vol. 58, no. 3

aclu news

Non-PROFIT

ORGANIZATION

U.S. POSTAGE

PAID

Permit No.4424

SAN FRANCISCO, CA

Volume LVIII

May-June 1994

Barred from School for

Wearing Religious Symbols

ACLU Files

Suit for Sikh

Students

religious freedom under a new federal

statute, three Khalsa Sikh children,

supported by the ACLU-NC, went to U.S.

District Court on April 15 requesting an

order that would require the Livingston

Union School District to allow the children

to return immediately to their elementary

school classes. The children were

suspended from school in January after it

was disclosed that they were wearing small

ceremonial knives, known as kirpans,

under their clothing. The children declined

to remove the kirpans, as demanded by

school officials, because they are forbidden

to de so by their religion.

The children have not been permitted to

return to school since that time despite

repeated requests to the District, both by

the local Sikh community and, more

recently, by their ACLU attorneys. Both

the Sikh children and the ACLU assert that

I n what promises to be a major test of

the Constitution and federal law require the

District to accommodate the religious

beliefs of the Sikhs, by permitting the

children to wear their kirpans. The District

has refused, citing California laws and

local school policies that exclude weapons

from school grounds.

The lawsuit, Cheema v. Thompson,

charges that Livingston school officials are

violating the First Amendment and the

Religious Freedom Restoration Act of

1993, a significant new federal law. The

suit is brought on behalf of the three

children suspended from school, Rajinder

Singh Cheema, Jaspreet Singh Cheema and

Sukhjinder Kaur Cheema and three

baptized Khalsa Sikh adults, Gurdev Kaur

Cheema, Gurmeet Thiara, and Gurdeep

Bhatia, who have been threatened with

arrest if they enter school property wearing

their kirpans. The plaintiffs are represented

Continued on page 8

Sukhjinder K. Cheema, 8, Jaspreet S. Cheema, 7, and Rajinder S. Cheema, 10,

No. 3

Adrian Mendoza/ Modesto Bee

have been prevented from attending school by Livingston school officials because

they wear the kirpan, a small knife symboling their Sikh religion.

- Assaulted by Presidio Police During Gulf War Parade

Anti-War Veterans Achieve Settlement Upholding

First Amendment Rights on Military Bases

embers of the Veterans Speakers

Wiis an organization of

veterans opposed to war,

obtained a settlement in their federal

lawsuit against the United States Army for

violating their First Amendment rights at a

1991 post-Gulf War Armed Forces Day

Anti-war veterans fought to protect their free speech rights on military bases.

Parade at the San Francisco Presidio. The

settlement agreement in the case, Veterans

Speakers Alliance v. Fowler, includes an

award of $79,000 and a declaration that the

Army will recognize and respect the free

speech rights of civilians at the Presidio

and related military bases. The settlement

Courtesy VSA

was approved by U.S. District Court Judge

Saundra Brown Armstrong and filed on

March 23.

"We were invited to participate in the

parade, we marched in our assigned

location, we attempted to carry signs that

we felt were appropriate for a bittersweet

occasion such as welcoming troops

home from a war. The Army's attack

against 15 war veterans was a

Alice Walker Fights

"Gang Profiles" will

not be used at

Vote NO on San

Inside the ACLU News

Censorship... a

the Niall. 8... 3

Francisco Prop. J ..... 5

serious and dangerous attack on the First

Amendment. When even veterans can't

say that war is wrong, who can?" said Paul

Cox, one of the plaintiffs in the suit, which

was filed in December 1991 in U.S.

District Court by the American Civil Liber-

ties Union of Northern California and

cooperating attorneys from the San

Continued on page 2

aclu news

a may - june 1994

Exam Will Include Alice Walker Stories

Board of Ed Reverses Stance

After Protests

ot every Alice Walker story has a

Nee ending - but this one did.

Last December, the California

Department of Education, after pressure

from conservative Christian fundamental-

ists, removed the Pulitzer Prize winning-

author's short story "Roselily" from a

statewide exam. When the plot was

disclosed, a clamor of protest arose from

many quarters - including the ACLU,

many high school students and teachers,

and Alice Walker herself. The high profile

pursuit of truth reached from the dusty

corners of the state educational bureau-

cracy to the Governor's mansion - with

many twists and turns along the way. And,

in the end, the dragon of censorship was

slain. But the real story is in the fight itself.

Walker's "Roselily" is a thought-

provoking, complex story of a Christian

African-American woman from Missis-

sippi torn by conflicting emotions on the

day she is to marry a Black Muslim man

from the North. Roselily, who has four

children, examines the impact of class,

race, region, generations, and religion on

her life, and ponders what effect her

marriage will have on her and her children.

The story is from Walker's anthology

In Love and Trouble: Stories of Black

Women.

Two other works of fiction, Walker's

"Am I Blue?" and an excerpt from Annie

Dillard's An American Childhood were

also taken from the test, vetoed by two

members of the Board of Education. The

first - a woman's ruminations on the life

of a horse in the yard next-door - was

labeled "anti-meat eating;" the latter - an

exhilarating description of a childhood

snowball fight - was considered "too

violent."

Alice Walker

students, writers and educators fought to

have her stories reinstated in a statewide public school test.

"I'm glad [the Board members]

reversed themselves. I consider it

a real victory for the people."

- Alice Walker

February that

"Roselily" had been

removed from the

California Learning

Assessment System

(CLAS) exam (a test

given to all public

high school sopho-

ACLU-NC Executive

Director Dorothy

Ehrlich wrote an

angty letter to

William Dawson, the

Acting Superinten-

dent of Bubiic

Instruction.

Religious Censor

The Department

iS acune as a

"religious censor,

something that both

the state and federal

constitutions forbid,"

Jean Weisinger entichace

When San Francisco Chronicle

reporter Nanette Asimov revealed in

Veterans...

Continued from page 1

Francisco office of the New York firm

Shearman and Sterling.

Cox, Marc Kiselicka, Robert Leedy,

Keith Mather, Scott Rutherford, John

Wike, William Eisman and eight others

marched in the May 1991 parade at the

invitation of the Army and the parade

organizers. As the Veterans Speakers

Alliance contingent approached the

reviewing stand where Governor Pete

Wilson, then-Mayor Art Agnos and other

government and military dignitaries sat,

they unfurled their banners and displayed

anti-war placards reading "Veterans Say

No War," and "Study War No More." The

Military Police attacked the VSA contin-

gent, attempted to confiscate their signs, _

threw several veterans against a fence, and

handcuffed, searched and detained them

for several hours. The other anti-war veter-

ans were then forced to exit the Presidio

under guard, and several later received

notices barring them from re-entering the

Presidio and other Bay Area military instal-

lations.

"We marched in the parade as veterans

to welcome back our brothers and sisters

who made it back from the war, and to

mourn the dead on all sides," said Cox.

"Our message was an appropriate state-

ment of the realities of war, to remind

people death and destruction should be

mourned, not celebrated."

"The Army recognizes by this settle-

ment that restrictions on speech based on

political viewpoint are prohibited by the

First Amendment, even on a military

base," said Patrick D. Robbins, of Shear-

man and Sterling who represented the plain-

tiffs along with Dean S. Krystowski, Koji

E. Felton, Michelle B. Oroschakoff,

Pamela M. Kelly and Victor W. Hong of

Continued on page 3

Author Walker

also expressed outrage. "I could not believe

how easy it was for these people to get

them to remove the story from the test," she

said to the Chronicle. "They are

abominably weak. We should all be

concerned about having people educating

our children who are too weak to stand up

for what they say they believe in." She

called on other authors to remove their

fiction from the exam. A few days later,

when Governor Wilson appeared to

endorse the Board's action, Walker -

who, as a recipient of this year's Gover-

nor's Award for the Arts had been desig-

nated as an official "state treasure" -

wrote to Wilson stating, "Under the

circumstances, I cannot accept the Gover-

nor's award for literature." She also called

on other artists to refuse Governor

Wilson's Awards for the Arts.

Senator Milton Marks called the

removal of the story "tantamount to

racism." Students at Sir Francis Drake

High School in San Anselmo held a teach-

in to protest censorship and praise the

writings of Walker and Dillard. Angry

editorials billowed from the Chronicle, the

mores in the state), ~

Oakland Tribune and the New York Times.

On March 7, Walker, joined by writers'

and civil liberties organizations, sent Public

Records Act requests to state education

officials and Governor Pete Wilson,

demanding all documents relating to the

removal of three short stories from the

CLAS examination.

The demand letters, on behalf of

Walker, the National Writers Union, PEN

Center West USA, the ACLU affiliates of

Northern and Southern California, the

national ACLU Arts Censorship Project

and People For the American Way, were

filed by ACLU attorneys Ann Brick, Mark

Rosenbaum and Marjorie Heins, and Elliot

Mincberg of People For the American

Way.

The groups demanded twenty

categories of documents from Marion

McDowell, President of the State Board of

Education, William D. Dawson, Acting

Director of the California Department of

Education, and Governor Wilson.

"Extraneous and illegitimate concerns

must not govern the action of educators in

selecting or removing material to be used

by students," ACLU-NC staff attorney

Brick stated in the letter.

"The censorship apparently engaged in

by the Department and the Board to accom-

modate the religiously-based demands of a

small group...violates the most basic tenets

of freedom of expression," she charged.

On March 11, at a meeting of the Board

of Education in Sacramento, Ehrlich joined

scores of other censorship opponents from

around the state who decried the removal of

the short stories. At the close of the hearing,

the Board voted unanimously to reverse

itself and to return the stories to the pool of

literature to be used in future CLAS tests.

Upon hearing the news, Walker agreed

to accept the Governor's literary award. "I

would be honored to accept the award in |

the name of the people - not because of

the anything the governor has said.

"T?m glad [the Board members]

reversed themselves. I consider it a real

victory for the people. It is a victory that

will be good for all writers because it lets us

know that our work can be respected even

though people might not always under-

stand it." @

aclu news

6 issues a year: January-February, March-April, May-June, July-August,

September -October, and November-December.

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Milton Estes, Chairperson

Dorothy Ehrlich, Executive Director

Elaine Elinson, Editor

Lisa Maldonado, Field Page

ZesTop Publishing, Design and Layout

1663 Mission St., 4th Floor |

San Francisco, California 94103

(415) 621-2493

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 publication, Civil Liberties.

aclu news 3

may - june 1994

Teens to Receive Monetary Payment

San Mateo Mall Won't Use "Gang Profile"

ACLU-NC and the Lawyers Commit-

tee for Civil Rights of the San

Francisco Bay Area, the Hillsdale

Shopping Center in San Mateo has agreed

to abandon its practice of excluding or

ejecting young people based on the style or

color of their clothing. The settlement

agreement reached in the case Ramirez

Claire v. Bohannon Development

Company, filed May 5, 1993 in U.S.

District Court in San Francisco, also

includes a financial award to four Latino

teenagers ejected from the mall because -

based solely on their clothing - they were

suspected of being members of a gang.

U.S. District Court Judge Fern Smith

signed the settlement on April 18.

"This settlement will help ensure that

the civil rights of minority youth will be

respected at Hillsdale Shopping Center,"

said ACLU-NC cooperating attorney

Richard Abramson, a partner in Heller,

Ehrman, White and McAuliffe's Palo Alto

office. Abramson, along with ACLU-NC

staff attorney Ed Chen and Sara Campos of

the Lawyers Committee, represented the

four young men. "None of these teenagers

are involved in gangs, nor were they

bothering anyone at the mall. They were

targeted because mall security officers

wrongly concluded that Hispanic

teenagers wearing baggy black clothing

must be gang members."

- response to a lawsuit filed by the

Security Guards

In November 1992, Jason Ramirez

Claire, Alejandro Villanueva and Daniel

Infante were walking through Hillsdale

Shopping Center, where they were

planning to purchase a few items as well as

something to drink. Two security guards

Veterans...

Continued from page 2

the same firm and ACLU-NC managing

attorney Alan Schlosser. "The Army also

recognizes that it cannot ally itself and a

military base with one side of a civilian

ideological debate, without opening the

base to all speech on that subject, not just

the one side favored by the Army."

In addition to the monetary award,

which will be shared by the plaintiffs, the

settlement agreement provides that the

Army's order barring them from the

Presidio and other related military bases is

to be canceled. The settlement also sets

forth an affirmation of the First and Fourth

Amendment principles and Supreme Court

decisions that restrict censorship and the use

of unnecessary force by the military. When

military bases are opened for expressive

purposes, as was the Presidio on that day,

any restrictions on speech must be reason-

able under constitutional standards, and

may not be based on the content of the

speech without a compelling justification.

The court will maintain jurisdiction over the

settlement to enforce its terms if necessary.

As the court-ordered settlement states,

"The suppression by the United States

Army of individuals engaged in protected

speech on [a military installation] solely

because of a military official's opposition

to the speaker's political viewpoint consti-

tutes a violation of the First Amendment."

"By agreeing to this settlement, the U.S.

Army agrees to honor the First Amendment

rights of civilians who lawfully enter

military bases," said Schlosser. "That is an

important victory for the Veterans Speakers

Alliance and other groups who believe in

peaceful expression."

"Were saddened that our fellow plain-

tiff Bill Eisman, who died in 1993, couldn't

be here for this victory, and more impor-

tantly for the culmination of his life's work,

the lifting of the embargo against

Vietnam," Cox added. @

Jason Raniirez: Claire (center) sued Hillsdale Mall after fie anid his friends were

ejected by security guards who thought the teens fit a gang profile. He and his

three friends received a monetary payment from the shopping center. He is

flanked at the table by his attorneys Richard Abramson (1.) and Ed Chen (r.) and

by others who found themselves in the same predicament.

Nancy Otto

stopped them, and asked them where they

lived and why they each had on an article

of black clothing. When told the young

men lived in Redwood City, the guards

replied that there were a lot of gangs in

Redwood City, and that black was a gang-

related color. After questioning the boys,

the guards ordered them to leave the mall.

"These kids came to the mall to shop,

which last time I looked isn't against the

law," said Abramson. "It's also not against

the law for friends to dress in a similar way

- most teenagers do. But minority kids

become automatic suspects to security

guards using these types of discriminatory

gang profiles."

In June 1992, a Hillsdale security guard

accosted Damian Pinzon, the fourth plain-

tiff in the case, as he sat on a mall bench.

The guard asked Pinzon if he belonged to a

gang, and Pinzon told him no, and turned

to resume shoe shopping. The guard spun

Pinzon around, tearing his shirt in the

process. The guard told Pinzon to either

buy shoes or leave.

"These are not isolated incidents," said

ACLU-NC attorney Ed Chen, who has

successfully battled the use of gang

profiles at other northern California venues

like Great America, the Santa Clara

amusement park. "The widespread devel-

opment and use of "gang profiles' is part of

an alarming trend. In their attempts to

combat the real problem of gang violence,

law enforcement agencies and businesses

are institutionalizing stereotypes and

stigmatizing an entire generation of young

minority males."

"We hope this settlement sends a

strong message to the business community

that `gang profiling' and stereotyping will

not be tolerated," added Lawyers'

Committee attorney Sara Campos who

also worked on the amusement park case.

"We are hopeful that businesses will

realize that these policies not only don't

work, but will also cost them."

In addition to the financial payment to

the plaintiffs, the Hillsdale Shopping

Center agreed that its employees will not

exclude or harass visitors to the mall "as a

consequence of wearing such attire as

those employees or agents might associate

with gang membership or affiliation."

However, the mall may post a written

notice requesting that visitors not wear or

display bandannas while on the Hillsdale

Shopping Center premises.

"I hope these boys can replace their

pain and anger with feeling good about

themselves and the fact that they had the

courage to speak up about the injustice of

discrimination," said Evelyn Ramirez

Claire, Jason's mother. "I hope they'll

always speak up against any injustice that

is directed to them or any of their peers and

to assist those who may also fall victim to

any kind of injustice or abuse."

4 aclu news

may - june 1994

Minors Deserve Privacy Protections

for Abortion Decisions

n April 7, the state Court of Appeal

Oi oral arguments in American

Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren,

the case challenging the 1987 California

law requiring minors to obtain parental or

judicial consent for abortions. Plaintiffs,

which include the American Association of

Pediatrics, the California Medical Associa-

tion and other leading health care organiza-

tions, are asking the appellate court to

uphold the permanent injunction issued by

San Francisco Superior Court Judge

Maxine Chesney in 1992 barring the state

from enforcing the law.

The plaintiffs are represented by attor-

neys from the ACLU-NC, the National

Center for Youth Law (NYCL) and the San

Francisco law firm of Morrison and Foerster.

"During seven years of litigating this

issue, the State has failed consistently to

justify the statute's restrictions on repro-

ductive rights," said Linda Shostak of

Morrison and Foerster, who argued the case

before the state appellate court. "Rather

than furthering the health of minors and the

parent/child relationship, this legislation

harms it," she told the three-judge panel.

Shostak and attorneys Lori Schechter

and Annette Carnegie also of Morrison and

Foerster have litigated the case on a pro

bono basis as cooperating attorneys for the

ACLU-NC and the NYCL. Plaintiffs are

also represented by ACLU-NC staff attor-

~ ney Margaret Crosby and Abigail English

of the NCYL Adolescent Health Care

Project.

Court orders

The challenged law restricting

teenagers' access to abortion has never

gone into effect because of court orders

issued in this lawsuit, filed on behalf of the

American Academy of Pediatrics (Califor-

nia District IX); the California Medical

Association; the American College of

Obstetricians and Gynecologists (District

IX); Planned Parenthood of Alameda/San

Francisco and Philip Darney, M.D. Direc-

tor of Family Planning, San Francisco

General Hospital.

After seven years of litigation and a

month-long trial which took place in

October 1991, the San Francisco Superior

Court issued a permanent injunction in May

1992 barring the State from enforcing the

law. The Court ruled that the statute

violated teenagers' rights of privacy and

equality under the California Constitution.

During the trial, more than twenty expert

witnesses -including doctors and other

health care providers who work with

teenagers, psychologists, and judges from

states where similar laws are in effect -

testified about the disastrous effect of such

laws on the physical, mental and emotional

health of teenagers who are forced to'

confront unsympathetic parents or navigate

a formidable judicial system to obtain a

court order for an abortion. In addition,

California physicians and counselors testi-

fied that the state's current system, which

has been in place for twenty years, insures

informed consent; these health profession-

als also provided testimony about the

capacity of adolescents to make decisions

about reproductive health care and about

the danger such laws pose to the physical,

emotional, and social well-being of

teenagers.

Judge Chesney ruled that the State had

failed to prove that the physical and psycho-

logical risks of abortion outweigh -

teenagers' rights to privacy: "Minors have

been consulting with their doctors and

consenting to abortion in California without

mandated parental involvement or govern-

mental intrusion for the last twenty years, a

period of sufficient duration to provide the

opportunity for both short-term and long-

term negative effects to have been

manifested and formally documented. No

such evidence has been presented," Judge

Chesney stated in her 1992 opinion.

Judge Chesney also noted that existing

California law provides for many important

medical decisions to be made by unemanci-

pated minors without parental consent

including those related to drug and alcohol

treatment, treatment of sexually transmitted

diseases, and all aspects of carrying a

pregnancy to term.

The State appealed the decision.

Burden on teens

_ "Everyone hopes that teenagers will

involve parents in the decision, and most

teens do," Shostak told the Court of Appeal.

"But the percentage of adults involved

doesn't go up under these statutes. The

State places a burden on the goodly number

of teens who can't go to their parents with

the decision - families that can't take the

news.

"At the trial judges [from other states]

involved in hearing these cases said the

teens that came before them [for a judicial

bypass] were capable of giving informed

consent and had already made up their

minds before coming to court. The judges

felt the process was `a rubber stamp.' In

fact, courts found 99% of the minors who

came before them were sufficiently able to

give informed consent," Shostak said.

In California, there are about 300,000

abortions annually; 70,000 of those are for

teenagers. This law would impact the 20-

30,000 of those teenagers who are 18 and

younger, unmarried and unemancipated

minors.

"This law would change the way

teenagers make a profoundly personal

decision and it would hurt them in the areas

of health, welfare and their relationship

with their parents," Shostak said. @

Rick Rocamora

SAVE THE Date: May 18, 1994

ll over the United States people will be calling their

members of Congress demanding that women's

health needs be covered by a national health plan.

Women's reproductive health services are at grave risk in

health care reform. Although President Clinton proposed a

plan that includes coverage for the full range of reproductive

health services, anti-choice forces are mobilizing aggressively

to take away that coverage. Pro-choice supporters must speak

out on health care reform or women will lose the coverage for

abortion and other vital services that they have today.

Be part of a national day of grassroots action to protect a

woman's right to choose. On May 18, call your Congressperson

and Senators to tell them that women's reproductive health

_ services, including abortion services, are a vital and necessary

part of universal health care.

Call members of Congress and let them know:

"Universal health care is not universal if it doesn't include

women's reproductive health care: family planning,

contraceptive services, abortion services, pre-natal care, and

sex education for all women."

Call the Congressional -

Switchboard:

202/224-3121

GE

Call your Senator and

Representative directly

Be sure to give your name and

hometown to the office staff so they

know you are a constituent.

BS@Sessssststeeeeeeee? Bees

For flyers or more information on National Women's Reproductive Health Care

Call-In Day, call ACLU-NC Field Representative Lisa Maldonado at 415/621-2493.

What else you can do:

" Blanket your

community with flyers

Organize a phone bank

" Write letters to the

editors of your local

newspapers

aclu news 5

may - june 1994

Homeless Plaintiffs Seek End to

Matrix Program

espite a setback in the first round

1D: their challenge to Mayor Frank

Jordan's Matrix program,

homeless individuals represented by the

ACLU-NC, the Lawyers' Committee for

Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay

Area, and the law firm of Munger, Tolles

Olson, will continue their teal battle

against the program.

On March 15, U.S. District Court

Judge Lowell Jensen denied the request

for a preliminary injunction which would

have halted the arrest of homeless San

Franciscans for sleeping in public places.

He also refused to order police to stop

confiscating and destroying property

owned by homeless people.

The class action suit, Joyce v. San

Francisco, was filed in November 1993. In

a hearing before Judge Jensen on February

23, attorney Brad Phillips of the cooperat-

ing law firm of Munger, Tolles and Olson,

charged that the Matrix program violates

' state and federal constitutions by punish-

ing individuals based on their status of

being homeless.

"With not enough places to sleep

indoors, those sleeping on the street are at

risk of being punished," Phillips told the

Court. "It is unconstitutional to punish

people for being poor; they have no

choice but to carry on life-sustaining activ-

ities - to sleep, eat, sit, stand - in

public."

"We are not asking the Court to make

social policy. We are asking the Court to

uphold the constitutional bounds on the

creation of social policy,' he added.

"The purpose of this program is

discriminatory," Phillips argued. "Who

else but the homeless would be sleeping in

the streets and parks of San Francisco? It's

common sense. People don't sleep on the

street if they have somewhere else to go."

In his 52-page opinion, Judge Jensen

said he denied the preliminary injunction

because a court order would be too vague

and difficult to enforce. He rejected the

plaintiffs' contention that Matrix targets

homeless people as a class, thereby crimi-

nalizing homelessness and poverty.

"Plaintiffs argue that the failure of the

City to provide sufficient housing compels

the conclusion that homelessness on the

streets of San Francisco is cognizable as a

status," wrote Judge Jensen. "This

argument is unavailing at least for the

fundamental reason that status cannot be

defined as a function of the discretionary

acts of others.... It has not been proven at

this time that Matrix was implemented

with the intent of discriminating against

the homeless."

"It's common sense. People don't sleep

on the street if they have somewhere else

to go."

- Brad Phillips

ACLU-NC cooperating attorney

Vote NO.

_ The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the

class of homeless men and women

affected by the Matrix program, which the

City describes as a comprehensive

enforcement effort carried out by the San

Francisco Police Department against

sleeping in public parks, "lodging"

anywhere on public property, and "block-

ing sidewalks." Thousands of homeless

_ people have been cited, arrested, or other-

wise harassed under the program since it

was launched in 1993. Most of these

actions have targeted homeless people

solely on their condition of being poor and

without shelter.

The four named plaintiffs are Bobby

Joe Joyce, Thomas O'Halloran, Jim

Tullah and Timothy E. Smith. They are

represented by cooperating attorneys Brad

Phillips, Steve Kristovich, Jeff Bleich, and

Martin Bern of Munger, Tolles and Olson;

Marcia Rosen and Diane Chin of the

Lawyers' Committee and ACLU-NC

managing attorney Alan Schlosser.

Plaintiffs motion for class certification

will be heard on June 1. A trial has been

set to begin on November 14 to determine

whether plaintiffs are entitled to declara-

tory or permanent injunctive relief for the

abuses of the Matrix program.

months in jail for standing on a public sidewalk near an

an Francisco Proposition J, Mayor Jordan's ballot proposal

for the June ballot, would impose a fine and up to six

a

utomatic teller machine (ATM).

"This is Mayor Jordan's

latest attack on the civil liberties of poor and homeless people in

San Francisco," said ACLU-NC Executive Director Dorothy Ehrlich,

"and we urge all ACLU members to vote against it. "

Under Proposition J, the only people who may remain for more

than a minute within a thirty-foot zone surrounding an ATM are

those using the machine, waiting in line to use it, or waiting for a

bus. The law states that any activity that "can be conducted"

outside these zones, must be. In other words, under Proposition J,

it would be a crime to drink coffee, chat with a friend, or gather

_ petition signatures within that zone - a crime punishable by a

fine of up to $500 and six months in jail.

"The proposition suffers from serious constitutional flaws, as

well as being an impractical means of improving public safety, "

explained John Crew, Director of the ACLU-NC Police Practices =

Project. Because "lingering" near a cash machine is a common-

place activity, police might illegally enforce the law only against

individuals who are homeless or who police deem to be loiterers

because of their race, appearance or-other undefined factor.

"Potential thieves, of course, are free to stand in line for the cash

machine and thus not violate the proposed law, " Crew added.

Like vagrancy laws, anti-loitering laws have been declared

unconstitutional because they criminalize a person's presence ina

public place rather than particular criminal conduct. The U.S.

Supreme Court struck down California's anti-loitering law ten

years ago, and federal and state courts around the country

continue to strike down anti-loitering laws even more narrowly

tailored than Proposition J.

_ "Mayor Jordan's earlier.attacks on the rights of the homeless

have produced nothing but expense to a city in severe fiscal

crisis," Crew said, "and this one will be no different. The 1992

Proposition J, which outlawed "aggressive panhandling, " wasted

precious police resources in a massive undercover sting operation

that resulted in no convictions. Jordan's Matrix program, which

criminalizes sleeping in the street by those who have no other

shelter, is the subject of a federal court challenge filed by the

ACLU-NC and the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights (see article

above).

/n addition to its effects on the poor and homeless, Proposition

/ infringes on the First Amendment rights of all people to lawfully

use the public sidewalk for the distribution of flyers, collection of (c)

signatures, or other expression of their views. "The civil liberties

of all San Franciscans are inextricably entwined with the rights of

those victimized by the current political attacks on the homeless

and poor, ' said Ehrlich. "We urge everyone to vote No on Proposi-

tion j."

SAN

FRANCISCO

PROPOSITION

J

6 aclu news

may - june 1994

Anti-Immigrant Bills Flood State,

National Agendas

uring the last days of April,

[) inmests and immigration

played a major role in the political

panorama of the state of California.

(c) On April 24 ten thousand supporters

of the United Farm Workers union culmi-

nated their 30-day march from Delano to

the state Capitol honoring the late Cesar

Chavez and seeking justice for migrant

workers, many of whom cross the border

to pick California's crops.

0x00B0 The following weekend, around the

state tens of thousands of Chicanos

celebrated Cinco de Mayo with festivals,

parades and cultural events commemorat-

ing the Mexicans' triumph over an invad-

ing army and the vibrant culture of their

descendants on both sides of the border.

(c) On April 29, Governor Pete Wilson

filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in

San Diego seeking $377 million from the

federal government to pay for incarcerat-

ing undocumented residents accused of

crimes, and seeking $1.6 billion for prison

construction costs. Lucas Guttentag,

Director of the national ACLU

Immigrants' Rights Project, said "The

factual allegations are based on

completely distorted and irresponsible

rendition of the numbers. The case does

not distinguish between documented and

undocumented immigrants, the account-

ing does not include any of the financial

benefits derived from immigration and

ignores the fact that many segments of our

society `cost' money - children, retired

people, the ill, the unemployed, and

students for example.

"Of course, getting more money for

the state is a good thing. But singling out

immigrants is political grandstanding

designed to get headlines, not to solve

problems. The economic problems faced

by California are not caused by immigra-

tion and are not limited to high immigra-

tion states. Immigrants should not be

blamed for problems in our federal/state

tax structure," Guttentag said.

cent Hours earlier, Governor Wilson

ordered 127 National Guard troops -

complete with night-vision equipment,

aerial surveillance and computer commu-

nications systems - to the Mexican

border. He said their role would be to back

up the Border Patrol in stopping illegal

crossings. Attorney Silvia Garcia of the

Immigrant Legal Resources Center called

the deployment a "big step" toward the

militarization of what historically has

been a civilian border.

This polarization over the role of

immigration is not confined to Pete

Wilson's inflammatory political maneu-

vering. As anti-immigrant sentiment

Judge Orders

eclaring that cable access

D channels are meant to serve as

public forums, accessible to all

interests, U.S. District Judge Barbara

Caulfield on March 30 issued an order ~

blocking Viacom Cable of San Francisco

from further attempts to censor public

access programming.

The ruling came in Altmann v. Televi-

sion Signal Corporation which was filed

on January 7 by six San Francisco commu-

nity access producers and two viewers who

charged that Viacom "illegally denied

citizens access to its leased and public

access channels, and has censored the

constitutionally protected speech of those

to whom it has allowed access."' Plaintiffs

were represented by attorney Christopher

Witteman. The ACLU supported the plain-

tiffs' with amicus brief filed by ACLU-NC

staff attorney Ann Brick and Majorie

Heins of the National ACLU Arts Censor-

swells in California and the nation at an

alarming rate, the heated rhetoric

becomes the basis for dangerous legisla-

tion - both on a state and federal level.

California Legislation

At least 35 pieces of immigration-

related legislation are currently pending in

the state Legislature. They include 21

bills originating from the Assembly, 9

from the Senate, several resolutions, and a

constitutional amendment. The harshest

rhetoric is coming from the Governor's

Office itself. In addition to the measures

cited above, Governor Wilson called for a

constitutional amendment to deny citizen-

ship to the children of undocumented

immigrants - citizenship which is

guaranteed by law. The proposed legisla-

tion includes everything from denying

access to public services to stepping up

military patrols at the border. Some of the

more egregious proposals include:

ELIMINATION OF PRENATAL CARE: In his 1994

budget proposal, Governor Pete Wilson

advocates the elimination of prenatal

Medi-Cal coverage for undocumented

women. This issue will be discussed in the

Legislature throughout the budget

process. A statewide coalition of women's,

health and immigrant rights organizations

is working to oppose these cuts.

FELONY FOR PuRSUING AN EDUCATION (AB

70; Conroy/R-Orange): This bill would

make it a felony for any student who

cannot show proof of citizenship or legal

status to enroll in any public post-

secondary institution. It would also make

it a felony for anyone to assist a student

with enrollment who cannot show proof

of citizenship or legal residency.

DENIAL OF EMmeRGeNcy Mepicat CarE (AB

3647; Morrow/R-Oceanside): This bill

would require the Department of Health

Services, or any public agency providing

medical services, to require all patients to

submit satisfactory proof that the patient's

presence in the United States is authorized

under federal law.

DENIAL oF Mevi-Cat FuNps To Provipers

(SB 1651; Johannessen/ R-N.Sacra-

mento/Napa): This bill would bar any

payments under the Medi-Cal program to

any health care provider for services

given to a person who cannot show proof

of legal residency or PRUCOL (perma-

nently residing under color of law) status,

unless the provider reports that person to

the INS.

MILITARIZATION OF THE BORDER (AB 2440;

Hoge/R-Pasadena) This measure would

authorize the National Guard to patrol the

U.S.-Mexico border for the purpose of

restricting illegal entry of persons into the

United States. It would also grant the

National Guard authority to arrest and

detain persons suspected of violating

immigration laws.

With elections a mere six months

away, the rapidly rising number of anti-

immigrant proposals is likely to continue

unabated. The ACLU Legislative Office

in Sacramento is working with other civil

and immigrant rights groups in the New

California Coalition to defeat these

measures.

Federal Legislation

Proposals

The anti-immigrant hysteria is also

very much alive in Congress. Congress-

members have made proposals to exclude

both undocumented and legal residents

from receiving various federal programs.

Among the most serious problem areas

are:

CRIME BILL: This bill includes a provision

to allow the use of secret evidence to

deport alleged "alien terrorists;" the

elimination of deportation hearings for

non-permanent resident aliens convicted

of aggravated felonies; and a provision to

require all state and local agencies,

including schools, to cooperate with the

INS in identifying undocumented aliens.

ELIMINATING WELFARE BENEFITS: The Clinton

administration may propose funding its

welfare reform proposal by cutting out

certain benefits - including Social

Security, food stamps, AFDC and Medic-

aid - to legal immigrants. The Republi-

cans have a proposal to eliminate

eligibility for 61 programs for legal

immigrants.

LIMITING HEALTH CARE Any reform which

excludes persons residing in the United

States is not "universal." Providing

adequate health care to all persons is a

public health necessity and essential to

providing cost-effective preventive health

care. In addition, reform must effectively

prohibit discrimination on the basis of

national origin, citizenship status, and

language. None of the current proposals

clearly provide full coverage to all

persons, including the undocumented.

There is also a need for stronger anti-

discrimination provisions. @

Viacom to End Censorship

ship Project.

In her decision, Judge Caulfield noted

that, in enacting the Cable Communica-

tions Policy Act of 1984, Congress

intended cable television to provide "the

widest possible diversity of information

sources and services to the public." She

went on to state, "Public access and leased

access channels were meant to serve as

public forums, accessible to all interests,

including those that may otherwise lack

the resources to communicate through

electronic media."

According to Witteman, in recent

months Viacom has required public access

producers to certify that their programs

were decent, and has also threatened to

segregate and scramble any program

which was found to be "indecent" in the

eyes of the company.

"Viacom wants to be a provider on the

information highway, but wants to be able

to decide who gets on the highway and who

gets off," observed Witteman. "The plain-

`tiffs have had their speech rights chilled by

the illegal censorship of Viacom."

"Tn this lawsuit, Viacom is vigorously

defending Congress' attempt to impose a

censorship scheme on leased and public

access programming," said Brick.

"Viacom seems to forget that its own

programming may very well be the next

victim of Congressional zeal to control the

content of television programming."

Prior to filing its amicus brief, the

ACLU wrote to Viacom: "By imposing

censorship on your public and leased

access channels based on your own vague

and subjective notions of `indecency,' you

not only violate federal law but you

deprive both producers and viewers of

- precisely the type of non-mainstream

programming that Congress in the 1984

Act, intended to encourage." and

Going

Bananas

. in

Berkeley

en punk rock artist Marian

Anderson presented a concert

with her band the Insaints at

Berkeley's 924 Club in April 1993, she

never imagined that her next stop would be

the Berkeley Police station.

But Anderson, who has been featured on

the cover of fanzine Maximum Rock'n Roll,

was arrested and charged under California

state laws with indecent exposure, lewd

conduct and obscenity. Later, realizing that

obscenity would be very difficult to prove,

the prosecution dropped this charge.

Anderson is being represented by

ACLU-NC staff attorney Ann Brick,

cooperating attorney George Walker and

Marjorie Heins, Director of the national

ACLU Arts Censorship Project.

A former punk

rocker was in the

audience and took

offense...

From the club, he

called the police,

claiming that his

"heterosexual

rights" were being

threatened by

Anderson's

performance.

The prosecution alleges that during her

musical performance, Anderson stripped

down to a vest, garters and stockings and

engaged in a sexually explicit performance

on stage with other women. In a report

about the incident, a Berkeley police officer

also claimed that Anderson's performance

included indecent conduct with a banana.

"Such antics might ordinarily be

overlooked in this university town long

known for its tolerance of far-out forms of

freedom of expression," said Heins. But

that. night,.a former punk rock musician

who is now reportedly a born-again Christ-

ian, was in the audience and took offense.

From the club, he called the police,

claiming that his "heterosexual rights"

were being threatened by Anderson's

nearly nude gyrations and banana-equipped

performance.

In a hearing on February 4 in the Berke-

ley-Albany Municipal Court, Brick asked

the court to dismiss the remaining charges

against Anderson on the grounds that

California's laws against indecent exposure

and lewd conduct were not meant to apply

to musical or theatrical performances. "If

stretched to criminalize artistic expression

that is not legally obscene, these laws

would be unconstitutional,' Brick said.

On the day of the hearing, the court

proceedings were witnessed by many of

Anderson's fans, dressed in punk regalia.

"This case is important for all actors,

producers, musicians and other performers

whose work can be characterized.as

sexually explicit," Brick said. "it would be

foolhardy to think that the prosecution's

theory is limited to just the facts of this

particular case."

aclu news 7

may - june 1994

~ To Our Fundraising Volunteers and

Donors - Thank You!

by Lisa Levy

Development Staff

he end of the ACLU-NC Foundation fundraising year is upon us, and

we have raised $748,907 for our public education and litigation

programs. These contributions, which are necessary to maintain the

work of our legal and public education. programs, are raised primarily by

volunteer solicitors. Most of them started with little or no fundraising experi-

ence. With a staunch commitment to the ACLU to motivate them, they were

able to conquer their fears, put aside their doubts and become excellent

askers and advocates. Some of them now find the experience of fundraising

to be personally rewarding and fun! Here are some of their stories:

EILEEN SIEDMAN

"J didn't think I would be able to do it at

first," said Major Gifts volunteer solicitor

Eileen Siedman. Siedman is a writer and

former public administrator, "definitely not

a salesperson." But Siedman, a three-year

fundraising veteran, said that the ACLU-

NC system makes fundraising "painless."

How did she get started? Milton Estes, a

long time member of the Development

Committee and current Board chair whomz

Eileen knew through her involvement in

the Marin County Chapter, convinced her

that she could make a difference.

"T call the same people every year, so I

feel like I have established relationships

with them. Even with new people, I have

their giving history in front of me so I know

they are interested. I am a Founders Circle

member, and I find it easier to ask for a gift

when I mention my own gift and ask them

to join the Founders Circle." Siedman

admits that fundraising can be difficult in

these hard economic times, but has

surprised herself with her success asking

for larger gifts. "We need more people to

do it," Siedman concludes. "Without

resources, there cannot be an ACLU."

Jim MuRPHY

"T realize now that just sending in

membership dues is not enough to make the

affiliate work," said former Bill of Rights

Committee member Jim Murphy. Murphy,

areal estate appraiser, paid his dues without

getting involved for many years before

deciding to participate in Earl Warren

Chapter activities. He quickly became the

chapter representative to the Bill of Rights

Committee, which oversees phone nights in

ACLU chapters. "I hated phoning at first,"

Murphy confessed, "but after a while it

becomes easier = These are ACLU

members you are contacting, not Rush

Limbaugh listeners, and even if they cannot

make a gift they are usually civil."

Murphy is relocating and thus is

winding up his involvement with the

ACLU-NC Foundation, but remains

committed to the ACLU and to fundraising

in particular. "The ACLU is a volunteer

organization. We are in competition with

other worthy causes, and there is less

money to go around. People don't recog-

nize how necessary fundraising is.

Somebody has got to do it."

ETHAN SCHULMAN

Ethan Schulman's involvement with

the ACLU began when he was a summer

legal intern in 1982. He has worked as a

cooperating attorney, joined the Board in

September, and was a member of the

Lawyers Council Campaign's Steering and

Executive Committees.

Schulman, an attorney at Howard, Rice,

Nemerovski, Canady, Robertson, Falk and

Rabkin, is especially enthusiastic about the

role that lawyers play in the ACLU's

Development efforts. "Lawyers are a

natural and receptive audience-an

educated audience-for the ACLU,"

Schulman said, "because they are aware of

ACLU litigation. They read about the

NCAA challenge or the Matrix case in the

legal papers, and are interested in

discussing these issues."

Schulman has served as a volunteer

solicitor for the Major Gifts campaign since

he joined the Board, and attended the

Benefactors Dinner held at Palio d' Asti

Restaurant in San Francisco on March 13.

He maintains that fundraising has given

him an "opportunity to interact with

people" he might not meet otherwise.

Schulman said that he is "encouraged by all

of those attorneys who give their time and

support to the ACLU," and hopes that they

will continue to do so.

HELEN CHANG

Helen Chang, the newest member of the

ACLU-NC Development Committee, was

tapped for the ACLU Board by fellow

Board and Development Committee

member David Oppenheimer. They met at

Golden Gate University, where Oppen-

heimer is a professor and Chang was an

adjunct at the Law School. "We had lunch

one day and discussed Norplant and forced

sterilization,' Chang remembered. When

Oppenheimer found out she was interested

in death penalty and pro-choice issues, he

encouraged her to become involved with

the ACLU.

During her first fundraising year,

Chang had a memorable solicitation experi-

ence. "I met with a donor who is a family

lawyer in the geographic area where |

practice, but since I don't do family law I

would not have met him through profes-

sional contact. I went to see him at his

office, and he had a list of questions for me.

I was nervous, but once we started talking

we had a great conversation covering a lot

of ACLU issues. I actually borrowed a

book from him which had the history of the

ACLU in it," Chang said. "I'm looking

forward to going back to see him next

year." :

Chang also looks forward to her future

on the Development Committee. "T think

the organization is really at a crossroads. If

we keep doing just what we are doing, we

will run out of funds. We need new people,

new donors, and new talent. It's exciting to

be a part of where the organization is going

to go."

ss Sititaasmneemnammmresa. seen

The following people participate in our volun-

teer fundraising committees and campaigns:

DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Davis Riemer, Chair; Helen Chang, Marlene De Lancie,

Milton N. Estes, Richard Grosboll, Howard W. Lewis,

_ David B. Oppenheimer, Margaret M. Russell, John Ruther-

ford, Millicent Rutherford, Zona Sage, Frances C. Strauss.

Masor Girts CAMPAIGN

FOUNDERS CIRCLE STEERING COMMITTEE: Davis Riemer,

Chair; Abby Abinanti, Bernice Biggs, James B. Blume,

Max Bollock, Barbara Brenner, James J. Brosnahan, Luz

Buitrago, David Bunnell, Tony Bustamante, Robert Capis-

trano, Helen Chang, John Mark Crawford, Marlene De

Lancie, Dorothy M. Ehrlich, Milton N. Estes, Steven

Fabian, Stanley J. Friedman, Teresa Friend, Paul L. Gilbert,

Richard Grosboll, H. Lee Halterman, Lawrence R. Jensen,

David Kalish, Marshall Krause, Howard W. Lewis, Joanne

Lewis, Ethel Long-Scott, Phillip Mehas, Susan Mizner,

Charis Moore, Maria Ontiveros, David B. Oppenheimer,

Nancy S. Pemberton, Tom Reilly, Rachel Richman,

Marcelo Rodriguez, Louise Rothman-Riemer, Margaret M.

Russell, John Rutherford, Millicent Rutherford, Zona Sage,

Thomas Edward Sarbaugh, Ethan P. Schulman, Eileen

Siedman, Emily Skolnick, Frances C. Strauss, Beverly

Tucker, Ruth Vurek, Michelle Welsh, Rebecca Westerfield,

Donna Yamashiro, Julius O. Young

LAWYERS COUNCIL

Lawyers Councit Executive COMMITTEE: David Balaban-

ian, Co-Chair, Susan J. Harriman, Co-Chair; Ruth N. Boren-

stein, David Drummond, Gary Ewell, James M. Finberg,

Charles N. Freiberg, Mary E. McCutcheon, Ethan P. Schulman

LAWYERS CoUuNCcIL STEERING COMMITTEE: Nance Becker,

Eileen M. Blumenthal, Harry Bremond, Diane R. Cash,

Tiela M. Chalmers, Jeffrey R. Chanin, Nanci Clarence,

Jeffrey J. Cole, Katherine H. Crocker, Ann G. Daniels,

James A. Dorskind, Paula Downey, Scott A. Fink, Stephe-

nie Foster, Stanley J. Friedman, Barbara Giuffre, Robert A.

Goodin, Christina Hall, Martin Kassman, Stephen Kaus,

Sallie Kim, Sanford Kingsley, Nancy J. Koch, Ellen Lake,

Bruce Maximov, Randy Michelson, Karl Olson, David B.

Oppenheimer, Michelle B. Oroschakoff, Tamar Pachter,

Jennifer C. Pizer, Michael Platt, Randy Sue Pollock,

Matthew Quilter, Michael F. Ram, Michael Rugen, Lori A.

Schechter, Gilbert R. Serota, Brian Smith, Janice Sperow,

Tracy Thompson, Matthew N. Tuchow, Rocky N. Unruh,

Steven L. Vettel, Douglas R. Young, Anne F. Zinkin.

HEALTH PROFESSIONALS

FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS

HEALTH PROFESSIONALS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE:Cheri J.

Forrester, M.D., Co-Chair; Madelyn Kahn, M.D., Co-

_ Chair; Michael Applebaum, M.D., Milton N. Estes, M.D.,

Leonard S. Karpman, M.D., Susan E. Kutner, M.D., Ann

Lanzerotti, M.D., Jan E. Maisel, M.D.

BILL OF RIGHTS CAMPAIGN

BILL OF RiGHTs CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE: Marlene De

Lancie, Chair; Harry Anisgard, Leonard Bronstein, William

J. Carpmill, Harvey Dinerstein, Kathleen Dooley, Paul L.

Gilbert, Irving Hochman, Christina Huskey, Lawrence R.

Jensen, Joanne Lewis, Jim Murphy, Herb Nelson, Pat

Nelson, Louise Rothman-Riemer, Andrew Rudiak, Thomas

Edward Sarbaugh, Frances C. Strauss, Margaret Wu.

In addition, the Bill of Rights Campaign Committee was

joined by 82 volunteers throughout Northern California who

participated in 36 phone nights during the 1993 campaign..

For information about becoming a fundraising

volunteer or making a gift to the ACLU Foundation,

please contact Cheri Bryant, Director of Development,

at 415/621-2493, ext. 35.

4

8 aclu news

may - june 1994

he ACLU-NC mourns the

passing of veteran civil liberties

activist George Hutchins, the

1984 recipient of the ACLU-NC Lola

Hanzel Courageous Advocacy Award,

who died of cancer on February 26 at

the age of 89.

Hutchins, an engineer and teacher

who resided in Sausalito since 1950,

`staffed the ACLU-NC Complaint Desk

every Thursday for over twelve years.

At the time he received the Hanzel

Award for his outstanding volunteer

efforts, he had been at the affiliate

longer than any member of the staff.

A member of the ACLU since the

1940s, during the McCarthy ear

Hutchins joined the affiliate's fight

against the dismissal of San Francisco

City College teachers who refused to

sign the loyalty oath. As an organizer,

he bolstered the efforts of ACLU-NC

attorney Wayne Collins who repre-

sented the teachers before the House

Un-American Activities Committee.

An instructor in physics and mathe-

matics at San Francisco City College

from 1946 until his retirement in 1970,

: George Hutchins

Union Maid

Hutchins became a teachers union

organizer and later served as the

American Federation of Teachers

representative to the San Francisco

Labor Council and as president of the

San Francisco City College Faculty

Association.

In addition to his work with the

ACLU, Hutchins volunteered his

talents, time and skill to campaigns

ranging from the United Farm Workers

union and the nuclear freeze movement

to the public library in Sausalito.

ACLU-NC Executive Director

Dorothy Ehrlich said, "George's wide-

ranging political and social interests, his

wit and his warmth made him an

invaluable asset not only to those who

called the ACLU seeking help, but to all

Board members, staff and volunteers

who were fortunate enough to share

Thursdays with George Hutchins."

George Hutchins is survived by his

son John and granddaughter Hanna. At

his family's request, memorial contri-

butions may be sent to the ACLU,

Suite 460, 1663 Mission Street, San

Francisco, CA 94103. @

Sikh Students

Continued from page I

by ACLU-NC cooperating attorneys

Stephen V. Bomse, Jessica S. Pers and

Stephen M. Hankins of the San Francisco

law firm Heller, Ehrman, White and

McAuliffe, and ACLU staff attorney

Margaret C. Crosby.

"We and the Sikh community are

concerned about preventing school

violence," said Bomse. "However, permit-

ting these children to practice their religion

in no way compromises that objective."

Bomse further noted that although the

requirement to wear kirpans at all times

goes back nearly 300 years, there has never

been a reported incident of kirpan-related

violence at any school in this county or

elsewhere. "The kirpan is not a weapon,"

said Bomse, "it is a religious symbol.

Wearing it at all times is as important to

Khalsa Sikhs as wearing a yarmulke is to

Orthodox Jews."

Baptized Khalsa Sikhs undertake a

religious duty to wear five sacred symbols,

including the kirpan. The others are long

hair, a comb, a steel bracelet and special

cotton undergarments. Each of the symbols

- known to Khalsa Sikhs as the "5S K's" -

has a special, and different symbolic

meaning. They are worn at all times, even

while bathing or sleeping.

This is not the first time an issue involv-

ing kirpans in public schools has arisen.

Several school districts in California with

substantial Sikh populations have adopted

explicit policies permitting baptized Sikh

children to wear their kirpans to school.

Other districts simply accommodate the

practice without any specific policy. In

Canada, two recent court cases, in Alberta

and Ontario, upheld the Sikhs' position. In

addition, the Calgary Board of Education

conducted an extensive study of the issue,

which resulted in rules supporting the

Sikhs' right to wear their sacred symbols,

including the kirpan. According to the

ACLU lawyers, the successful accomoda-

tion of Sikh religious tenets by many

schools has been called to the attention of

Livingston officials, but to no avail.

The lawsuit was filed under a federal

statute passed late last year by Congress to

strengthen the protection of religious

freedom. The new law was a direct

response to a 1990 Supreme Court decision

which drastically limited constitutional

protection for religious freedom (Employ-

ment Division, Department of Human

Resources v. Smith). The Court permitted

states to enforce "facially neutral" laws to

prevent people from engaging in important

religious religious activities, such as the

ceremonial use of peyote by certain Native

Americans, or as in this case, the wearing

of ceremonial knives by orthodox Sikhs.

"The new federal law is an important

protection for religious liberty in a pluralis-

tic society," explained Crosby. "As this case

shows, religious freedom is extremely

vulnerable to government suppression,

particularly when minority faiths and

unfamiliar religious practices are involved."

Plaintiffs are asking the court to declare

that the exclusion of baptized Khalsa Sikhs

from school property violates their rights to

religious liberty, to enjoin the officials

from preventing baptized Khalsa Sikh

students and parents from attending school

classes and functions while wearing their

kirpans, and to order the school officials to

pay money damages for depriving the

suspended children of their education. and

Mma eli)

UC CLT ks

Chapter

Meetings

Chapter meetings are open to all inter-

ested members. Contact the Chapter

activist listed for your area.

B-A-R-K (Berkeley-Albany-Rich-

mond-Kensington) Chapter Meeting:

(Usually fourth Thursday) Volunteers

needed for the chapter hotline - call

Florence Piliavin at 510/848-5195 for

further details. For more information,

time and address of meetings, contact

Julie Houk, 510/848-4752.

Earl Warren (Oakland/Alameda

County) Chapter Meeting: (Usually

second Wednesday) Meet on Wednes-

day, June 8 and July 13 at 7:30 PM in the

basement of the Temescal Branch of the

Oakland Library, 5205 Telegraph

Avenue; use the rear entrance. For more

information, call Jim Murphy at 510/787-

1472.

Fresno Chapter Meeting: New

members welcome! For information on

~ Nadya Coleman at 209/229-7178 (days)

or the Chapter Hotline at 209/225-3780.

_Lesbian and Gay Rights Chapter

Meeting: (Usually first Thursday) Meet

on Thursday, June 2 and July 7 at the

ACLU Office, 1663 Mission Street,

#460, San Francisco. Mailings and other

activities start at 6:30 PM. Speakers at

7:00 PM. Business meeting starts at 7:30

PM. The Lesbian and Gay Rights

Chapter will be tabling at a number Pride

Festivals in the month of June. For more

information, contact Jeff Hooper at

510/460-0712.

Marin County Chapter Meeting:

(usually Third Monday) Meet Monday,

July 18 at 7:30 PM, WestAmerica Bank,

1204 Strawberry Town and Country

Village, Mill Valley. The Marin County

Chapter Annual Meeting will be on

Sunday, June 12 at the Marin Fellowship

of Unitarians in San Rafael at 1:00 PM.

Keynote speaker to be advised. For more

information, contact Richard Rosenberg

at 415/434-2100.

Mid-Peninsula (Palo Alto area)

Chapter Meeting: (Usually the last

Thursday) Meet Thursday, May 26 and

June 30 at 7:30 PM at the California

Federal Bank, El Camino Real, Palo Alto.

There will be a speaker at the May

meeting. For more information, contact

Leah Glenn at 415/329-1327.

Monterey County Chapter Meeting:

(Usually third Tuesday) Meet Tuesday,

May 17,June 21 and July 19 at 7:30 PM at

the Monterey Library, Community

Room, Pacific and Madison Streets,

Monterey. For more information,

contact Richard Criley, 408/624-7562.

Mt. Diablo (Contra Costa County)

Chapter Meeting: (Usually third Thurs-

day) For more information, call Hotline

at 510/939-ACLU.

North Peninsula (San Mateo area)

Chapter Meeting: (Usually third

June 20 and July 18 at 7:30 PM. at

Planned Parenthood. The Annual

Meeting will be on Sunday, May 15 from

2:00 PM to 5:00 PM at the Beresford

Recreation Center, 2720 Alameda de las

Pulgas, San Mateo.

date, place and time of meetings, call

Monday) Meet on Monday, May 16,

ACLU-NC Earl Warren Award recip-

ient Aileen Hernandez will speak on

Civil Liberties in a Diverse Society.

ACLU-NC Executive Director Dorothy

Ehrlich will also speak on the State of the

Union. Charge is $15.00 per person,

$5.00 for students and limited income.

For more information, contact Audrey

Guerin at 415/574-4053.

North Valley (Shasta, Siskiyou,

Tehama and Trinity Counties)

Chapter Meeting: For more informa-

tion write to: Tillie Smith, P.O. Box 2503,

Redding, CA. 96099.

Redwood (Humboldt County) Chapter

Meeting: (Usually third Monday) Meet

Monday, May 16, June 20 and July 18 at

7:15 PM at the Plaza Grill, Arcata.

Annual Meeting will be in May, date to

be announced. For more information

contact Christina Huskey at 707/444-

6595.

Sacramento Valley Chapter Meeting:

(Usually second Wednesday) Meet on

Wednesday, June 8 and July 13 at 6:00

PM at Shakey's Pizza, 59th and J Streets,

Sacramento. Possible change of place

and time for July meeting. For more

information, contact Ruth Ordas,

916/488-9956.

San Francisco Chapter Meeting:

(Usually third Tuesday) Meet on

Tuesday, May 17 and July 19 at 6:45 PM

at ACLU Office, 1663 Mission, #460,

San Francisco. Annual Forum and

Meeting on Tuesday, June 21 at 6:30 PM

at Fort Mason Center. Author Sara

Diamond will speak on the Religious

Right. For more information, call the

Chapter Information Line at 415/979-

6699.

Santa Clara Valley Chapter Meeting:

(Usually first Tuesday) Meet on

Tuesday, June 7 at the Community Bank |

Building, 3rd Floor Conference Room,

comer of Market/St. John Streets, San

Jose. No meeting in July. For further

information, call the Chapter Hotline at

408/293-2584.

Santa Cruz County Chapter Meeting:

(Usually third Thursday) Meet on Thurs-

day, May 19 and June 16 at 7:00 PM at

the Women's Law and Mediation Center,

104 Walnut Avenue, Suite 203, Santa

Cruz. Contact Eleanor Eisenberg at

408/423-8327 for further information.

The Santa Cruz Chapter will sponsor a

program dealing with the Pacific Garden

Mall Ordinances in Santa Cruz on

Tuesday, May 17 at 7:30 PM at Episcopal

Calvary Church, 532 Center Street, Santa

Cruz. For more information, call Paul

Johnson at 408-426-1397.

Sonoma County Chapter Meeting:

(Usually third Wednesday) Meet on

Wednesday May 18, June 15 and July 20

at 7:30 PM at the Peace and Justice

Center, 540 Pacific Avenue, Santa Rosa.

The Sonoma Chapter and Amnesty Inter-

national co-sponsored a death penalty art

show entitled The Condemned at San

Quentin from April 21 - April 28 at the

Fine Art and Frame Gallery, in Santa

Rosa. Call Steve Thornton at 707/544-

8115 for further information.

Yolo County Chapter Meeting:

(Usually third Thursday) Meet on Thurs-

day, June 16. The Yolo County Chapter

will have their Annual Meeting and Pot-

Luck Dinner on May 19. Featured

speaker to be announced. For more

information, call Natalie Wormeli at

916/756-1900 or the Chapter Hotline at

916/756-ACLU.