vol. 45, no. 5

Volume XLV

"Alameda Superior Court Judge

Robert Bostick on June 10, ordered

' Lawrence Livermore Laboratory to _

provide access to nuclear weapons

opponents' information in the Lab's

Visitors Center and auditorium, as a

result of an ACLU lawsuit.

The ACLU was representing the U.C.

Nuclear Weapons Labs Conversion

Project, whose goal is to have the Lab

converted to peaceful, non-polluting

- purposes. The Lab had a policy of

denying the anti-nuclear weapons

group access to the Lab's public in-

formational facilities.

The judge issued a preliminary in-

junction, requested by the ACLU,

directly from the bench after two hours

of oral argument. He stated, "`I believe

that the considerations of free speech

June-July 1980 -

that are involved here outweigh all -

other considerations."'

The issuing of the preliminary in-

junction means that the Lab will now

have to allow the Project's literature to

be placed in information racks at the

Visitors Center, permit the Project's

placards to be placed on the wall at the

Center, and provide non-discriminatory

public access to the Lab's auditorium.

ACLU cooperating attorney Mitchell

Zimmerman of the San Francisco law

firm of Rosen, Remcho and Henderson,

and ACLU staff counsel Alan Schlosser

handled the lawsuit.

The ACLU argued that the Lab's

denial of access to anti-nuclear views

was an abridgement of First Amen-

dment rights. For over a year the

Proiect had been denied access to use

Supreme Court: Malls Not

`Off Limits' to Free Speech

In:a major victory for free speech,

the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously

ruled on June 9 that states can require

the owners of private shopping centers

to provide access to members of the

_ public who want to circulate petitions

or otherwise exervise their rights of free

speech.

_ Upholding a 1979 decision of the

California Supreme Court in the case of

Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center,

the high court, in an opinion by Justice

William Rehnquist, ruled that private.

property rights could not outweigh the

right to engage in free speech activities

guaranteed by the California Con-

stitution.

While the First Amendment to the

U.S. Constitution does not provide a

right to public access, the Court stated,

neither does it prevent a state court

from finding such a right in its own

_ constitution. : ;

ACLU cooperating attorneys Susan Popik (1.) and Susan Paulus (r.) success-

The case originated in 1975 when two

students and their teacher were stopped

from distributing a petition by private

guards at the Pruneyard Shopping

Center in the Santa Clara community of

Campbell.

The students took the shopping

center owners to court, and after a |

series of appeals the California

Supreme Court ruled in March of last

year that privately owned shopping

malls are not "off limits' to free speech

and petition activities protected by the

California Constitution.

The students were represented by

San Jose attorney Philip L. Hammer.

The ACLU entered the case as amicus

curiae in the California and U.S.

Supreme Courts, and participated in

the argument before the California

Supreme Court. The ACLU brief was

prepared by cooperating attorneys

Susan Paulus of Marron Reid and Sheehy

Union Maid Photo

fully argued that leafletters and petitioners could not be denied access to

shopping center property.

Y

,

yy)

ee

Vif

|

ll

08

e oa

s

pose

, oe

"NO

y oy Hy a

aa

TIL

pe

MYT TTT

CaN

i Hi | Kt \

\ \

\\ \ WW

IY

Anti-nuclear information will be dis-

Ty

played at the Lawrence Lab Visitors

Center.

and Susan Popik of Pettit and Martin. -

When the California Supreme Court

ruled in favor of the students,

Pruneyard owners appealed the case to

the U.S. Supreme Court claiming that

the ruling violated their federal con-

stitutional property rights.

In reaffirming the state court

decision, Justice Rehnquist said the

requirement that the students be

allowed `"`to exercise state-protected

rights of free expression and petition on

shopping center property clearly does -

not amount to an _ unconstitutional

infringement of (the owner's) property

rights.

"There is nothing to suggest that

preventing (the owners) from

prohibiting this sort of activity will

unreasonably impair the value or use of

their property as a shopping center.

"The shopping center by choice of its

owner is not limited to the personal use

of the (owners). It is instead a business

establishment that is open to the public

to come and go as they please. The

views expressed by members of the

- public in passing out pamphlets or

seeking signatures for a petition thus

~ will not likely be identified with those of

the owner,' Rehnquist stated.

ACLU. cooperating attorney Susan

Paulus who participated in

argument before the California

Supreme Court told the ACLU News,

"The decision is a proper and long

awaited recognition of the right of each

state to regulate the use of private

property in a way that is more

protective of individual rights and

liberties than may be possible under a

more restrictive interpretation of the

federal constitution.

`Because of this important decision,

continued on page and

AW ~ ASS

if me hist

RENCE LIVERMORE ARORIORe

N

Celebrate :

Lab Must Lift Ban on Anti-Nuke Info |

No. 5-

the Visitors Center, which was erected

by the Lab at public expense and used

exclusively to provide information to

the public. a =

Zimmerman said, `"`The decision to

issue the preliminary injunction is an

important recognition of both the

public's and the Project's right to have

both sides of this vital issue

preparations for nuclear war - aired at

_the most relevant place at Lawrence

Lab, the Visitors Center.

"The court recognized that where a

government agency establishes a

Visitors Center for the purpose of

providing information on major public

issues, and presents its own views on

those issues, they are establishing a

public forum in which the views of

opponents of the nuclear arms race

must be heard,'' Zimmerman added.

Plaintiff Sue Bloch of the Conversion

Project said, `""We feel this is an im-

portant step in putting the question of

the nuclear arms- race on the public

agenda. The public has a right to know.

Decisions on the crucial issue of nuclear

weaponry must be made by an informed

public - not in closed rooms and

cloistered discussions."

Bloch said that the Project has

already produced literature on the

feasibility of converting the Lab to

peaceful purposes and alternative views

~ on nuclear weaponry that they will now

display at the Visitors Center. The

Project also has an hour-long slide show

on the danger of nuclear war which will

be shown at the Visitors Center.

The University of California operates

the Lab for the U.S. Department of En-

ergy. On June 18, the university's

lawyers appealed the Superior Court

decision in the state Court of Appeal. -

the |

Board Elections

The following candidates were

elected to the ACLU-NC Board of

Directors. The new Board members will

begin their term in September and will

serve for three years. (An asterisk in-

dicates that a member is an in-

cumbent).

Angela Blackwell

Bob Bustamonte

Nancy Davis* -

Stan Friedman

Bill Ong Hing

Neil Horton*

Eva Jefferson Paterson*

Antonia Radillo

Sanford J. Rosen*

Michael Vader*

aclu news

s June-July 1980

~~ "Send `em Home"

by Dorothy Ehrlich

ACLU-NC Executive Director

It began in November 1979, as a

headline story. In response to the taking

of American hostages in the U.S.

Embassy in Tehran, President Carter

ordered all Iranian students, and only

Iranian students, to report to the

Immigration and Naturalization

Service for an immediate and special

review of their visa status. The massive

`round-up was not, according to the

government, meant to affect the out-

come of the tragic events in Iran.

Rather, officials candidly admitted that

the action was meant to "defuse public

anger.'

On November 30, the ACLU

challenged the government' Ss policy in a

federal lawsuit filed in Washington,

~ D.C. On December 11, Judge Joyce

Hens Green declared the directive

unconstitutional in its entirety.

Agreeing with the ACLU's claim that

the government was engaged in a

practice that discriminated against

Iranians solely on the basis of their

ancestry, in violation of the equal

protection guarantee of the Con-

stitution, she issued a permanent in-

junction.

But no sooner had the INS round-up

. machinery been shut down than that

decision was reversed by the federal

appeals court. The panel of three judges

quickly determined that it was "`not the

Letters

I like to think of myself as a

reasonably loyal member of the ACLU.

When I was reading the May issue of

ACLU News, and came upon the in-

formation on the Board of Directors

election, I read it all, rating the can-

didates. Then to vote, I looked at the

instructions. To my astonishment and

dismay, I found that the Board was

asking me to choose 10, from 10 chosen

' by the Board.

If that kind of choice had been of-

fered by a government agency or

establishment group, would you ever

have let them have it. A real disap-

pointment. Raspberry.

Don Precdnian

Los Altos

Donna Hitchens, Chairperson of the

Nominations Committee, replies: I can

certainly understand the concerns of

Mr. Freedman. regarding the lack of

choice available to ACLU-NC members

in voting for the Board of Directors. My

purpose in writing this reply is not to

disagree with his concerns, but to

clarify the nominations procedure.

_ There are three ways a person can be

nominated for the Board. First, a

person can be nominated by the

Nominations Committee. This year's

Nominations Committee decided to

nominate only the number of people

' that would correspond to the number of

vacancies available.

This decison was made, in part,

because the Nominations Committee

felt that it was the best way to present a

~ balanced slate for the Board. In

defining a balanced slate, we were

_ against Iranians

_ specifically

business of the courts to pass

judgement on the decision of the |

President in the field of foreign policy."

By the time the ACLU's appeal of

that decision was before the U.S.

Supreme Court, greater sanctions

were ordered. A

directive issued on April 12 announced

that not only would students be selected -

for a special review and deported if a

finding was made that they were ``out of

status,"' but that all Iranians would be

forced to leave the United States when

_ their travel documents expired.

The ACLU's request for a hearing

before the U.S. Supreme Court offered

the final opportunity for a review of the

ACLU's constitutional claims. These

hopes were dashed in May when the

high court denied our request.

Thus, civil libertarians were left with

a court ruling that constitutional rights

were to be deferred to the executive's

unbridled discretion on matters

regarding foreign affairs, and the

executive branch had determined that

this nation was to engage in the largest

deportation action against a single

nationality since World War II. More

than 50,000 Iranians are expected to

fall within the wide net cast by the

President.

The ACLU did not only challenge the |

directives in the courts. We explained to

an angry public the meaning of the Bill

of Rights and its protection of all people,

especially despised minorities, against .

concerned with the

representation of: (1) women and racial

minorities, (2) people with expertise not

currently represented on the Board, (3) -

. people who could provide assistance in

funding endeavors; and (4) people who

would bring new or different per-

spectives to the Board. By nominating

more than ten people, we ran the risk of

upsetting the balance that we were

~ trying to achieve.

In addition to nominations by the

Nominations Committee members of

the ACLU may also be nominated by

the Board of Directors or by petition.

This year the Board added no additonal

nominees to those presented by the

Nominations Committee. Additionally,

no member of the ACLU submitted a

petition to run for the Board of

Directors. The result, therefore, was

that the only nominees running were

those who had been nominated by the

Nominations Committee.

The Board is not solely responsible

for the limited choice available on this

year's ballot. Some of that respon-

one submitted a petition to run 1 for the

Board of Directors.

A proposed By-Laws change is now

pending before the Board that will

encourage nominations by petition. If

this By-Law change is adopted,

members will have 20 days after the

Board has adopted a slate, in which to

make additional nominations by

petition.

Franklin debate

In my opinion a statement loses

credibility if it has to rely on in-

flammatory phrases such as `... the

university ... hopes to conduct a star

chamber trial."' and an innuendo such

as ``What are they trying to conceal?"'

=~

discriminatory practices of the

government at press conferences, on

talk shows, and in letters to the editor

throughout the nation.

The Immigration and Naturalization

Service, in response to pressure from

major universities concerned with the

international exchange of scholars,

announced on June 10 that some

Iranian students enrolled in American

colleges and universities could have

their status extended.

Civil libertarians were

left with a.court ruling that

constitutional rights were to

be deferred to the execu-

tive's unbridled discretions

on matters regarding foreign

affairs.

Furthermore, in the Bay Area, the

' National Lawyers Guild Immigration

hot-line established in November

continues to provide free legal

assistance and referrals to private

immigration lawyers to the more than

7,000 Iranian nationals in Northern

California.

But the issue no longer captured the

imagination of the press. By the time

the second, more damaging April

directive was issued, the debate had

cooled considerably. An_ indifferent

acceptance of government policy and its

interpretation of the call to ``Send the

`This is consistent with my belief that

the ACLU should be represented only

by persons capable of a dispassionate

`sibility is also shared by the fact thatno _

defense of civil liberties, otherwise the |

_ good reputation of the organization will

be endangered.

Walter E. Meyerhof.

Professor of Physics

Stanford -

Many thanks for your splendid

statement on the Stanford Advisory

Board's handling of the Franklin case! I

`can't honestly say it changed my

thinking, because I have been among

those faculty who opposed Richard

Lyman's firing of Bruce Franklin (and

his many other repressive actions here)

from the start, and was also among

those old ACLU members who par-

ticipated in persuading the ACLU to

take on the case in 1972.

Your statement is both courageous

and important. It is sure to command |

Iranians back home'' was left quietly in

the hands of the INS a. to

implement.

This is not to say that there is a

complete black-out of the news on this

matter. From time to time one reads a

feature story about the individual

victims - the high school senior who is

blacklisted from giving her validic-

torian address because she is an Iranian

or the Venzualian students mistaken

for Iranians being beat up by a gang of -

thugs.

This bitter crisis is a replay of the

_ kind of events which gave impetus to

the founding of the ACLU. The U.S.

" government abused our own. laws to

discriminate against an entire group of

people bases solely on their ancestry in

the past and the ACLU spoke out -

against this abuse. The ACLU fought

the deportation of Eastern European

aliens who were victims of the Palmer

"red" raids in the 1920's. The ACLU of

Northern California sued to stop the

internment of Japanese Americans

during World War II. On both oc-

casions the ACLU originally lost the

court battles, but ultimately public

opinion shifted and cent a time of redress

followed.

The legal staff of the ACLU of

Northern California is currently ex-

ploring possible legal strategies to bring

another nationwide challenge to these

practices. But developing an effective

- court challenge, in light of the precedent

which the courts have established to

insulate foreign policy matters from the

guarantees of the Bill of Rights, is

extremely difficult.

The ACLU-NC Board of Directors, at

its June meeting, unanimously agreed

with the Legal Committee's decision to

continue this investigation and

authorized the staff to take any viable

legal action. .

Yet there is little solace in the fact'

that ten years from now the angry mood

will ebb, and reflection may encourage

apology and perhaps even' em-

barrassment at the notion of using the

abridgement of constitutional rights as

a weapon in a tragic diplomatic dispute.

from participation in their own affairs,

and who have with rare exceptions

abandoned the struggle for the right of

freedom of expression at Stanford.

I hope fervently that your statement

will receive the national attention it

deserves. President Lyman and those -

associated with him have all too long

succeeded in keeping under wraps the

outrageous ways in which they have

trampled on not only Professor

Franklin's rights, but those of the entire

academic eee

attention here, even among faculty Raymond Giraud -

who, for many years, have been more or _ Professor of French

less subtly intimidated and discouraged Stanford continued on page 5

aclu news

8 issues a year, monthly except bi-monthly in January-February, June-July,

August-September and November-December

Second Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, California

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Drucilla Ramey, Chairperson Dorothy Ehrlich, Executive Director

Elaine Elinson, Editor Michael Miller, Chapter Page

ACLU NEWS (USPS 018-040)

814 Mission St. -Ste. 301, San Francisco, California 94103-777-4545

Membership $20 and up, of which 50 cents is for a subscription to the aclu news

and 50 cents is for the national ACLU-bi-monthly LEON Civil Liberties.

g

Student Giisperided for Draft Button

A high school student' s right to wear

a button saying "Fuck the Draft" was

denied by the Marin County Superior

Court in a decision issued on June 10.

The student was represented by the ,

ACLU after being suspended. from

school for wearing the button.

`Redwood High School sophomore

Spiros Hinze was suspended twice by

principal Michael

wearing the anti-draft button to school.

The ACLU sought a restraining order

to stop the school administrators from

taking action against Hinze for wearing

his button.

A political activist, 15 year old Hinze,

helped put together a county-wide anti-

draft students' group and sought to

organize a chapter at Larkspur's

Redwood High School. The B-average

student also produces and distributes at

school

which has included anti-draft articles.

Hinze wore his `"`Fuck the Draft'

button for four weeks on his jacket,

causing no disruption at school, before

school officials objected. He continued

to wear it another week before he was

L. Woodke for.

an underground newspaper'

real feelings about the issue.

"Spiros could wear his anti-draft

button on the street or even at a college

campus with no problems. Just because

some high school administrator finds .

the message objectionable is not enough ~

reason to suspend Spiros' First

Amendment rights," said Schwartz.

"In 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court

held that a man wearing a jacket with

the words `Fuck the Draft' spread

across the back cannot be punished

even if he wears that jacket in the Los

Angeles County Courthouse. The court

said that the emotional value of the

words is protected. `Stop the Draft'

does not have the impact of `Fuck the

Draft.' "'

However, Judge Henry J. Broderick

disagreed. `The (law) does not assure

an absolute right to express this vulgar

statement at all times and places and it

specifically recognizes that such an

expression may be barred from certain

premises.

"A high school campus is such a

premise. Education Code Section |

4890(g) specifically permits suspension

from school of.students who have

Spiros Hinze, a 15-year old sophomore at Redwood High Schieah was suspen-

ded by the school principal for wearing a button saying "Fuck the Draft."

suspended by principal Woodke on

`April 25. He was suspended again three

days later when he returned to school

wearing the same button. After the

second suspension, Hinze returned to

school without it.

ACLU cooperating attorney Robert

Spanner and staff counsel Amitai

Schwartz argued that a long line of

cases under both the U.S. Constitution

and California statutes protect the free

speech and free association rights of

high school students. The U.S. Supreme

Court has said that school authorities

may curtail students' rights to wear but-

tons, badges, or insignia only if it

causes substantial disruption or inter-

ference with the operation of the school.

Staff counsel Schwartz said, "If the (c)

draft comes back, high school students

will be the victims. They are the ones

who may fight and be killed. On this

issue especially, high school students

_ should have the same rights as the rest

of us to express their thoughts and to

express them in a way that conveys their

`engaged in habitual profanity or

- vulgarity' on school grounds. Plaintiff's

repeated display of the offending

button constitutes such habitual

vulgarity," the opinion stated.

Though Redwood High School is

already closed for summer vacation, the

ACLU will appeal the decision over the

summer so that Spiros might be able to

wear the button at the start of his Tunic

year in September.

ACLU Executive Director Dorothy

Ehrlich said, "It is ironic that this

judgement comes just before the Senate

vote on the new draft registration

proposal.

`"`We have received many complaints

about administrators in the last few

months from high school students

trying to do anti-draft organizing. High

school officials need to be reminded,

especially now, that students who are

vehemently opposed to the draft have

every right to express their opinions

without interference from the school

administration."

SOUL] $3111) ui 7, JO Asayn0d youysag ueis Aq ojoyd

aclu news

June-July 1980

Draft Registration Passes Congress

and the Draft (euro.A.R.D.) coordinated

Congress has finally passed President

Carter's requested $13.3 million ap-

propriation to begin draft registration

of 19-

summer.

However, a large and fairly well-

organized grassroots anti-draft cam-

paign, with significant ACLU support,

made the House and Senate debates

more protracted and the votes much

closer than Carter and _ his

Congressional leadership expected.

The day after Carter signs the

registration bill, the national ACLU will

follow through on its promise to file suit

to have the new registration declared

unconstitutional.

The suit, brought on behalf of young

men, argues that if Congress is un-

willing to include women in the

registration, then there should be no

registration. The ACLU does not want

to open the registration and draft to

women, but rather wants to have the

whole process stopped. (See ACLU

News, April.)

According to ACLU Washington

Office Director John Shattuck, the

nationwide outpouring of anti-draft

letters, postcards, telegrams and

telephone calls directed at members of

_Congress compared to the successful

campaign to stop the Criminal Code

Reform bill (S 1) several years ago.

Shattuck added that the anti-draft

pressure from California, especially

~ northern California, was overwhelming.

Northern California Congress members

voted 13 to 4 against the registration

bill. The total House vote was 218 yes to |

188 no and the Senate vote was 38: yes to

34 no.

Carter had formally presented his _

request for renewed registration to

Congress in early February. The

"overnight approval' he sought turned |

into a five month battle, culminating in

seven days of debate and filibuster on

the Senate floor led by Oregon's Mark

Hatfield. :

Congress has not given the President -

the authority to examine, classify, or

induct young men into the military.

The Committee Against Registration

and 20-year-old men_ this

anti-draft lobbying nationwide. The

ACLU endorses: C.A.R.D. and ACLU

national staff lobbyist David Landau is

C.A.R.D. vice-chair. C.A.R.D. is now

preparing a nationwide post-card

campaign for people to register against

the draft (see p. 8).

_ How They Voted

Northern California Congress Members

House: Yes: Johnson, Pashayan, Fazio,

Shumway

No:Burton, Burton, Clausen, Coelho,

Dellums, Edwards, Matsui, McClosky,

Miller, Mineta, Royer, Stark.

Senate: Yes: Hayakawa; No: Cranston. -

How Presidential Candidates

Stand

In favor of registration: Carter (Dem)

Opposed to registration: Kennedy _

(Dem), Reagan (Rep) - opposed to -

peacetime registration, Anderson (Ind),

Commoner (Citizens), Clark

(Libertarian), Hall (CP), Pulley (SWP).

Saltzman Retires

After a decade of active participation

~ on the ACLU-NC Board of Directors,

Warren Saltzman recently announced

his resignation from the Board. Salt-

zman, who has served terms on the

affiliate Board since 1968, as well as

holding the offices of Chairperson and

Treasurer, said that he will continue to

serve on the organization's

Budget/Management Committee.

During a tribute to Saltzman at the

June 12 meeting of the Board, fellow

member Irving Cohen recalled Salt-

zman's contributions to the ACLU "`in

the days when we had not yet decided

that the death penalty was a civil

liberties issue.": Calling him a

``steadying, balancing force' on the .

Board, Cohen also lauded Saltzman's

role in the formation of the San

Francisco Chapter.

The Board is awarding Saltzman

with a Certificate of Recognition of

Service to commemorate his selfless

leadership within the ACLU-NC.

M.G.

aclu news

June-July 1980

It is with a great sense of tragedy

creates a void which no one else can

fill

Fay Stender served five years on

the Board of Directors of the Ameri-

can Civil Liberties Union of

Northern California. In

capacity, and in her other endeavors

ona multitude of projects, she was a

guiding force and a determined ad-

vocate of the causes which she

embraced. Fay was a forceful voice

for affirmative action, the rights of

women, of prisoners, and of other

oppressed peoples. Never taking a

her colleagues on religious freedom

questions, and reminded us always

to practice our civil liberties

principles both inside and. outside

the organization,

This vital and vibrant woman

touched the conscience of the

Board, her Chapter, and all those

with whom she came into contact.

The tragic silencing of her voice is a

profound loss.

The memory of Fay's fearlessness

and energy inspires us to reaffirm

our commitment to strive to

maintain her spirited struggles.

Such a reaffirmation is a fitting

- tribute to her memory.

June 12, 1980

and loss that we mourn the passing

of Fay Stender. Her untimely death

that

position for granted, Fay challenged

by Bernie Bergeson

"Some people see things as they are

and say, why? I dreams of things that

never were and say, why not?''* -

It's often said that the job of the

clergy is to comfort the afflicted and

afflict the comfortable. Usually the

reference is to the comforting or

afflicting of individuals, but why not

organizations as well? And why should

the performance of such an important

service be left to the clergy?

Most organizations, over time, get"

comfortable. Certain ways of thinking,

certain types of members, and - with

legal organizations - certain types of

lawsuits, become so familiar as to be,

quite simply, "`the way it is." Or even,

should anyone give the matter any

thought, `the way it's supposed to be."

At that point most organizations,

even - dare I say it? - the ACLU,

need someone on the inside to rattle a

few cages. And that's where Fay

Stender came in, so far as the ACLU-

NC was concerned, during the 1970's.

For it was indeed her style to perceive

some different, more just way of doing

things, and to say out loud, `"`Why

not?"'

Fay was, for example, a moving force

behind the formation of the Women's

State Secrets

-A Court of Appeal ruling that the

state does not have to make public the

criminal intelligence files of the Law

Enforcement Intelligence Unit (LEIU)

is being challenged by the ACLU.

On June 16, the ACLU asked the

California Supreme Court to review the

May decision of the Third District

Court of Appeal i in Sacramento.

The records in question are held by

the state Department of Justice for the

LEIU. The LEIU is a network of 227

state and local law enforcement

agencies from the U.S. and Canada

which exchange records on criminal

suspects and associates.

`The Court of Appeal ruled on May 8

that records of the LEIU are not

required to be disclosed under the

California Public Records Act - the

state equivalent of the federal Freedom

of Information Act - because the state

law exempts intelligence information.

The 2-1 decision overturned a 1979

ruling by Superior Court Judge Frances

Newell Carr that the Attorney General

must disclose all but personal and

source information contained in the

files maintained by the Organized

Crime and Criminal Intelligence

Branch (OCCIB) of the state Depar-

tment of Justice. -

The ACLU is arguing, on behalf ofits _

members, that the records should be0x2122

disclosed under the Public Records Act

and that the public has a right to know

what type of information the Depar-

tment of Justice is maintaining for the

LEIU.

Staff counsel Amitai Schwartz who is

handling the case said, `Disclosures in

other states have shown that the LEIU-

keeps files on political dissidents and

that the organization, through the

California Department of Justice, is a

national clearinghouse for political

snooping.

"The Public Records act is not meant

to exclude this type of work from public

scrutiny.

"We do not want the names of people

or the names of informants, we want to

`know the extent to which the LEIU and

the Department of Justice are in-

terfering with freedom of association,"'

Schwartz added.

The group contends its files cover

only organized crime and has resisted

attempts at public inspection. :

Hil

Mi

|

ml

hepeal Cour Justices. George Paras

and Robert Puglia, ruling against. the

ACLU, stated that the intelligence

branch's. card files and computer

printouts could be classified as in-

telligence information.

In a dissent, Justice Cruz Reynoso

wrote that the majority ``permitted the

exception to swallow the rule'' when it

declared that all the information m the

files could be classified as ``in-

telligence."'

Reynoso stated, `"The public interest

in the contents of the cards and

printouts weighed in favor of disclosure

(and) the elimination of unnecessary

secrecy in governmental - record-

keeping."

Rights Committee. In 1972, that

Committee addressed a whole host of

issues relating to equal rights for

women, but in doing so, it did more.

For the Committee began to involve

people from other organizations, from

- the community, and from the ACLU's

own staff, who previously had not

enjoyed much influence upon ACLU

policymaking. So that in time there was

a perceptible shift in. participation and

influence not just in the Committee, but

in the ACLU itself - away from a lawy-

er-dominated hierarchy and toward a

wider and more representative cross-

section of people interested in civil

rights and civil liberties.

Largely as a consequence of this .

shift, the ACLU began to take action on

many new fronts. These included cases

involving not only women's rights, but

also gay rights, children's and parents'

rights, and others not heretofore

considered to fall within the traditional

ambit of ACLU work. The ACLU

docket came to reflect these concerns as

well as increased attention to cases

attacking equal protection violations.

And of course Fay was in the thick of

`the ACLU's difficult debate over:

legislation dealing with rape and

violence against women.

Those particular efforts, among

others, need to be mentioned. But I'd -

rather remember, within the confines of

this short reminiscence, the enthusiasm

and excitement and personal style

which Fay brought to the organization.

For she had so many vital concerns and |

ideas; a seemingly unbounded

enthusiasm for trying to implement

them, and a persistence that bordered

on stubborness if at first she didn't

succeed, as was so often the case.

For Fay's views frequently did not

| Seon : For celal Se Silenced .

command a majority of those on the

Board, and she herself was perceived by

some as a controversial and sometimes

divisive figure. Yet even those who liked -

or agreed with her least would, I think,

readily acknowledge her great devotion,

over the years, to traditional ACLU

values, as well as her keen sense of

outrage at all forms of repression and

injustice. :

And it was great fun to have Fay asa

friend and ally on the Board: to sit next

to, to exchange asides or notes with

(during those infrequent moments

when meetings were dull), to have a

drink with afterwards and share ob-

servations or anecdotes, or, best of all, a

bit of gossip.

Ephraim Margolin put it best, I

thought, when he spoke at Fay's funeral

and said that she was "`a real mensch."

At that point one could almost feel the

- response of the audience: ``Yes, that's

right, that's exactly the right word." Or

so it seemed to me, and is likely to seem

to so many others who were privileged

to work with Fay in the service of the

ACLU.

*Quoted by Senator Edward Kennedy

at Robert Kennedy's funeral.

Bernie Bergesen is a former member of

the ACLU-NC Board of Directors.

Blowing the Whistle on

the Stanford Railroad

"We are disappointed, but not

surprised, about the Stanford Advisory

Board's decision to reaffirm the

dismissal of Professor Franklin. The

closed door procedures that Stanford

officials adopted for the hearings, made

us fear that their minds were equally

closed."'

With that statement, `ACLU `staff

counsel Alan Schlosser characterized

. the Stanford Advisory Board's May 30

recommendation of Franklin's

dismissal as a tenured proreer from

the university.

Staff counsel Margaret C. Crosby,

who has represented Franklin for four

years, indicted the Advisory Board

decision as "the culmination of a

decade of denial of academic freedom

at Stanford University."

The 6 member Advisory Board,

which refused to hear any new evidence

or even oral argument on Professor

Franklin's -behalf, advised Stanford

President Richard Lyman that they

concurred with the .1971 penalty of

dismissal for Franklin for speeches he

made during the height of campus

protest against the Vietnam War.

On June 6, President Lyman ac-

cepted the Board's decision and

requested the Board of Trustees to

concur.

Crosby said, `""The Advisory Board

decision is just a rehash of the Franklin

myth perpetuated by. the Stanford

administration over the past nine years.

"The confining procedural rulings

and the narrow scope of review - the

Board would not consider anything that

happened after 1972 - allowed the

Board to disregard significant in-

formation in making te decision,"

she explained. -

In a letter to the Board of Trustees,

Crosby and Schlosser outlined the

arguments the Advisory Board chose to

ignore. These included proof that other

Stanford professors, charged with more

serious offenses than those of Franklin,

including actual violence, had not been

discharged by the university; un-

contested evidence that faculty

members who urged and participated in

unlawful protest activities were never

penalized; and affidavits from leading

professors that, in the nine years since

his dismissal' from Stanford, Franklin

has been a highly esteemed and

productive scholar at three major

universities.

As the ACLU evidence on Franklin's

behalf was not submitted to the Board

continued on page .8

`aclunews 0x00A7

June-July 1980

(aie Houmetioe Lansiave

By Brent Barnhart

ACLU-NC Legislative Advocate

At a June Sth luncheon in

Sacramento, ACLU-NC presented its

1980 Award for Distinguished

Legislative Service to Assembly

-Member John T. Knox of Richmond.

Knox, who presently serves as the

presiding officer of the California

Assembly (Speaker Pro Tem), has

served in the California Legislature

since 1961, and will be retiring at the

end of the 1980 session.

Throughout his long career, Knox

has consistently voted his conscience on

legislation affecting free speech, the

criminally accused, traditionally

disenfranchised minorities, and poor

and working people. In 1969 he

sponsored the law which currently

prohibits the use of polygraphs as a

"condition of employment'; in 1977-78

he sponsored sweeping reform of the

Grand Jury system, which was narrowly

defeated in the waning hours of the

Former A

LU Legislative Advocate

Paul Halvonik (standing) recalled late

night strategy sessions with Knox and |

Coleman Blease (1.), another ex- -ACLU

lobbyist.

session after strenuous lobbying by the

Attorney General; and in_ recent

sessions he has been one of the few

legislators who refused to join the anti-

busing and death penalty stampedes.

At the tribute luncheon, Knox was

honored in talks by former ACLU

lobbyists Coleman Blease and Paul

Halvonik, who have worked with Knox

throughout most of his career. Each

named Knox as one of civil liberties'

greatest friends, combining con-

summate at as a practical and ef-

Jot NW [e@USTIN

John Knox received the ACLU-NC 1980 Award for Distinguished Legislative Service from ACLU Vice-

chair Naomi Lauter (c.). Executive Director Dorothy Ehrlich (r.) chaired the luncheon tribute. -

fective legislator, with a thorough grasp

and an unswerving oo to the Bill

of Rights.

Blease and Halvonik stressed Knox'

thorough grasp of Anglo-American

jurisprudence and his appreciation of

the historical role that the English

Common Law and_ the

Constitution play in the day-by-day

enactment of legislation. They also

noted his precise wit, warmth and

hospitality which have endeared him

not only as a friend of civil liberties, but

as a compadre to those who have had

the good fortune to work with him

throughout countless affrays.

Most of Knox' virtuosity remains

unchronicled, detailed only in. war

stories that probably interest only those

who work in the legislative shop. Suffice

it to say that Knox' greatest con-

tributions do not appear in voting

records or even in his i impressive list of

legislation sponsored and enacted. To

the ACLU, it is the day-to-day activity .

in committees and on the floor in which

he has been incomparable, and where

he will be so sorely missed after this

session.

When we've needed a legislator to

ask essential questions regarding the

effects of a particular proposal, to -

speak to some specific civil liberties

concern, or to find out what action

would likely be taken in the recesses of

some powerful office, John Knox has

been our friend. In fact, his own civil

liberties instincts are so finely tuned,

`that he often spotted threats when we

Assembly feuiler Leo McCarthy (standing) paid tribute to the legislative skill of

Knox, the presiding officer of the California Assembly.

American |

were not aware of hidden dangers in

obscure packages.

Even in these relatively bad times

we'll not be left without allies in the

Legislature after John . Knox'

retirement. But' neither can we an-

ticipate a friend of comparable stature

appearing on the legislative scene for a

long time to come.

Letters continued from page 2

I see that the ACLU joined with the

California Trial Lawyers in defeating

TOTP PBDI

that part of Assembly Bill 3214 which |

would have provided the long suffering

public with some recourse when subject

to vindictive lawsuits. .

As a long time member of the ACLU

for 20 years or more, I have a well

founded suspicion that the ACLU,

being dominated by lawyers, is

protecting the interests of ACLU and

all lawyers in removing protection for

the public against unjustified and

malicious lawsuits.

_ I would ask the question of whether

the ACLU in opposing the public

protection provisions of AB 3214, is

acting as a front for unscrupulous

lawyers?

George Partis

Kenwood

Brent Barnhart, ACLU Legislative

Advocate replies: AB 3214 (sponsored

by Republican Assembly Member Pat

Nolan of Glendale) would have

provided defendants in civil actions

with the right to an order requiring the

unsuccessful plaintiff to pay attorneys

fees. Mr. Partis claims that the ACLU

opposition to the bill indicates that the

ACLU is lawyer-dominated and serves

only the interests of lawyers, rather than

citizens in general.

Certainly anyone who has been at the

receiving end of unfair or vexatious

litigation can sympathize with a bill

that would provide attorneys fees.

Particularly in times like these, when so

many people are at the receiving end of

defamation actions brought by vested

interests such as police organizations

and land developers, a defense at-

torneys fees bill is attractive.

- But it also poses a serious trap - one

that would probably be fatal to the

ACLU and to all other people and

groups to whom an equitable court

system provides the only viable

protection against violations of fun-

damental rights.

_ The ACLU's strength is founded on

our skill as a litigating organization.

We have had a great deal of success in

the California Legislature and in-

creasingly ACLU's presence in

Washington has grown. But we should

have no illusion that a tiny organization

like the ACLU has any legislative

impact without the recognition that has

developed from our strength and ex- -

pertise as damned competent litigators.

If those we sue - the federal

government, Attorney General Deuk-

mejian, local cities and _ counties,

shopping center owners, and Stanford

University to name some recent ad-

`versaries - can anticipate socking us

_ with a whopping bill for attorneys fees

everytime we lose, you can kiss the |

ACLU good-by. The effect would be

comparable to the serious straits en-

countered by the NAACP in Mississippi

when they were forced by the court to put

up a $1 million bond. Even a relatively

strong affiliate such as ours would

probably last no more than a year or

two.

Since it is the powerless and the

unpopular that we usually represent,

some trial court judges (who tend to

reflect the values and prejudices of their

communities) would assess fees of

multiple thousands of dollars.

We also consider it our role to

develop innovative ``leading-edge-of-

the-law"' theories of legal action. Courts

don't commonly buy a new theory such

as ``unlawful job discrimination based

on sexual preference" the first time out.

The role of "clear and present

danger' in free speech situations seems

written in stone today, but in our

earliest years only Justices Brandeis and |

Holmes bought the notion. We lost

those lawsuits - never mind the

stirring dissents that later became the

accepted view. Our history might have

been very different if we'd had to pay

the lawyers' fees of the government

entities who prevailed in those actions.

But the effect of bills such as AB

3214 transcends our own fate. The only

recourse for those in the minority is a

fair and open court system. For all their

imperfections, only the courts offer the

poor and disenfranchised any recourse.

Legislation is based on majority rule,

and administrators operate under the

supervision of officers who are majority-

elected. In the private sphere, money

and power are the ultimate arbiters -

tough luck if you don't have any.

Blind justice holding the scales is an

overworked metaphor, and in practice

human frailty, incompetence and

partiality too often result in something -

far less than equal justice equally

administered. But the common failures

of the legal system do not change the

fact that the legal system is ultimately

the only place where the unpopular and

disenfranchised can seek to find the

focus, articulation and judgment

without which justice cannot be

secured.

If we allow the doors to shut, or allow

obstacles and booby traps to be planted

within the courts - such as losing

plaintiffs having to pay attorneys fees

- the loss to civil liberties and, our

democratic society will be im-

measurable.

Letters continued on page 7

we, _

aclu news

June-July 1980

v

Do

Getting a date for the Senior Prom

often involves a lot of worry and

waiting,

telephone to ring, working overtime to

earn the money to rent the tux, and

pleading with Dad for the keys to the

car - but it doesn't usually take a court

case.

But when Dean Yoder, an 18 year old

San Jose high school senior chose his

date for the Leigh High School Senior

Prom, it took an ACLU lawsuit to

ensure that he and his date could at-

tend. The reason - Yoder is gay, his

_ date was male, and his high school

principal would not allow the couple to

~ attend the prom.

Yoder was represented in Santa

Clara County Superior Court by the

Santa Clara Valley Chapter of the

ACLU. His lawyers, Catherine Wiehe

and Lynn Yates-Carter argued that the

principal's `refusal violated Yoder's

rights under the state and federal

constitutions, the state education code

and the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

The ACLU brief further argued that

Yoder was the only member of his class

over whom the principal sought to

exercise control in determining the

choice of a companion for the event. _

As Yoder said, "Just because I am a.

homosexual doesn't mean that I

shouldn't be able to go. It's my prom

just as much as anybody else's."'

The morning of the prom, Superior |

Court Judge George W. Bonney agreed .

with the ACLU argument and issued an

injunction preventing the principal or

other school official from interfering

with Yoder's plan to invite his male

companion to attend the prom. |

ACLU attorney Wiehe, who is head

of the Chapter's Student's Rights

Committee told the ACLU News, "This

decision is significant for several

reasons.

"It puts the `decision makers' on

notice that these kind of discriminatory.

decisions based on sexual preference

will not be tolerated.

sitting . anxiously for the |

photo by Ted Sahl courtesy of LAMBDA News

You Wanna Dance ..

_ "Tt is also important for those who

might find themselves in a similar

situation to Yoder that they can take

heart for the future.

"We were heartened when the judge

ruled in our favor, but also are looking

forward anxiously to the day when

something of this nature will not be

`Dean Yoder went to the Leigh High

School Senior Prom with a male date

and had "`an excellent time."

Dean Yoder told the ACLU News, "I

was really, really pleased that the

ACLU was willing to take on my case. It

is exciting to know that there are such

dedicated people on my side.

"T know that the lawyers had to work

on very short notice, and that they

stayed up all night to prepare the

arguments," Yoder said.

Yoder, who is president of the Gay

Youth Support Group, explained,

`This shows that the school authorities

really didn't have a leg to stand on -

hopefully they will not try the same

thing on other students in the future."

And as for the prom, Yoder said, "`I

had a great time, an excellent time. I

was anticipating at least name calling,

but there wasn't even that!"

~ Workers Privacy Rights Bill Fails

By Kathleen Bailey

Legislative Assistant -

The ACLU supported bill, AB 3290,

to severely limit the use of psychological _

and polygraph tests in employment

_ situations (ACLU News, May 1980) met

an inglorious defeat in the state

legislature this month.

The Senate Industrial Relations

Committee seems to have no concern

for employees or job applicants forced

to take polygraph or psychological

exams. At the June 4 committee hearing

on AB 3290, the Senators present were

singularly unimpressed by the intrusive

nature of these tests which are designed

to plumb the depths of the subject's

psyche.

Neither the questionable validity of

the tests nor the workers' right to

privacy appeared to be of much con-

sequence to the committee members,

despite questions raised by the ACLU ~

and `representatives of the California

State Federation of Labor and

Teamsters.

"Senators Schmitz, Johnson, and

Russell were, however, most sym-

pathetic to pleas to maintain the status

- quo

made by the California

Manufacturers Association,

American Electronics Association and

the parade of other employers'

representatives.

Even an offer by the bill's author,

Assembly Member Richard Alatorre, to

_ limit the ban to polygraph tests alone as

`Jong as employees were at least advised

of their rights to refuse such tests,

brought no response.

When Alatorre closed his presen-

tation, the silence was overwhelming.

Senators Greene, Montoya, Johnson,

Russell and Schmitz just sat there. The

bill. died - cause of death: lack of a

motion to pass.

But the issue is still very much alive

for the ACLU and the trade unions.

The ACLU will be trying to incorparate

the essence of the now defunct AB 3290

into other appropriate pieces of

legislation. A member of the United

Food and Commercial Workers plans

to introduce a resolution at the union's

state convention later this month which

would put that union on record im-

mediately as favoring introduction of a

similar bill next session.

the .

~ ACLU Gives Ti euinane

On Immigration

A civil liberties perspective on the

legalization of undocumented/ illegal

- migrants was given by Larry Fleisher of

the ACLU-NC Equality Committee to

the Select Commission on Immigration

and Refugee Policy in San Francisco on

~ June 9. The testimony was prepared by

Fleisher, David Pasternak and Guyla

Ponomaroff.

The _ACLU testimony addressed

three major issues associated with a

program for the legalization of un-

documented /illegal immigrants by the

U.S. government.

First, the ACLU contends that all

people within the confines of the United

_ States, whether documented or not, are

entitled to the basic constitutional

guarantees of free speech, due process

and equal protection. _

Fleisher explained, `""The existence of

people who want to live in the U.S. but

do not have -the required documen-

tation, creates

underclass whose members, because

they are expellable, are denied basic

rights and must live and work under

_ conditions that we consider intolerable -

- for anyone in the U.S."

Second, the ACLU opposes the time

constraint proposed by the Select

Commission for eligibility into the

legalization program. According to the

current proposal, an undocumented

migrant would have to prove 7 years

continuous residenceinthe U.S...

The ACLU contends that this time

requirement is arbitrary and would

cause many inequities and difficulties. -

The ACLU proposal is that the

legalization' program should be open to

all individuals who were within the U.S.

at the start of the program.

Third, the ACLU testimony included

recommended procedures to ensure due

process for those migrants seeking

legalization.

The Select Commission on

Immigration and Refugee Policy is a

national commission established to

provide a comprehensive review of and

recommendations for immigration and

refugee laws, policies and procedures.

pee are! LIBERATION NEWS SERVICE

_ The San Francisco hearings, which

were the last in a series of 12 held

around the country, were chaired by

Court of Appeal Justice Cruz Reynoso.

The commissioners included

presidential appointees, cabinet

members and members of the Senate

and House Judiciary committees.

The commission's findings will be

issued in a report due early next year.

Fleisher, who is Co-chair of the Santa

Clara Chapter of the ACLU-NC and an

engineer by trade, says his long-

standing interest in immigration law

"stems from my being the son of an

immigrant."

an often exploited"

regulations on

On Sterilization |

"Sterilization regulations must apply ~

uniformly to Medi-Cal patients and

private-pay patients," (c) ACLU-NC

Chairperson Drucilla Ramey testified at

the Public Hearing on Sterilization

Regulations held by the California

Department of Health Services in |

- Berkeley on June 10.

The open hearings were held to get

the public's view on state Health

Services Director Beverlee Myers'

proposal to abolish ali sterilization

regulations for private-pay patients.

According to new federal regulations,

with which the state must comply by

September, Medi-Cal patients must

undergo a 30-day waiting period after

signing a consent form before an

operation for sterilization can be

performed. The current waiting period

for Medi-Cal patients in this state is 14

days. ;

Myers' proposal would eliminate any

waiting period for private-pay patients, -

who also currently have a 14-day

waiting period for voluntary

sterilization operations.

Ramey's testimony, which was based

on policy adopted by the ACLU-NC

Board of Directors in May, stressed that

there should be no differentiation

between the regulations for Medi-Cal

patients and those for private pay

patients.

Ramey explained,

application of any sterilization

the basis of

socio-economic status would violate

constitutional guarantees of equal

protection under the law." ;

The Berkeley hearing, which was well

attended by physicians, women's

groups, and health care advocates, was

the only one held by the state agency.

All of the testimony was transcribed

and is being studied by Director Myers.

After considering the testimony, Myers

will decide whether to abolish the

regulations for private-pay patients, to

modify them, or to make them uniform

"The unequal

-with the federal regulations for Medi-

Cal patients.

Myers' final decision is expected

around September.

Santa Cruz Magazine.

Ban Lifted

A Santa Cruz ordinance which was

used to prohibit the sale of printed

materials from being sold on the city's

main street was ruled unconstitutional

by the Superior Court in response to an

ACLU lawsuit.

Judge Harry Brauer ruled on June 4

that the ordinance infringes on the

tights of free speech. Brauer also stated

that the city cannot discriminate |

between religious or charitable material _

and other literature. ss

The Santa Cruz Chapter of the

ACLU took up the case when 23-year

old Paul Hugel was arrested for selling

Blotter, a drug information magazine

on the Pacific Avenue Garden Mall.

A municipal court judge ruled that

the city ordinance was constitutional

and ACLU cooperating attorney Bob

Taren took the fight to the Superior

Court.

Taren said, "The Pacific Avenue

Garden Mall is the main street of Santa

~ continued on page 8

HEY (7S US peti

THE ActU!

C

es

| HEY Wart! COME Back

Don't WORRY, i

Youre ACL PAibue:

=

:

w

iC

JUST GIVE US THEE,

NAMES: WELL Do

Tht KEST.. : Se

TaN .

-

: |

| | - |

af ae

yen

ACTER ALL, ALLS EAR

IN Cove ANO WAR |

1 NOR FREMDS WE WALT

Now! WE NEED HoRE

MEMBERS; BN BODIES,

: Lp CAs

5

`e

ey

sp

LAND THE ACLU

(5. BoTH' and

_ Plans Cadena: for 60th

~ Anniversary

1980 marks the 60th anniversary of

the American Civil Liberties Union.

_ Preparations are now underway for an

"ACLU Week" in September, ten-

tatively September 21-27, to celebrate

the organization's six decades in the

fight for civil liberties.

oe sneitic Holmes, ACLU-NC

Development Director, toid the ACLU

News, "`Our 60th Anniversary presents

a beautiful opportunity for us to really

make a splash - we can remind people

about the crucial role the ACLU has

played over the years and encourage

more people tojoinus."

Holmes outlined the three pronged

approach to the anniversary cele-

bration. The first aspect will be

educational outreach.

There will be a special historical issue

of the ACLU News with features on

important ACLU-NC actions over the

last half century from labor struggles to

loyalty oaths. The national ACLU pub-

lication, Civil Liberties will also be pub-

lishing a 60th anniversary supplement

in September.

"We also intend to generate a lot of

publicity - both in the media and in

schools snd community groups -

about our impact in northern California

and throughout the country over the

years,' Holmes said.

"We are currently gathering all our

photos, court cases, stories and other _

historical materials for this purpose. I

hope that our long-time ACLU

members. who remember some of these .

important events first-hand will contact

the ACLU News and share their

memories with us,'' she added.

The second aspect of the work is a

Membership Drive. "Get on Board"

recruitment kits are being prepared for

members to use in this drive. ACLU

members will be asked to provide

names and addresses of friends who will

then be sent special invitations to join

the ACLU (see centerfold insert).

ACLU Week will culminate with a

benefit performance. Holmes said, ``We

expect the benefit show to inspire old

and new members alike to carry on the

_ fight for civil liberties."'

The benefit is also expected to raise

critically needed funds to carry out the

ACLU's_ extensive civil _ liberties

program planned for the future.

"We need a lot of energy to make all

this happen," said Holmes. "I hope

that many ACLU members will join

us in making `ACLU Week' a worthy

tribute to the 60 years of struggle of the

ACLU."

Members who wish to participate in

preparations for the 60th anniversary

should contact: Sherrie

Development Director, ACLU, 814

Mission St., Rm. 301, S.F. 94103 or call

(415) 777-4545, -

Letters continued from page 5

Thanks to the ACLU

signatures according to the Secretary of

State. That is more than enough to

qualify us for the November ballot.

Since a very large percentage of those

signatures were collected in shopping.

centers after the ACLU obtained an

unqualified victory in Contra Costa

Court upholding our right to petition in

shopping centers, ACLU's action is

probably the reason our initiative will

be on the ballot.

Thank you very much for your

_-. `passionate defense of free expression

We did it. We collected 585,913 .

and for the marvellously competent way

you demonstrate that passion

Paul L. Loveday

Californians for

Smoking Sections

Northern California Headquarters

I was disturbed to read a letter in the

May issue from Laura X stating that

ACLU had supported the spousal rape

law (AB 546) and should support its

- ternships,

by Doug Warner

The ACLU-NC Foundation's legal

staff is being expanded for the summer

by three law student interns and a

volunteer attorney. The student in-

funded by work-study

agreements, and a special endowment

are awarded_to law students who have

demonstrated a special interest in legal

work advancing and protecting civil

liberties.

Barry Epstein - recipient of the Edison

Uno Internship - has completed his

' Masters in Public Policy, and one year

of law studies, in a four-year dual

degree program at the University of

Michigan Law School and the Institute

_ of Public Policy Studies. A native of San

Francisco, Epstein has a degree in

Business Administration from U. C,

Berkeley.

His interest in the ACLU and its

work extends back to the time, as a

ninth

School interested in leafletting to

mobilize student opposition to the Viet

Nam war, he received advice from the

ACLU complaint desk which en-

couraged him to successfully challenge

the principal's attempt to thwart the

students' First Amendment freedoms.

Epstein; is working on the ACLU

amicus brief in a case challenging

Oakland's prostitution _ solicitation

ordinance, and on monitoring political

activists' access to shopping centers in

light of the recent Robins v. Pruneyard

decision (see article p. 1).

In addition to pursuing his legal and

civil libertarian interests, Epstein

`appreciates working at, the ACLU

because, as he said, "`I knew I wouldn't

have to buy any more three-piece suits."'

Joshua Steinhauer - recipient of the

Hastings ACLU Internship - has |

completed two years. at Hastings

College of the Law. A native New

Yorker; Steinhauer received a B.S.

degree in Industrial Labor Relations

~ from Cornell in 1977.

He was worked extensively in labor

organizing and labor law, and has

published a Law Review Note on a trade

union's duty to fairly represent its

members' interests.

Holmes, -

Smoking and No-

extension AB 2899. And even more

disturbing was the Editor's Note that

ACLU is oy SuEECIe Levine's AB

2899 =

Spousal rape laws appear to me

precisely the kind of laws that the

ACLU should oppose. Considering the

rarity with which such a charge would

- be brought, a marital rape law would be

extremely capricious in its enforcement. .

It is this kind of capricious law which is

most subject to abuses leading to

violations of civil liberties.

AB 546 is of no utility as a protection

against rape nor as a recourse for

"battered wives.'' It is in fact an

outrageous invasion of the privacy of

married persons albeit by invitation of

one of them.

A spouse who has been assaulted by

his/her spouse would have a greater

probability of conviction if he/she

charged assault than by charging the

incredible crime of "`spousal rape."'

Philip S. Kearney

Sacramento

grader at Aptos Junior High |

ACLU Summer an Interns

aciu news

June-July 1980

Steinhauer told the ACLU News that

he is enjoying the change from a labor

practice and the opportunity to deal

directly with `clear constitutional

principles and questions of individual

rights.

Currently he is working on ACLU vy.

Younger regarding the public's access

to state criminal intelligence files (see

"article p. 4). Steinhauer is also working

was not. available Jo Phowopraph or

Hilary Crosby

on the ACLU legal manual for anti-

draft organizations.

Patricia Lee - recipient of the Sarah

Bard Field Internship - is a student at

the University of Wisconsin Law

School. She is scheduled to begin

working at the ACLU on June 30. [Ed.

note: At the time of going to press, Lee

interview. |

The Hastings ACLU Internship is

made possible by a special endowment-

which provides a stipend for a Hastings

Law student to spend a summer

working for the ACLU-NC. The Edison

Uno internship was named to com- .

memorate the late Japanese-American

civil liberties leader. Uno, who served

on the Board of Directors of the ACLU-

NC, was Co-Chairman of the National

Committee to Repeal the Emergency

Detention Act. The Sarah Bard Field

ACLU Legal Department student

interns Barry Epstein (1.), Joshua Stein-

hauer (r.) and volunteer attorney Fran-

cisco Lobaco (center) hard at work in

the law library.

Internship was named in honor of the

long-time civil libertarian and poet,

who was Honorary Chair of the ACLU-

NC Board during the 30's. Field was a

leading advocate of women's rights and

- suffrage in the early part of the century.

Additionally, this summer the legal

staff is supplemented by volunteer

attorney Francisco Lobaco. A native of

Cuba who grew up in Southern

California, Lobaco received a B.S.

degree in Political Science from U.C.

Berkeley in 1976, and graduated from

Hastings College of the Law in

December 1979. :

Recently admitted to the California

Bar, Lobaco has a long standing

interest in limiting the power of the

state. He is currently preparing for the

expected anti-draft demonstrations by

working on a legal manual and

counseling service guide for protecting

protesters' First Amendment rights.

Lobaco expects to work part-time

through the summer at the ACLU, and

_to eventually do legal aid or public

interest work.

Doug Warner, a student at Golden

Gate Law School, is himself on a work-

study program at the ACLU with

_ responsibilities outside of the Legal

Department.

o

- and burdensome

aclu news

June-July 1980

Shopping Centers

continued from page I

leafletters and petitioners who wish to.

convey ideas to the public at shopping

centers can be assured that they have

the -unanimous endorsement of the

highest court in the land," Paulus

added.

- The Supreme Court opinion did note

_ that the shopping center "could restrict -

expressive activity by adopting time,

place and manner regulations that will

minimize any interference with its

commercial activities."

In fact, after the California Supreme

Court decision in Robins, many

California shopping centers issued

extremely restrictive time, place and

manner regulations to prevent free

access to leafletters. Many would-be

petitioners and leafletters called the -

ACLU for legal advice when they were

told by shopping center managers that

they would have to post huge bonds,

restrict their activities to one or two

hours, or notify the mall owners weeks

in advance if they wanted to reach the

public on a shopping center property.

However, in a recent ACLU case

against the Sun Valley Shopping Center

in Concord, Contra Costa Superior

_ Court judge Martin J. Rothenberg ruled

in April that unreasonable ``time, place

and manner regulations" imposed by

shopping centers are unconstitutional.

That ruling prevents shopping

centers from undermining basic free

speech rights by imposing unnecessary

restrictions on

petitioners.

Now that the Supreme Court has

ac the: time this is issue of THE ACLU News

reaches you, President Carter will probably

have signed the appropriation bill allowing

for the resumption of the draft. Young men,

born in 1960 and 1961, will be required to

register at post offices during two con-

secutive weeks this summer, possibly

starting July 21. (Watch your local media for

the dates.) While the Congressional battle is

temporarily over, ACLU members can do a

great deal, especially during the two weeks

of registration, to stop the draft. To learn

about anti-draft activities in your area, call

the ACLU at 415-777-4545 or fill. out the

coupon below.

POST OFFICE PROTESTS

In many cities, there will be large marches

and protests around a major post office on

the first day of registration. You can join with

your local anti-draft coalition to help build

these protests and prove that Carter has no

mandate to resume actual conscription.

POST OFFICE LEAFLETTING

Many young men who come to register will

know very little about the draft. Some will

not have considered that they could choose

not to register. Some who choose not to

register, on the other hand, may not be fully

aware of possible penalties. Several draft

counseling groups are organizing teams to

cover aS many post offices as possible

throughout the full two weeks to hand out in-

formational leaflets about counseling. op-

portunities to potential registrants. You can

learn more about this leafletting by. calling

the Central Committee for Conscientious Ob-

jectors at 415-566-0500 or filling out the

coupon below.

ruled favorably on Robins, and

shopping centers. must allow access to -

leafletters and free speech activists, the

ACLU will be vigilant about time, place

and manner restrictions that other

shopping mall owners may attempt to

impose to limit expressive activities on

their property.

Attorney Philip Hammer who argued

Robins v. Pruneyard before the U.S.

Supreme Court said, `The assistance

from the ACLU in the case was

remarkable.

"The ACLU attorneys, Susan Paulus

and Susan Popik are brilliant people .

and great lawyers. I couldn't be more

grateful for their help."

Ban Lifted carenied from med

Cruz, and for the city to ban

distribution of literature on the mail

-Jimits access to the greatest part of

Santa Cruz' population."

The Superior Court judge agreed

with the ACLU argument and said that

the sale of printed material is not

"commercial speech" and therefore is

protected by the First Amendment.

The judge also stated that the city's

exemption for religious, charitable or

political groups violated Hugel's equal

protection rights. -

Taren explained that the ruling

applies to a current city ordinance

which is in effect until June 27. A new

ordinance, which goes into effect on

that date contains etn prohibitive

clauses.

"The: ACLU - will consider

challenging the new ordinance in light

of the recent decision," Taren added.

REGISTER AGAINST THE DRAFT

Shortly before registration actually starts,

there will be a national campaign to en-

courage everyone, of any age and any sex to

fill out a post card to register against the

draft. This counter-registration will be spon-

sored by the Committee Against Registration

and the Draft (C.A.R.D.), a national organi-

zation with ACLU endorsement. When the

campaign details are announced, you can

encourage your friends to join you for the

sign-up against the draft, which may be

larger than the sign-up for the draft.

FIRST AMENDMENT ADVISOR/

LEGAL OBSERVER

The ACLU of Northern California is or-

ganizing to insure that every anti-draft group

who wishes to protest knows about First

Amendment rights to demonstrate, leaflet

-and picket. We are developing a legal

manual on these questions available to

everyone. (Can you leaflet inside a post of-

fice, for example?) Groups with questions or

problems should call the ACLU at 415-777-

4545.

In addition, we want to recruit individuals,

attorneys and others, who are familiar with

First Amendment free speech principles to

help advise local anti-draft groups, especially

outside the immediate Bay Area. Also,

groups organizing demonstrations may want

legal observers to witness police and crowd

conduct. If you can help, sign up on the

coupon below. We'll mail you a copy of our

legal manual and we may be referring re-

quests for help in your area back to you.

oe ici Calendar = oem

Mt. Diablo

ANNUAL MEETING. Sunday,

Helen Grinstead, 2123 La Salle Dr.

(off Carriage Dr. which runs between

Treat Blvd. and Minert Rd.), Wal-

nut Creek. Pot luck; all members in-

vited. For more information call

934-7424.

Sacramento

CHAPTER ELECTIONS.

Nominations to the Sacramento

~ Valley Chapter board for officers

and directors may be submitted by

any chapter member to July 15.

Forward names to the Nominating

Committee, Sacramento Valley

Chapter ACLU, c/o Paul Jorjorian,

2633 7th Ave., Sacramento CA

Sea

August 24, S p.m., home of Bob and (c)

Sonoma

PICNIC AND ANNUAL

"MEETING. Saturday, July 19, noon

to 6 p.m. Villa Chanticleer, 1248 N.

Fitch Mountain Rd., Healdsburg.

Speaker and entertainment; food

and liquid refreshment available.

Information: Jake Rubin, 707-526:

IS00-

Chapter Conference

1980 CHAPTER/BOARD

CONFERENCE. Hold the date:

October 3,4,5 (Friday evening

through Sunday). Films, speakers,

debates, hiking, volleyball, beaches,

and more at Pt. Bonita, Marin

County, just across the Golden Gate

Bridge. Open to all ACLU members.

Details in the next ACLU News.

Stanford Railroad . continued from page 4

of Trustees by President Lyman, the

ACLU attorneys urged the Trustees,

"not to decide the issue solely on the

basis of the Advisory Board opinion...

(as it would) unnecessarily and unfairly

_ preclude an informed and open-minded

consideration of this matter by the

Trustees."'

After receiving and considering the

ACLU letter at their June 12 meeting,

the Trustees scheduled a_ special

meeting for July 14 to consider the

Franklin matter more thoroughly.

Regardless of the Trustees' decision,

the final decision on the penalty will be

COUNSELING - WHERE TO GET IT

~ All young men eligible for registration and

their parents should know that counseling is

available (by telephone if necessary) to

answer the most immediate questions about

registration.

In your-own area, try the local peace

center or Friends meeting to learn about

counselors. Or you can call the Central Com-

mittee for Conscientious Objectors (CCCO) in

San Francisco at 415-566-0500.

= = ao a an

made by the Santa Clara Superior

Court, subject to review by the appellate

courts.

Crosby commented, "We still believe

that the speeches for which Franklin

was dismissed are protected by the First

Amendment.

`We hope that the court, unlike the

Advisory Board, will recognize the

relevance of the information we have

presented on Franklin's behalf.

"Because of the crucial issue of

academic freedom which is at stake in

this case, the ACLU is prepared to fight

this issue up to the California Supreme

Court,'' Crosby concluded.

AFTER REGISTRATION (c) THE ELECTION (c)

Congress voted for registration, Congress

has the power to vote it out again. In North--

`ern California, most Representatives voted

against (see p. 3). One way to insure that

the draft debate continues in Congress is to

raise the draft question loudly and forcefully

throughout the coming Congressional (and

Presidential) elections. Remember, the draft

registration appropriation passed by only 30 -

votes in the House.

oes SS a a

e j

i Yes, I'm Still Fighting to Stop The Draft.

a ( ) | need to know about local anti-draft organizing in my area. )

3 ( ) 1/can hand out informational leaflets at post offices concerning

; counseling during the eegistaiicl) period.

ee) | am available to advise local anti-draft groups about their First Am-

dment Ons:

4 en

: ( )lcanbea legal observer at protests.

0x00A7 ( ) Please send me the ACLU NC's legal manual concerning the First

3 Amendment rights of anti-draft protestors.

Name

i

Address

: City. Zip

0x00A7 = Telephone (w) (h)

i

i

Return.to: Draft, ACLU NC, 814 Mission St., Suite 301, San Francisco,

94103, Tel: 415-777-4545.

ofl