can really be expected, if left to their

own devices, to be sensitive to individual rights in

exercising their enormous powers over men's lives,

liberty, and property. Because of this skepticism, the

Warren Court often set up protective rules or presump-

tions, and authorized federal judicial scrutiny where none

had existed before, to try to insure adherence to con-

stitutional values. Unlike its predecessors, the Warren

Court was unwilling to leave the enforcement of rights to

the presumed ``good faith'' of the government on all

levels.

The Nixon Justices, on the other hand, seem to

assume that those in high places with power over their

fellow men will almost inevitably act correctly and

responsibly. This leads to the placing of enormous

burdens on litigants and defendants to show that their

rights have been violated, to the limitation of protective

rules and presumptions, and to close restriction upon

federal judicial inquiry into constitutional allegations.

The new Justices tend to see the Warren Court's

safeguards as unwarranted intrusions into the activities of

other branches of government.

There is a question of fact here. Can the police, the

prosecutors, the state courts, some legislatures, etc. be

expected to be sufficiently sensitive to constitutional

rights, without the threat of direct federal judicial in-

terference? I suspect that in many cases they cannot. It

should not take more than the frantic efforts of some

Southern legislatures to avoid school integration, or the

frequent and notorious perjury of police to justify arrests

and searches they have been permitted to make without a

prior warrant, to convince us that this is so.

There is ample additional evidence. As the Warren

Court expanded federal habeas corpus jurisdiction over

State criminal convictions, large numbers of con-

stitutional violations were discovered that would

previously have gone uncorrected. When the Warren

Court authorized federal courts to examine state criminal

laws that were alleged to ``chill'' constitutional rights,

many statutes were struck down that had stood on the

books and been enforced by state officials for decades.

When welfare administration was examined by the federal

courts, a good deal of long-standing fundamental un-

fairness was unearthed and prevented.

Court decisions should respond to these realities, and

not to the often baseless hope that power will be exercised

responsibly in the absence of meaningful judicial controls.

Where there is a substantial danger that the Constitution

will be violated unless the federal courts take a searching

look, why isn't it better to take that look? What you risk,

on the one hand, is offending officialdom by scrutinizing

its activities in detail. What you risk, on the other hand,

is the evaporation of a good part of the Constitution.

WARREN COURT DECISIONS RIGHT

Let me conclude with a brief and somewhat personal

appreciation of the Warren Court, a response to some of

the intellectual arguments for the ``judicial restraint''

that the Nixon Court appears prone to exercise, and a

summary of my fears for the future.

a ai a Saga Sadi i Gina i

ae ~~ Ra ras at Se ees

If the police don't like losing cases because of

technicalities, they have only to obey the

constitutional rules. If they don't like being

asked to obey the rules they have been

ignoring for years, they should blame the

Constitution, not the Court. I, myself, think

the Constitution is compatible with good

law enforcement.

a a a i i i a au i a ea a ae aa

In law school in my day (about fifteen years ago),

we were taught to revere the impeccable logic of the law

and to adopt a supremely critical stance toward new ideas

and solutions. We spent endless hours tearing things

. down.

The logic of the law is one of its eubstaneal safeguards

against arbitrary and harmful decisions by judges who.

respond indirectly, if at all, to the electorate. I found

many of the decisions of the Warren Court infuriating

because they lacked a firm, logical base, and because it

often seemed as though some of the Justices weren't even

trying to reason tightly. As I look back now, however, I

think that my professors and I may have been asking too

much of the Court. The first English court opinion,

hundreds of years ago, holding that A may recover

damages from B for ``assault'' when B threatens but does

not strike A, was no more tightly reasoned than the first

opinion holding that racial segregation is un-

constitutional.

It has taken hundreds of years for the law of assault to

develop to a point where the logic is crystal clear, as we

lawyers say, and now we all know that the first opinion

was "`right''. But so was the first segregation opinion.

Does anyone doubt today (did anyone really doubt in

1954?) that legally enforced racial segregation in

Southern public schools hurts blacks more than it did

whites? The Constitution says we all deserve equal

treatment. If the Court had waited to strike down

segregation until an airtight opinion could be written (I

still couldn't write one), it would have sadly failed ae

country and the Constitution.

Bad as the logic may often have been, the Peal

thing about the Warren Court's major efforts is that they

were right. Right not because you or I or five Justices

liked the results but because they enforced the Con-

stitution. It is often overlooked that the Warren Court

made very little change in underlying constitutional

doctrine. Its main contribution, as in the segregation

cases, was to try to find ways to apply unquestioned

constitutional principles to unquestionable violations of

these principles. Until then, courts had stumbled on the

difficulties of technically proving what everyone knew.

They were stymied by doctrines like "`justiciability'', by

fears of entering the "`political thicket,'' by automatic

`"deference'' to the good intentions of legislatures, state

courts, and law-enforcement officers. The Warren Court

placed the constitutional rights of people above these

abstractions, and the Constitution is meaningful for the

first time to many less-advantaged citizens as a result.

But it is said that ``judicial restraint'' is called for in

constitutional litigation because it is dangerous to have

the Court supplant important legislative judgments. Such

action ``reflects a basic lack of faith and confidence in the

democratic process... (I)mpatience with the slowness, and

even the unresponsiveness, of legislatures is no,

justification for judicial intrusion upon their historic

powers.'" (The words are Justice Lewis Powell's, from

his dissent in the death-penalty cases.) We are asked to

consider the damage wrought by the Supreme Court of

the Twenties and Thirties in striking down child-labor

and minimum-wage legislation and measures designed to

rescue the country from economic disaster.

Ironically, those acts of judicial nonrestraint were

committed not by Warren Court liberals or their ilk but

by Justices whose basic philosophy was close to that of

the Burgers, Powells, and Rehnquists of today. The

important point, however, is that the constitutional

landmarks of the past twenty years, as distinguished from

those of the Twenties and Thirties, did not interfere with

important legislative programs seriously designed to

better the lot of mankind. Legislative malapportionment,

official racial discrimination, and police brutality hardly

fall in that category.

Take the most recent landmark, the death-penalty

cases. There is no credible evidence that the death penalty

deters crime or makes anyone safer on the streets or in his

bed. ``Capital punishment serves no useful purpose that

can be demonstrated.'' (The words are not from Justice

William Douglas, as you might imagine, but from Justice

Blackmun, dissenting from the Court's decision.) The

only demonstrable function of capital punishment is

governmental revenge. One shouldn't have to think very

hard or long before deciding that the betterment of society

is not threatened by failure to defer to that legislative

program.

The President is of the view that the Court has

weakened the ``peace forces'' in controlling the

``criminal elements.'' That is nonsense. The Warren

Court created very few new constitutional rules gover-

ning police conduct (indeed, it watered down some rules,

as in its original creation of a narrow power to stop and

frisk without probable cause). What it did was to try

seriously, for the first time, to force the police to obey the

rules by, for example, prohibiting states from using

unconstitutionally obtained evidence and recognizing the

existence of a practical right to sue police who violate the

law. If the police don't like losing cases because of

`*technicalities,'' they have only to obey the con-

stitutional rules. If they don't like being asked to obey the

rules they have been ignoring for years,

blame the Constitution, not the Court. I, myself, think

the Constitution is compatible with good law en-

forcement.

SPIRIT OF JUSTICE DYING

My fears for the future of the Court are these: for

twenty years the Supreme Court not only decided im-

portant cases correctly but it also contributed enormously

to an increasing sensitivity among many people in this |

country toward oppressive inequalities and injustices. No

one today openly defends racial discrimination or

malapportioned legislatures and we all believe, in

principle at least, that the poor should have access to free

legal services. I'm not sure we would have come this far

this quickly in our thinking without the Court to prod us

and lead us.

The Court also set a spirit of justice loose among the

lower federal courts (and some state courts as well) by

making it plain to those courts that they were expected to

use their jurisdictions to remedy wrongs and illegal

deprivations rather than to hide behind technical doc-

trines that left people remediless. (As a direct result of

this spirit, for example, lower courts have now widely

recognized that prisoners have rights against unequal and

inhumane treatment, when previously those who

complained were almost inevitably told that courts must

``abstain'' from interference with prison administration,

no matter how callous or cruel.)

The nation can probably tolerate a few years during

which the Supreme Court does not create many new

remedies for constitutional violations, although I can

think of several that badly need to be created. It would be

nothing short of tragic, however, if the result of the new -

Supreme Court were a spread of cynicism within the

country toward persons who allege unfairness and in-

justice, arid if we were to see a massive and abrupt closing

of court doors in the faces of litigants who have just begun

to be aware that the law can, indeed, sometimes right the

wrongs of the disliked and disadvantaged. I hope that

doesn't happen.

they should ~

e

COMMENTARY

February

aclu NEWS

Letters to the Editor:

Genesis

Dear Editor,

I find it a little strange that the foremost

non-government body in the nation

devoted to the protection of the Con-

stitutional liberties in general and the Bill

of Rights in particular, should be so short-

~ sighted in its interpretation of that

document.

With particular reference to a box on

page 3 of the December issue of the ACLU

NEWS, why is it that the current in-

terpretation of the following sentence in

the Bill of Rights always seems to stop at

the end of the first clause:

Congress `shall make no laws

respecting the establishment of

religion, OR DENYING THE FREE

EXERCISE THEREOF.

It seems to me that the Board of

Education is responding to the complaints

of a larye minority of citizens who feel that

the free exercise of their religion has been

denied. Recent educational practice has

included the official and public denial of

certain religious teachings concerning the

origins of life in the world, which has had

a profound effect on free exercise of the

religions which hold to those teachings as

important.

While I do not propose that the religious

teachings be taught as fact in public

schools (first clause), perhaps a more

even-handed approach to serving the

intent of the Bill of Rights would be to

present both the Darwinistic position and

the Genesis teachings (as well as any other

significant alternatives) as "interesting

theories'', especially since a. Prima Facie

case cannot be made for any such position.

I think that this kind of anti-religious

attitude has been prevelent in ACLU

action, here and across the nation, and I

find it somewhat confusing. I would

appreciate an explanation of the official

ACLU position.

Tom Pittman

Mote genesis

Dear Editor,

I am writing to express my disap-

pointment with the letter which Mr. Paul

Editorial Cartoon by Pat

Oliphant

Copyright. The Denver Post

Reprinted with permission

of Los Angeles Times

Syndicate.

it

`ONE MORE TIME-ARE YOU READY TO REVEAL YOUR NEWS SOURCES?'

i a i ea

Satin

POPPED DRORERLDGEUGD

By Howard Jewel,

Chairman of the Board, ACLU-NC

I suppose, like me, you read the

`Crimestoppers Textbook'' which ap-

pears in the upper right hand corner of

Sunday's Dick Tracy. In these days of

soaring crime rates we need every break

we can get.

The - text for last Sunday was:

``Fingerprint the family and memorize

other's (sic) physical disabilities, scars,

moles, etc. to make positive identification

in case of disaster.'' Dick Tracy.

A family I know not only follows

Tracy's weekly advice themselves, but

persuade their friends to do so also. Whilst

they and their friends were busily

memorizing each other's scars, moles etc.

their front door was suddenly kicked open

by Dick Tracy himself who was at the

head of a victimless crime squad. What

they lacked in warrants they more than

made up in weapons. Everybody was

arrested for a variety of crimes which.

included contributing and indecent ex-

posure.

It seems that a traffic camera had

unaccountably gone astray and focused

into my friend's window. After that arrest

was only minutes away. The reason you

haven't read about this interesting case is

that the judge has imposed a strict gag rule

on the media. The trial date is secret.

Watch next week's Crimestoppers for

_more good tips on crime prevention.

Although it used to be the other way

Pwwwwww Satie Saga

Dick Tracy and The

ii

ti ae

around, nowadays our federal government

seems to borrow its crime fighting tactics

and philosophy from Dick Tracy.

Currently the government is engaged in

two major efforts. One is supposed to have

an effect on the crime rate but predictably

will not. The other is not supposed to have

an effect but will.

The first is a double-barreled effort to

prevent crime by limiting or eliminating

constitutional guarantees coupled -with

more severe punishment. The approach is

both legislative and by the appointment of

judges sympathetic to this philosophy.

One never ceased to be amazed at the

naivete of those whose knee-jerk solution

to all crime problems is increased punish-

ment. The unspoken assumption is that

their solution has not been tried before.

What they forget, or never knew, is that

there is literally no form of cruelty which

has not been practiced from time to time

by one state or another on its criminals.

Describing these practices at length would

produce beads of sweat on the forehead of

the Marquis de Sade.

Criminals have been gouged, chopped,

hung, gassed, crucified, burned, blinded,

beaten, starved, poisoned, transported

and enslaved - for starters.

Such measures did not stamp out or

reduce crime (nor Christianity) then and

there is no reason to suspect that they

would be more successful today.

What does happen is that as the.state

becomes more brutal its individuals follow

the lead and a deadly reinforcing harmonic

Pw a Sa aaa

Bill of Rights

effect upon the crime rate.

government has abandoned its attack on

the conditions which cause crime in favor

of an attack on the criminals (and those

accused) themselves. One obvious fall-out

of this philosophy will be an attack by the'

government on those principles of law

which provide shelter to criminals (and

you and me). It is an excellent time for

that small minority of our citizens who

believe in our bill of rights to rally to its

defense.

is created between the state and _ its

citizens.

The other major effort by the govern- {

ment is to eliminate those programs

designed to give those who don't have

one, a stake in the society by breaking the

poverty cycle they find themselves in. To

the extent that these programs have been

successful in creating productive citizens,

their termination will have an adverse

EPROP PPE LDDOPPLESLEGOD

I sometimes wonder what the longterm

effect on the crime rate would be if we

added a section to the Penal Code to read:

``Tt shall be a defense to the crime of

theft if the defendant shall prove:

a. that he had reasonably looked for

work within his capacity without

being able to find it, and

b. that he had sought public

assistance and been refused it, and

c. that he had no _ responsible

relative that was able to take care of

his needs.'

POPUDBOPDIEYS

In the meanwhile it is clear that the

BP BBPOPIDODIEIS

a i i i ee

wat ~s Ue RPUIUIAIP

Halvonik wrote regarding `` `Genesis' in

public schools.''

Mr. Halvonik admits that he has read

only. newspaper accounts, which he has

interpreted as vague reporting, except that

they state ""Genesis'' will be presented as -

`solid scientific competition for Dar-

winism.'' He then attacks. its potential

presentation as flaunting the Constitution

as a promotional ``religious theory.''

By his gratuitous comments Mr.

Halvonick has revealed only his peculiar

understanding of the issue at hand. He

obviously has never read or examined any

of the evidence which might be presented

in a scholarly way in school text books. If

the Genesis (or Creationist) position has

merit as a systematic hyposthesis, it can

R S

Qi

Y

only be discovered when it is permitted to

be read, discussed, tested and. compared

with contradictory arguments.

Especially with the advent of nuclear

science there has grown an increasing

awareness of the contradictions to the

manifold variations of the "`theory of

evolution." This so-called theory has

never been demonstrated or proven as

scientifically tenable; and therefore

empirical science has never denoted

``evolution'' as a Law.

I hopefully encourage the ACLU to

examine the evidence before it makes any

policy decision as to how it might relate to

this issue of such significance. It seems to

me a critical point that people should be

free to examine evidence and make their

own decision. The best ACLU might do is

assess the. evidence' and encourage its

presentation in a way which `will `not

permit the kinds of encroachment for

which Mr. Halvonik appears so correctly

concerned.

Stankomir J. Eremia

ACLU priorities

criticized

Dear Editor,

As you may have noticed, my mem-

bership dues are considerably less than last

year. You also should notice that I did not .

choose the petty route of dropping

membership, as was the case with some

former members. There are two main

reasons for the reduced amount.

The first is the inordinate amount of

money and resources spent by the ACLU-

NC towards the defeat of proposition 17

on the November ballot. | am aware that

I'm probably in the minority of ACLU

members since I support the concept of the

death penalty (J voted against 17 due tothe

questionable methods used to place it on

the ballot and its support by "`law en-

forcement agencies''). But, in any case, I

feel there are numerous other areas (like

bugging, leafletting, free speech areas,

civil rights law violations) that are badly

hurting due to lack of funds and resources.

A re-ordering of priorities is, I believe,

appropriate.

Secondly, I feel that the ACLU has been

at the very least, timid in entering areas of

employment rights violations merely

because the person employed works for a

private company rather than an arm of the

government. If a First Amendment

principle is involved in the latter (the

ACLU position), it should, to be con-

sistent, apply just as well to the former.

I would urge both the Board and the

membership to consider these two

thoughts. Thank you.

Ronald S. Winkler

February

~ aclu NEWS

We've One

over the

halle Way

=| Wark

d/, 600

I

1

!

=| 6,935 Ackhu-we

= members had

[ Strat in their

renevals for the

Dec. | - Nov. 30

mem bership Boe

{

(

We're enormous |

qrateeuroy |. if ee

are one of the

Wd6S awl

libertarians who

haven't gotten

aro und to sendin

checks,

PLEASE Do IT

TODAY

Let us

you re

in their

Know

us iw the

ai Fpoundicule struggle

to keep the

Bill of Right 5

alive.

ARE YOU

By | Bl is,

still with

Speakers Bureau

After several years. of discussions, negotiations and

agonizing speculation, the American Civil Liberties

Union of Northern California merged with National

ACLU to become the Northern California Affiliate of

ACLU in 1971. When agreement on the merger was

reached, many feared the result would be lost support and

resources for both National and the Affiliate.

The merger meant that one membership list existed for

both entities in Northern California and that income

would be split with 60 percent staying with the Affiliate

and 40 percent going to National. Prior to that, each

organization maintained a separate list and retained all of

the membership income each received. When the change

was made, the Northern California Affiliate had about

8,000 members and National had about 6,000. Ap-

proximately 2000 people belonged to both organizations.

Last year, marked the first full year of financial in-

tegration and the income membership figures reveal that

the merger has been a resounding success. Income for the

Northern California Affiliate and its Foundation from

membership and individual contributions in 19.2

signalled a 54 percent increase over the previous highest

income year in 1970. About 30 percent of this increased

income, however, was absorbed by the expenses of

Credential Revoked

The California Court of Appeal has rejected an appeal

by William Purifoy from the revocation of his life

teaching credential without a hearing. Purifoy is

~ represented by ACLU-NC.

Most teachers accused of misconduct are accorded a

hearing which complies with due process, at which it

must be proved that the teacher is ``unfit to teach'' before

a credential can be revoked. But the state legislature,

apparently on the assumption that anyone who commits

specific crimes must be unfit to teach, has listed a number

of offenses for which revocation is automatic and no

hearing is provided. The list includes the more serious

assault crimes, most drug crimes, and virtually all sex

crimes, including misdemeanors. Purifoy was convicted

of misdemeanors involving soliciting lewd acts, and his

credential was automatically revoked.

The Court of Appeal rejected Purifoy's due process

contention by saying that he had his day in court when he

contested his guilt of the misdemeanors. ACLU claims

that the issues in a misdemeanor prosecution do not

necessarily include fitness to teach, and that Purifoy is

therefore entitled to a separate hearing directed to that

- challenged the

DEVELOPMENT

Financial : merger between National

and NC termed success after 1 year

maintaining the increased, combined membership. Still,

much of it went towards expansion of the public in- -

formation and legal programs.

National ACLU's income from the Northern

California region was down 10 percent in 1972 but since

the Affiliate assumed the cost of all membership service in

Northern California, National did not lose anything in

- real income.

Total membership in Northern California reached

14,330 in 1972. With 11,623 members renewing, and

- 2,707 joining as new members, the average contribution

for renewed members increased by almost $3.00 to

$20.79. This figure is still below the national. mem-

bership average of $25 per renewed member.

Northern California is now the second largest ACLU

affiliate in the country trailing only the New York Civil

- Liberties Union which has 24,38. members. ACLU-NC

is slightly larger than ACLU of Southern California with

13,611 members.

All told, it would be hard to deny that the merger

between National and the Northern California Affiliate

has removed costly duplication of efforts and guaranteed

that a larger portion of membership income goes directly

to civil liberties work.

Legal Briefs: due process and equal rights

issue. It cannot be true, ACLU argues, that every person

convicted of these vague, catch-all misdemeanors is

necessarily unfit to teach. The California Supreme Court

will be asked to review the case.

Maternity Leave Denied

The California Court of Appeal has affirmed the

decision of the Sonoma County Superior: Court that .

Sonoma County is entitled to grant paid maternity leave

to men whose wives are about to give birth, but not to

women who themselves are about to give birth.

ACLU-NC, through volunteer attorney Ron Coles,

represents Jean Lombardo, an employee of Sonoma

County who sought to use some of her accumulated sick

leave for the period during which she was absent from

work because of giving birth. At the time Sonoma County

ordinances provided unpaid leave for mothers but paid

leave for fathers under a provision which said that a male

employee may have such leave "`on the birth .of his

child."'

ACLU-NC, terming this a bizarre reversal of nature,

ordinance in court as_ sexually

discriminatory. So far no court has agreed; a petition has

been filed with the California Supreme Court urging it to

bring Sonoma County in line with nature..

Bear with

MOVING?

When writing about: change of address,

adjustments, complaint, renewal, etc.,

please attach mailing label to insure

prompt, efficient service. Correspondence

regarding these matters should be ad-

giessed 97 cu Nomhern Cal.

Membership Dept.

593 Market St.,

San Francisco, Ca. 94105

ATTACH LABEL HERE

name (please print) phone no.

address apt. no.

city State 21p code

For uninterrupted delivery please give us

eight weeks' notice to process change.

Aftach present label with old address and

enter new address above.

In these times of reduced success in the

courts, public education becomes a critical

responsibility of the ACLU. Public

support and even more important, public

discussion, keep awareness of civil

liberties problems alive despite legal

disappointments.

One way of accomplishing this goal is

through public speaking and the ACLU

Speakers Bureau has been organized to fill

this need. Public Information Director,

Mike Callahan has developed a brochure

which is being mailed to civil, business,

media and community groups explaining

the resources ACLU can provide.

The Northern California Affiliate's

program will be coordinated by volunteer

Barbara Johnson. She will be in charge of

filling speaking requests and_ soliciting

engagements. Chapters too should be

developing speakers and seeking forums at

which to speak in local areas. The Nor-

thern California Affiliate will be supplying

speakers bureau brochures for that

purpose.

Topics of interest for almost any group.

can be handled by ACLU speakers. The

ACLU should be ready to respond on any

subject concerning civil liberties

Dialogue and debate are essential for the

survival of an open society.

_ Statistics.'

The Mt. Diablo Chapter's Annual

Membership Meeting, held January 27th,

was well-attended with an audience of fifty

to hear Chuck Marson speak on

``Whither ACLU.'' Money raised at the

meeting will be used to maintain the

chapter's twenty-four hour telephone

service.

The next meeting will be held on March

7th, 8 pm., at 9316. Ridge Road,

Lafayette, Calif. The program scheduled is

a slide-narration presentation of the

Stanford University Simulated Prison

Study conducted by Professor Phillip

Zimbardo. Prof. Zimbardo describes the

program as a ``kind of documentary of the

experiment which captures the experience

of the event (imprisonment) as well as the

This material is of particular

relevance in Contra Costa County due to

the current review of proposed county

prison facilities. This program is available

to other groups interested in the jail

review. Anyone wishing to preview the

presentation should contact Dorothy

Headley, 284-5495.

The chapter still needs a membership

chairman and a fundraising chairman.

Meetings are open to all ACLU members

with a red carpet rolled out for aspiring

chairpersons.

Gln

" contain potential recruits for ACLU. We

us, please

Please bear with us if we keep asking

you to join the ACLU. We' ve been getting

reports that some of our members have

received as many as four recruitment

letters from us recently. Have faith, we're

not wasting your money nor has our

computer gotten stuck.

The problem is that we use lists from

various organizations which we think

mailed several thousand letters in January

and National ACLU mailed one million,

each of us using unavoidably overlapping

lists. The cost of cross-checking the lists

would be prohibitive.

So please bear with us and be assured

that the return on these mailings is well

worth the time and expense. They more

than pay for themselves. In the first week

of February, we got 128 new members. If

you received several recruitment pieces, -

pass them on to friends or return them to )

us so we can re-mail them to others.