vol. 60, no. 4

Wotume LX

NEWSPAPER OF THE AMERICAN Civil LIBERTIES UNION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

aclu news

Supreme Court Will

Rehear Teen

Abortion Case

move, the California Supreme Court

agreed on May 22 to reconsider its 4-3

April decision which upheld the 1987 state

law restricting minors' rights to abortion.

"The Court has acted wisely in taking a

second look at this profoundly important

case," said ACLU-NC staff attorney

Margaret Crosby who authored the petition

for rehearing following the April 4 ruling in

#American Academy of Pediatrics v.

Lungren#. "The Court's decision will affect

the lives of thousands of teenagers."

Crosby explained that the immediate

effect of the order to rehear the case is to

ensure that teenagers will continue to

obtain confidential abortion counseling

E an unusual and extremely welcome

and services. The law, which requires

teenagers to obtain parental consent or a

judicial bypass before they can have an

abortion, has never gone into effect

because of court orders issued in this case.

The law will not be in effect unless the

Court issues a new decision upholding the

statute.

"This is very good news for teenagers,

as well as health care providers and judges,

who could not possibly have been ready for

drastic changes in the state's adolescent

health care system, requiring thousands of

pregnant teenagers to navigate through

court before obtaining abortions," - said

Crosby.

Continued on page 7

Non-Profit

Organization

USS Postage

PAID

Permit No. 4424

San Francisco, CA

| -e

High Court Won't

Stop Suit Against

Wilson, UC Regents

Affirmative Action Vote at Stake

he California Supreme Court on July

Te refused a request by Governor

Pete Wilson and the U.C. Board of

Regents to dismiss the lawsuit brought by

a student newspaper charging the

Governor and some Regents with violating

the state's open meeting act when they

acted to eliminate affirmative action.

In a unanimous one-page order, the

court denied Governor Wilson's request to

intervene in the ACLU lawsuit, Molloy v.

U.C. Regents, originally filed in February in

San Francisco Superior Court; the case

will now proceed to trial.

"For the first time, the Governor and

Regents will be forced to answer questions

under oath regarding their covert discus-

sions about abolishing affirmative action,"

said ACLU-NC staff attorney Ed Chen.

"Wilson has once again been thwarted

by his attempt to engage in backroom poli-

tics rather than open decision-making.

Officials must be held accountable for

their actions, and this is impossible if they

deliberate behind closed doors," Chen

added.

The suit charges that the Governor

Continued on page 9

On the November Ballot -

Vote for Civil Liberties

PROPOSITION 209 -- NO

The California Civil Wrongs Initiative

would eliminate affirmative action pro-

grams in the state employment, contract-

ing and education and turn the clock back

on equal opportunity for women and peo-

ple of color.

The ACLU is committed to racial jus-

tice and gender equality and has played a

leading role in the statewide campaign to

defeat this divisive, mean-spirited mea-

sure.

PROPOSITION 210 --YES

The Living Wage Act of 1996 would

increase the minimum wage from $4.25 per

hour to $5.00 per hour on March 1, 1997

and then to $5.75 beginning March 1, 1998.

All employees in private industry are cov-

ered by the initiative.

The minimum wage has not seen an

increase since 1988, despite large salary

increases for state legislators and corpo-

rate executives during this time. Moreover,

the minimum wage has lost value due to

inflation over the last eight years.

Economists note that it would take an

increase to at least $6.00 per hour to

restore the minimum wage to the value it

had in the late 1970's and to provide a

salary which would support a family of

three at the poverty line.

Recognizing that the poor suffer viola-

tions of their civil liberties to a greater

extent than other segments of the popula-

tion, the ACLU-NC supports this initiative

because it addresses the inequality that

exists in the workforce and in society due

to the current, inadequate minimum wage.

PROPOSITION 215 -YES

The Medical Marijuana Initiative would

Henry Woon

| For more on the campaign, see page 8.

| legalize the growing and smoking of mari-

_ juana for medicinal use in California upon

a doctor's recommendation. The patient

_ would be able to cultivate and smoke the

| amount deemed necessary for "personal

use.

|

|

"

Currently, under California's complete

prohibition of marijuana, patients who

would greatly benefit from the medicinal

effects of marijuana, like those suffering

from AIDS, cancer, glaucoma and migraine

headaches, can be criminally prosecuted

for using the drug even if advised to do so

Continued on page 8

| CAMPAIGNING FoR Equa. Justice: San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown exhorts affirmative action supporters to defeat Proposition 209.

Pe :YNiRes aor oe

Cut out and take with you eas polls on Nov. 5.

The ACLU-NC urges you to vote on the following

ballot initiatives

I

208 - NO

i 209 - NO

I

i 210-YES

i

212 - NEUTRAL

2|5:- YES

Ee a ee

INSIDE: National Victories on Gay Rights and Internet Censorship @ ACLU Annual Conference

Landmark Ruling for Lesbian and Gay Rights

n May 20, the United States Supreme Court struck down "Amendment

2," a Colorado constitutional amendment that barred laws protecting

lesbians and gay men.from discrimination. The landmark 6-3 ruling came

in Evans v. Romer which was filed by the ACLU (the ACLU of Northern

California joined the Colorado affiliate and the National Lesbian and Gay

Rights Project) and Lambda Legal Defense Fund.

Matthew Coles, Director of the ACLU Lesbian and Gay kights Project

and former ACLU-NC staff attorney who litigated the suit from the start,

explains why this decision is so important for the rights of lesbians and gay

he Supreme Court's decision in

[Nome v. Evans will be very impor-

tant in future cases about the rights

of lesbians and gay men. For ten years now,

government has gotten away with justifying

discrimination in everything from child

custody to employment by simply saying

that society disapproves of lesbians and gay

men. No more. From now on, dislike, disap-

proval, fear are not enough. Government

will need legitimate reasons for treating

lesbian, gay and bisexual Americans differ-

ently.

But Romer may be even more impor-

tant outside the courts. Colorado's

"Amendment 2" repealed all local civil

rights laws that covered lesbians and gay

men. But it went much further. It said nei-

ther cities nor the state itself would ever

have the power to protect gay people from

discrimination. The zealots who wrote it

brought their political rhetoric into court

with them. The amendment was innocu-

ous, they insisted, because it simply denied

lesbians and gay men "special rights."

The court gave what is perhaps the

most eloquent answer any one has ever giv-

en to that charge. The right to be-able to

work, have a home, eat in a restaurant

men - both in and out of the courtroom.

rights laws, only that the power of govern-

ment to decide that we should be protected

can not be taken away. The decision about

whether civil rights laws in fact will be

extended to cover discrimination based on

sexual orientation remains with legisla-

tures, city councils and Congress.

The next step is clear. It is back in to

the halls of Congress and the legislatures to

make our case. And it is most particularly

back to the town councils, the universities,

the businesses, the school boards etc. No

civil rights movement, no movement for

change of any kind has ever succeeded

without persuading people to change the

The message could not be plainer.

The constitutional conscience of our

Republic has told us that

discrimination against lesbians and

gay men because you do not like them

Is wrong.

without fear of being thrown out because of

who you are, is, the court said, taken for

granted by most of us. We either have that

right in law, or we have no need for it

because we do not face that kind of dis-

crimination. But to those who do face it,

civil rights laws are the only thing prevent-

ing exclusion from the limitless activities

that "constitute ordinary life in a free soci-

ety." "We find nothing special," the court

said, "in the protections Amendment 2

withholds."

The court did not decide that lesbians

and gay men are to be protected by civil

way they think. Brown v. Board of

Education may have read more like a dec-

laration of rights than the Romer case does,

but it no more ended segregation than

Romer will end discrimination based on

sexual orientation.

Tip O'Neil was right; all politics is local.

So is change. Persuasion is done most effec-

tively one on one. And to change the way

society thinks about lesbians and gay men,

we need to be making our case everywhere.

But that does not diminish the impor-

tance of Romer. We have the level playing

field we asked for - the same right to lob-

by for civil rights laws that everyone else

has. We have that eloquent answer to the

"special rights" argument. And we have

something else; a remarkable, deeply stir-

ring statement from the Court.

Adding historical weight to the opinion,

Justice Kennedy invoked the most famous

dissent in legal history, from the decision

upholding official racial segregation. "One

century ago," he wrote, "the first Justice

Harlan admonished this Court that the

Constitution neither knows nor tolerates

classes among citizens" The Romer deci-

sion, Justice Kennedy said, is the inevitable

result of finally heeding those words today. .

The message could not be plainer. The

constitutional conscience of our Republic

has told us that discrimination against les-

bians and gay men because you do not like

them is wrong. Romer puts us back in the

fray, but with a moral force the like of

which this movement has never seen

before.

S@SSSRSSSRESSRSSSSRSSSSCRSHSSSSSSCSSSPSSESSSSESSRSESSRSSCSSSESHESSCH ESE B

ACLU on the

Gay Pride March

SPOSHOHHSSHHHSSHSHHHSHSHSHHOHSHSHHHHSHSHSHHHHHHHHHHHHSHHHHHSTHHHHSEHHHHSHEHEE

ACLU activists joined the tens of thousands of marchers on the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,

Transgender Freedom Day Parade in San Francisco on June 30. Marching to the theme

of "Equality and Justice for All," participants drew the warm applause and cheers of

YBa observers who lined the route from Civic Center to the Embarcadero. The ACLU-NC con-

poe ' tingent, joined by Board and Chapter members, staff and volunteers, distributed litera-

ture and colorful stickers for the "No on CCRI" campaign along the route and at a table at

the rally following the march.

$11.95 + 0x00A73.00 shipping)

Wye Mills, MD 21679. Make checks

ACLU News = Summer 1996 = Pace 2

by Francisco Lobaco

ACLU Legislative Director

and

Rini Chakraborty

ACLU Legislative Intern

The Right to be

Treated Fairly

n late May the ACLU scored an important come-

from-behind civil rights victory, leading the fight

to defeat legislation which would have permitted

private clubs to discriminate against women and

minorities.

Attempting to overturn the recent California

Supreme Court decision in Warfield v. Peninsula

Country Club (an ACLU case), Senator Ken Maddy

(R-Fresno) introduced SB 2110. Warfield held

that private clubs (in this case a private golf club)

that have repeated and consistent business con-

tacts with the public (non-members) may not dis-

criminate against women, minorities, and others

protected by the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

The Senate Judiciary Committee unexpectedly

approved the bill, catapulting ACLU advocates into

the difficult task of defeating the bill on the Senate

floor.

Teed off

Alerted by legislative staff, the ACLU affiliates

and other civil rights organizations mobilized

immediate and effective grassroots opposition from

members around the state.

We were also able to focus media attention on

the importance of the Floor vote by joining with the

Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational

Fund (MALDEF), NOW, the National Council of

Jewish Women, and Protection and Advocacy at a

well-attended press conference the day before the

ACLU News = Summer 1996 = Pace 3

scheduled vote, and encouraging newspapers to

take a strong editorial stand against the bill.

When the vote was finally taken, the bill failed

on a 17-to-17 vote. Substantial thanks must go to

President pro Tem Bill Lockyer (D-Hayward) who

spoke out eloquently in opposition and convinced

most Democrats to oppose the bill.

"Three Strikes" is Out

ollowing the dramatic California Supreme

Court decision limiting the "three strikes and

youre out" law, Republican leaders and eager

Democrats hastily proposed legislation to block the

ruling - and the ACLU stepped up to the plate to

fight attempts to restore this unfair, wasteful law.

On June 20, in People v. Superior Court of San

Diego (Romero) the California Su-preme Court

held that sentencing judges have, as District

Attorneys do, the discretion to dismiss a prior con-

viction of a defendant in a "three strikes" case if

doing so is "in the furtherance of justice." Passed in

California by legislators and again by voters in 1994,

the three strikes law mandates that anyone convict-

ed of two prior violent or serious felonies who is

convicted of any felony on a third offense -

whether or not it is serious

or violent - faces

a sentence of 25 years

to life or three times

the sentence for the

third crime, whichev-

er is greater.

The decision

was unanimous

by the justices,

all but one of

"whom were

appointed by

so-called

"tough on

crime" gover-

nors. However,

politicians who

have built sub-

brandishing their big

law-and-order sticks

denounced the ruling.

Hastily and haphaz-

ardly, they drafted

legislation to circum-

vent it. SB 331,

authored by Senate

Minority Leader Rob

Hurtt (R-Garden

Grove) and support-

ed by Governor Pete

Wilson, abrogates the Romero decision by denying

judges discretion if: the current offense is serious

or violent; any of the defendant's priors are serious

= or violent; or the

current offense

has been com-

mitted with-

in five years

of being

released from

prison for the

most recent

offense. On

July 16, the

Senate Criminal Procedure

Committee rejected sending the measure to the full

Senate for action by a vote of 1 to 4.

Democrats, lead by Senate President Pro Tem

Bill Lockyer (D-Hayward), have proposed alterna- -

tive legislation, albeit less drastic, which would

deny both judges and prosecutors discretion if the

pending offense is violent or if the prior conviction

was for child molestation.

Given that the Romero decision unfortunately

leaves three strikes legislation largely intact, these

stantial careers by |

political tantrums are an unwarranted reaction to

the ruling. At best the recent ruling is beneficial to

save those absurd cases in which grossly dispropor-

tionate sentences are imposed under three strikes,

for example, individuals who have been sentenced

to 25 years to life for stealing a pizza or two pairs of

jeans.

At the heart of this debate, however, is whether

or not judges can be stripped of their fundamental

role of examining a defendant on an individual basis

and ensuring that the punishment fits the crime.

Since the passage of three strikes legislation,

scarce resources have already been drained to sup-

port this draconian measure and incarcerate

offenders - 85% of whom are non-violent.

California already has the largest prison system in

the country, which in turn is second largest in the

world behind China. But to keep up with three

strikes, the state will need to build 24 more prisons

in the next decade.

While the state "gets tough" on pizza thieves

and other low-level offenders, funds have been

diverted from education, health and welfare pro-

grams - all of which serve to deter crime.

Although the Supreme Court ruling begins to

address valid judicial and public policy concerns,

these bills merely function as a platform for politi-

cians to tout their crime credentials, at an enor-

mous cost to the public and to the public good.

Please write to your Senator and Assembly-

member, urging them to stand firm against these

efforts to thwart the Romero decision and obstruct

justice in three-strike cases.

The Right to Marry

na hearing that lasted past midnight, the Senate

Judiciary Committee moved out a bill (AB 1982,

Assemblymember Pete Knight, R-Palmdale) provid-

ing that the state did not have to recognize mar-

riage in other states between couples of the same

gender. However, the bill was amended by the

Democrats to include the provision of domestic

partnership rights to people who register with the

county clerk: a "poison pill' provision intended to -

ensure that the measure would die.

The next day, in a vindictive measure, Senator

Ray Haynes (R-Murrieta) gutted a bill of his being

_ heard in the Appropriations Committee (not a poli-

cy committee) and amended in the anti-marriage

provisions. Assemblymembers Carole Migden (D-

San Francisco) and Shiela Kuehl (D-Santa

Monica), the two openly lesbian members of the

Legislature, rushed to the Committee to poignantly

testify against the latest maneuvers to foist upon us

measures that deny the humanity of lesbians and

gay men.

The Right to

Reproductive Freedom

CLU members joined other women's and repro-

ductive rights advocates to defeat the bills (AB

2984 - Assemblymember Bob Margett, R-Arcadia

and SB 1999 - Senator Ray Haynes, R-Murrieta)

eliminating a type of late-term abortion. Showing

remarkable tenacity, women and their supporters

from all over the state rallied around the theme of

"trust women and their doctors," stopping the mea-

sure on the floor of the Republican-controlled

Assembly.

Building on last year's success in putting an end

to the Proposition 187-like measure to eliminate

prenatal care for undocumented women, we

thwarted the same measure on the Assembly floor

again this year. Not only did we stop it, we stopped

`it by such a wide margin - 385 "yes" votes to 41 "no"

votes - that our opponents did not even bring up

the parental consent for abortion bill that they.

wanted to tie to the budget.

Unlawful Police Search of Richmond

Home Brings $668K in Damages to Family

agencies throughout the state, the

California Court of Appeal upheld a

jury award in favor of Bettye Davis and her

family for $668,000 in damages for violation

of their civil rights during a police search.

The ACLU-NC represented Davis after

officers from the Richmond Police

Department and the California Department

of Corrections broke down her front and

back doors, barged into her home without

permission or a warrant, destroyed her

property and terrorized her children. The

officers even dumped out an urn containing

her late husband's ashes.

"The police came in and handcuffed me

and my son and treated us like we were

criminals," said Davis. "] couldn't sit back

and let them do that to people," she added,

explaining why she took her case to the

ACLU.

"The large award of damages to the

family sends a message to city governments

and law enforcement agencies that such

raids will not be tolerated," said ACLU-NC

staff attorney Ed Chen.

The suit, Davis v. Department of

Corrections, originally filed in 1989 in

Contra Costa Superior Court after the

September, 1988 search, charged the offi-

cers with unlawful search and seizure,

assault and battery, false imprisonment,

invasion of privacy and intentional inflic-

tion of emotional distress.

S ending a warning to law enforcement

"The police came in and handcuffed

me and my son and treated us like we

were criminals."

-_ Bettye Davis

Richmond resident Bettye Davis sued the police and Department for Corrections over

their destructive and illegal search of her home

Rick ROCAMORA

| first jury verdict ever

_ had been granted to Davis by a Contra Costa

Superior Court jury in 1991. That was the

against the

Corrections Department Special Services

Unit.

Although the Court of Appeal rejected

the Corrections Department's claim that it

had legal grounds for the search, the appel-

late court did overturn the Superior Court -

order which restricted searching and

detaining people living with a parolee, rul-

ing that there was not sufficient evidence

| that offenses such as those suffered by

Davis and her family were likely to recur.

Ironically, Davis's accounts of the vio-

lence of the incident were strengthened by

a videotape made by a television crew,

which had been invited along by the law

enforcement agencies, to film the search

for a police docudrama called "Trackdown."

In his closing arguments, ACLU-NC cooper-

ating attorney Mark Schallert of Pillsbury

Madison and Sutro used clips from the video

that directly contradicted the testimony

given by CDC officers. For example, officers

stated that they had knocked on Davis's

door, identified themselves, and given her

time to answer before they forcibly entered

her home. On the video, however, an officer

told the camera crew that he planned to use

his special "door key," and the camera

switched to a closeup of his boot. The video

recorded the officers crashing into the

any charges filed against the parolee.

The ruling by the First District Court of

Appeal upholds the damage award which

lived there; however, the man's parole offi- |

cer was not present at the search, nor |

informed about it ahead of time, nor were

dwelling with little warning.

In addition to Chen and Schallert, Davis

and her family were represented by ACLU-

NC cooperating attorneys John R. Leflar,

Bernard Zimmerman, Robert A. Gordon,

Suzanne M. Janissen, and Jennifer Wysong,

all of Pillsbury, Madison and Sutro.

The officers tried to justify their inva-

sion of the house because a parolee also

SSSSSsSSPSsSsSSeSSSsSSSCSse SSCS SSCS SeeFsESSORSESPCRESSPRESSPCESSRESSCRSESSCSSSSSSSRPsesSSesESSCesesSeoaesseose ses FBS e@

Journalists Witness Execution

Court Halts Prison's Limits on Access

SBSOSstesSGSGtReSSGeePseGesese RB Sste RBS GF BS

took place a few moments after midnight on

May 8.

"This is a major, unprecedented victory,"

said plaintiff Peter Sussman, President of

the ruling, they were turned down in a | Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court in the

request for an emergency stay by the Ninth | hours leading up to the execution, which

victory for press freedom was struck

Ae May when journalists and First

Amendment advocates successfully

challenged the California Department of

Corrections' procedures which limited

reporters covering executions at San

Quentin.

The ruling from U.S. District Court

Judge Vaughn Walker came on the eve of

the execution of Keith Daniel Williams, the

second person on California's Death Row to

die by lethal injection. The ACLU-NC suit,

California First Amendment Coalition v.

Calderon, was prompted by the new proce-

dures put in place for the February 23 exe-

cution of William Bonin, which prevented

the witnesses, including the media, from

observing the inmate being brought into the

chamber and from being attached to the

execution apparatus. The suit charged that

the restrictions prevented reporters from

offering first-hand accounts of the execu- |

tion, including the inmates' demeanor and

his treatment by the guards, and forced

them to rely on official prison accounts -

thus depriving the public of an accurate

and complete view of the entire execution

process. In fact, there were problems in

inserting the IV into Bonin's arm which

caused a delay, but the witnesses were

excluded from this part of the procedure.

"This injunction is based on the public's

First Amendment right to witness execu-

tions, and its issuance clearly serves the

public interest," stated Judge Walker in his

May 1 opinion.

Although the Department has appealed

"Executions are the ultimate criminal

sanction, and we journalists owe it to

the public to tell that story as

thoroughly and accurately as possible."

- Peter Sussman

the northern California Chapter of the

Society of Professional Journalists.

"Executions are the ultimate criminal sanc-

tion, and we journalists owe it to the public

to tell that story as thoroughly and accurate-

ly as possible."

The lawsuit was filed by ACLU-NC

Managing Attorney Alan Schlosser and

cooperating attorneys David Fried, Jeffrey

Ross, Jill Hersh and Michael Kass of

Friedman, Ross and Hersh. @

SQSRSSCPCESSRHESHSRESSSHESSEBSSRESHESSOSESSRHSCHE SSS SSCOPORSSHSESSRESSCHESSHSEHSSCSSSSHEROSSCOHSESCSE RSH SSOEBE A

Merced School Rescinds

Search Order

erced High School senior Mike

Mf cesse was looking forward to

his graduation ceremony - until

he learned that all graduating seniors had

to empty their pockets and submit to a gen-

eral pat-down search to prevent them from

bringing condoms, beach balls and fire-

crackers into the football stadium where

the ceremony was scheduled.

Clawson challenged the search policy

- and eventually won, but not without a

battle with school officials and backing

from the ACLU.

"T had nothing to hide personally, and |

promised not to take anything into gradua-

tion, but that was not the issue," Clawson

said. "There should be some control and

there should be some rules, but | don't

think they can be achieved by making

everyone feel like a criminal."

Clawson voiced his objections to the

principal and to the ACLU. His principal

disagreed - the ACLU did not.

In a letter to school officials, ACLU-NC

staff attorney Ann Brick wrote, "Your

school policy of mandatory searches vio-

lates the Constitutional protection afford-

ed to your students.

"Every graduating senior - serious

student and class prankster alike - is

treated as a potential villain and subjected

to the humiliation of a search as a condi-

tion of participating in graduation. This is

neither the civics lesson nor the ceremony

that should be the school's parting gift to

its students," Brick wrote.

Clawson also went to the Student

Council, which backed him, and to the

Merced Sun Star, which put his battle on

the front page.

As a result of Clawson's persistent

efforts - and the school's belated recogni-

tion of students' constitutional rights -

the Superintendent of Schools rescinded

the graduation search order.

Congratulations, graduate! That's asum-

ma cum laude in civil liberties advocacy.

ACLU News = Summer 1996 = Pace 4

Oakland Schools to Notify Parents about

Uniform Aid and Opt Out

ness for all Oakland K-8 students, the

Oakland Unified School District Board

has agreed to a multi-faceted plan for

informing parents about their rights under

the new state law governing school uni-

forms, and for providing families with

financial assistance.

The agreement came as part of a settle-

ment in a suit (Hdelstein v. Oakland

Unified School District) filed last year by

the ACLU-NC on behalf of the parents of a

number of Oakland elementary school stu-

dents.

At its meeting on July 25, the Board

voted to adopt the settlement, thereby

agreeing to inform parents on a regular

basis that there is financial assistance

available to purchase uniforms, to change

the financial assistance program to pro-

vide aid on a per student - rather than on

a per family - basis, and to tell families

how they can "opt out" of the program if

they do not want their children to wear

uniforms.

"The goal of our lawsuit has always

been to get the District to comply with the

Education Code," said ACLU-NC staff

attorney Ann Brick. "We are pleased that

the District has agreed to take seriously its

obligation to provide financial assistance

to students who need it and to recognize

that families need to be informed on a sys-

I: a step that will help to ensure fair-

tematic basis about how the uniform pro-

gram works, including the right of families

to opt out of the program if they wish."

As part of the settlement, the District

modified and expanded its financial aid

application to obtain more information

about each student's need so that "no stu-

dent will be prevented by his or her finan-

cial circumstances from coming to school

|

|

families should receive the aid.

Over the next six months, the ACLU

will monitor the District's financial assis-

tance program to determine whether the

amount of aid being provided is sufficient

to meet the District's commitment that no

student will be prevented from wearing a

uniform because of his or her economic

plight, ACLU-NC attorney Brick explained.

"The goal of our lawsuit has always

been to get the District to comply with

the Education Code..."

--ACLU-NC staff attorney Ann Brick

in the prescribed uniform." All students , If the District and the plaintiffs disagree

whose families are eligible for AFDC or the

school lunch subsidy (whether or not the

family actually receives that aid) will be'

entitled to assistance. In addition, District

officials will consider such factors as

homelessness, the number of children in

the family, the number of children for

whom uniforms are needed, other depen-

dents in the family, and unusual medical or

other expenses, in deciding whether other

|

|

about whether this commitment is being

met, the case will proceed to trial in

Alameda County Superior Court in

February.

Under the agreement, parents may

obtain an application for financial assis-

tance either by picking one up from the

Office of Student Services at 1025 Second

Avenue, Oakland or by telephoning the

Office at 510/836-8111 requesting that an

application be mailed. Parents will be noti-

fied by September 8 whether they qualify

for financial assistance.

All parents have been sent a letter by

School Superintendent Carolyn Getridge,

telling them how to apply for financial aid.

The letter also explains the simplified opt-

out procedure adopted by the District as

part of the settlement agreement and

stresses, "Your child will not be penalized

academically or retaliated against in any

way as a result of your decision that he or

she not wear a uniform."

In addition to the Superintendent's let-

ter, the agreement sets up a systematic

procedure for notifying parents every year

about their right to opt out of the uniform

and about the availability of financial aid.

Legislation allowing school districts to

require uniforms was passed by the

Legislature in 1994; the law gives parents

an absolute right to refuse to participate

and also mandates financial assistance for

those who need it.

The parents are represented by ACLU-

NC staff attorney Ann Brick and cooperat-

ing attorneys Jeffrey Williams and Bruce

Wagman of the law firm of Morgenstein and

Jubelirer. Edelstein v. Oakland Unified

School District was originally filed in

Alameda County Superior Court on June

138, 1995. @

SSCRSSCEHESSHES SCH SSCSCH SSH SS SHES SHES SHEE SSESSSCHRESHSESSHESCHSE SSCS HSC SHRSSCESSHSHRSSRHESSHSE SHES SCSHSSHRSOSHESHSHESSSRSSHSSHESOHSHESSEHSOSHE SES OE HESE

he Northwestern Mutual Life

Insurance Company will no longer

tlement of the ACLU-NC class action law-

suit, Kim v. Northwestern announced on |

July 26. The suit was originally filed in San

Francisco Superior Court on May 31, 1995,

on behalf of a Korean-American family in |

San Francisco, the Latino Chamber of

Commerce of Compton and Consumer

Action.

The suit charged Northwestern, a

Milwaukee, Wisconsin-based company |

authorized to do business in California,

with violating federal and state civil rights

and consumer laws, as well as the

California Insurance Code. The plaintiffs

were represented by the ACLU-NC, the

Employment Law Center (ELC), the

Mexican American Legal Defense and

Education Fund (MALDEF), and the firm

Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich and Rosati.

"Based on a discriminatory English-

proficiency policy, Northwestern arbitrari-

ly denied services to certain applicants

without regard to their physical condition

and medical history," said ACLU-NC staff

attorney Ed Chen. "We brought this case

because it is imperative to ensure that

non-English speaking persons share equal-

ly in the rights, entitlements and opportu-

nities generally available to English

speaking persons," Chen added.

Northwestern's discriminatory prac-

tice came to light when Michael and Lani

Perkins of San Francisco applied to

Northwestern in 1994 to purchase a

$10,000 life insurance policy for Mrs.

Perkins' mother, Pok Dong Kim. At the

time, Kim was seventy-one years old and in

good physical and mental health. Although

English is not her first language, she

speaks it well enough to have become a

naturalized citizen and to have operated a

Insurance Company Language

bar non-English speakers from their

life insurance policies as a result of a set- -

Discrimination Suit Settled

Union Matp

Pok Dong Kim (r.), pictured here with her daughter Lani and her son-in-law Michael

Perkins, sued Northwestern after she was denied life insurance based on her English

language ability.

retail store in San Francisco's Mission dis-

trict for several years.

Kim underwent an interview with a

Northwestern agent and then a medical

examination, successfully completing both.

Several days later, a woman identifying her-

self as a Northwestern agent called Kim. As

it was early in the morning, and because

Kim was unfamiliar with the caller, she had

some difficulty hearing her. On the basis of |

this single phone contact, Northwestern

concluded that Kim did not meet the com-

pany's English proficiency requirements.

As a part of the settlement, the insur-

ance company has now agreed to drop its

English proficiency requirement. It has

also introduced a number of new services

to assist its agents in marketing the com-

pany's products to non-English speaking

individuals. It is expanding the number of

foreign language translations of its

brochures and will also provide increased

support to facilitate certification of bilin-

gual agents and perform bilingual para-

medical and medical exams as needed.

"This case is significant because it is

imperative to establish that civil rights laws

cover language discrimination," said ELC

attorney Chris Ho. "This is because lan-

| guage is all too often used as a proxy

through which to discriminate against peo-

_ ple because of their race or ethnicity."

Northwestern will also pay a combined

total of $175,000 to pay for plaintiffs' attor-

neys' fees and to fund consumer education

programs, outreach programs for non-

English speaking communities, and other

programs to facilitate full access to prod-

ucts and services for non-English speaking

consumers.

In addition, Northwestern will make a

direct payment to the Kims and to each of

the approximately 109 persons whose appli-

cations for life insurance were denied due

to their lack of proficiency in English.

The plaintiffs were represented by

ACLU-NC staff attorney Ed Chen; ELC staff

attorney Christopher Ho; attorneys Antonia

Hernandez, Irma Rodriguez and Martha

Jimenez of MALDEF; and cooperating

attorneys Harry Bremond, Mark Parnes,

Robert Fabela, Colleen Bal and Cynthia A.

Dy of Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich and Rosati.

The ACLU-NC and the Employment

Law Center jointly sponsor a Language

Rights Project, made possible through the

generous assistance of the Rosenberg

Foundation and the San Francisco

Foundation, to litigate against English only

rules and laws and to assist persons who

have been discriminated against based on

language. The Project runs a Language

Rights Hotline to provide counseling and

| other assistance at 1-800-864-1664. i

ACLU News = Summer 1996 = Pace 5

ACLU Secures Student's

Right to Protest

by Maria Archuleta

en Yuba City High School senior

and president of MEChA

(Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano

de Aztlan) Ixtilxochitl Soto helped orga-

nize a protest against Proposition 187 in

November 1994, she never expected sup-

porters of the anti-immigrant measure to

sue her for negligence, assault and battery,

intentional infliction of emotional distress,

and deprivation of civil rights.

But as a result of her political activism,

the 18-year-old senior was sued in Sutter

County Superior Court. Charging that the

suit against Soto, her organization and her

school resulted directly from Soto's exer-

cise of free expression, the ACLU-NG, the

Mexican American Legal Defense and

Education Fund (MALDEF) and California

Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA) filed a spe-

cial motion to dismiss the action on May 6.

After the civil rights attorneys intervened,

the plaintiffs, two Yuba City residents,

backed off, and on May 24, 1996, dropped

the charges.

"The entire lawsuit was completely

ludicrous," said ACLU-NC staff attorney

Kelli Evans. "Ixtilxochitl Soto clearly did

nothing even remotely illegal. They decid-

ed to sue Soto simply to silence and punish

her for speaking out against racism and an

unconstitutional law."

A few days before the passage of |

Proposition 187 in 1994, Soto and other

Yuba City High School students decided to

stage a walkout of class to demonstrate

their opposition to the anti-immigrant

measure. Other students in high schools

throughout the state, most too young to

| and Marysville city halls, and Soto deliv-

| ered a speech about the discriminatory

| impact of Proposition 187 on the Latino

| community. The students followed instruc-

tions given to them by the Yuba City police

department and no students were arrested

during the demonstration.

While the students were marching, the

two pro-187 plaintiffs approached the stu-

express their opposition at the voting |

booth, held similar demonstrations.

The students marched to the Yuba City |

All over the state, high school students demonstrated against Proposition 157 - in Yuba

City, the student organizers were sued.

GROGRSSERBSSKRSSHERSSGEROSHTESFRESERSSERSSHSSOERSOPFTHRSHTRSEGHESHERSSSHSESHESSGEHRESHEROEHRE SES SE BES HE SS BSG

Court Refuses to Decide Suit by S.F.

espite the fact that homeless people

1) are still being arrested for life-sus-

taining activities in San Francisco,

a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals decided not to allow the

ACLU to continue its lawsuit against the

city for violating the rights of the homeless.

On June 14, the Court of Appeals issued

a four-page order concluding that the law-

suit Joyce v. San Francisco, originally filed

on Thanksgiving eve in 19938, was moot

because the "record before this court

Bobby Joyce, lead plaintiff in the suit against San Francisco's

Matrix program.

ACLU News = Summer 1996 = Pace 6

Homeless

shows that the Matrix program has been

eliminated."

The court also vacated the August 1995 |

Appeals failed to accept our substantial

evidence that homeless people are still

being harassed and arrested on a daily

"Matrix is over in name only."

- Plaintiff Bobby Joyce

ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Lowell |

Jensen in favor of the City.

The appellate |

court stated that "we |

find persuasive the (c)

documents submitted

by the city which indi- |

cate a sea change in |

San Francisco's policy

towards the home-

less." In particular, |

the court noted that |

in February Mayor |

Willie Brown called

upon Police Chief

Fred Lau to suspend

Matrix enforcement

es and that in April a |

superior court judge

"dismissed all cita-

tions and recalled all

warrants issued

under Matrix."

basis," said ACLU-

NC Managing Attor-

ney Alan Schlosser.

"However, the City is

now on record with

a promise to stop

enforcement prac-

tices that criminal-

ize homelessness,

and we will be moni-

toring the situation

on the streets to

insure that the

Brown administra-

tion lives up to that

promise."

Judy Appel, attor-

ney for the Coalition

on Homelessness,

agreed. "Matrix is

alive and well on the

streets,' she said,

noting that in one

BACON

dents, jeered and yelled racial epithets at

them. The plaintiffs alleged that a student

ripped a pro 187 sign out of the hands of

one of the plaintiffs and other students

threw bottles at them. The plaintiffs never

claimed that Soto took part in any of these

activities; the only allegations regarding

Soto concerned her roles as a march orga-

nizer and MEChA president.

Soto's defense team charged that the

student's actions - meeting with other stu-

dents to plan the protest, making flyers to

publicize the protest, alerting the media,

and acting as a march monitor - are com-

__ pletely protected by the Constitution.

"The First Amendment and California

law protect individuals from lawsuits aris-

ing out of their peaceful political activity,"

explained Evans. "The California Code of

Civil Procedure explicitly allows defen-

dants in Soto's position to file special

motions to dismiss such lawsuits. The

Legislature authorized the motions to com-

bat the "disturbing increase in lawsuits

brought primarily to chill the valid exercise

of the constitutional rights of freedom of

speech and petition for redress of griev-

ances.'

"Once we made the plaintiffs aware of

| the law, they had no choice but to drop the

suit against this student activist," she con-

cluded.

EOGBSRSSeESSHEESHSERSHSOSeS SESS ES

ple for "quality-of-life" crimes such as

sleeping or camping in public parks and

_ obstructing sidewalks. "These citations

criminalize homelessness," she argued.

Statistics compiled by the Coalition

show that the number of Matrix-like cita-

tions rose from 4,360 during the first four

_ months of 1995 to 4,692 for the same period

| this year. A Police Department spokesper-

son told the San Francisco Examiner that

they stopped compiling statistics on the

program because "we don't have one."

Lead plaintiff in the ACLU-NC lawsuit

Bobby Joyce said, "Matrix is over in name

only."

The federal class action lawsuit was

originally filed in November 1993 by home-

less people in San Francisco represented by

the ACLU-NC, the Lawyers' Committee for

Civil Rights and cooperating attorneys

Jeffrey L. Bleich and Bradley S. Phillips of

Munger, Tolles and Olson.

The appellate court, stating that the

city's policy change is due to the change in

Mayors from Frank Jordan to Willie Brown,

did note that "If, in the future, San

Francisco reintroduces a Matrix-like policy,

then the homeless and their advocates may

challenge that policy at that time."

recent month the

police cited 912 peo-

"It is unfortunate

that the Court of

basis

Homeless people continue to be harassed and arrested on a daily

PEN

California Prisoners, Media

Bound and Gagged

s California's prison system becomes

Aw state's biggest growth industry

with the inmate population and new

prisons multiplying at breakneck speed,

new regulations aimed at silencing incar-

cerated men and women have been put into

effect. "The expansion of the prison system

should not be accompanied by an expan-

sion of secrecy about its operations," said

ACLU-NC Managing Attorney Alan

Schlosser in testimony opposing the new

regulations.

The "emergency" regulations, filed on

March 29 and effective on April 8, eliminate

face-to-face interviews and confidential

mail between the media and prisoners.

Although journalists may still interview

random inmates encountered during guid-

ed tours and "visit" specific prisoners as

members of the general public, they are

barred from bringing with them any type of

recording device, including pen and paper.

The California Department of

Corrections (CDC) claims the new regula-

tions are necessary to maintain security

and to prevent criminals from becoming

"celebrities." In addition, CDC officials

contend that the interview ban spares vic-

tims emotional distress and that arranging

interviews between journalists and

inmates is inconvenient.

However, even Senator Quentin Kopp,

hardly an advocate of prisoners' rights,

finds this reasoning ludicrous; "Mr. Gomez

| Director of the CDC] conceded during the

April 11, 1996 hearing of the Senate Budget

and Fiscal Review Subcommittee #2 on the

Department of Corrections that he pos-

sessed no evidence that the media has ever

posed any danger or threat to prison securi-

ty or to any other legitimate penological |

interest," wrote Kopp in testimony submit-

Teen Abortion...

Continued from page |

The 5-2 vote to rehear the case came

with the addition of two new appointees to

the high court, Justices Ming Chin and

Janet Brown. They joined the three dis-

senters from the earlier ruling, Chief

Justice Ronald George and Associate

Justices Joyce Kennard and Kathryn

Werdegar, in calling for a reconsideration.

"Three justices who signed the order

for reconsideration have issued very pow-

erful opinions, concluding that the law is

unconstitutional," explained Crosby. "The |

statute injures the very goals it purports to

advance, the welfare of young women and |

the harmony of families, and discriminates _

against teenagers who chose the state-dis-

favored option of abortion.

"We hope that on reconsideration the

Court will protect the right of all women,

including teenagers, to decide whether to

become parents and will continue in its

tradition of interpreting the California

Constitution to protect reproductive free- _

dom," Crosby added.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of a

coalition of prestigious health care |

providers, including the

American |

Academy of Pediatrics, the California -

Medical Association, Planned Parenthood |

and the American College of Obstetricians |

and Gynecologists by the ACLU-NC, the |

National Center for Youth Law and the |

cooperating counsel from the law firm of |

Morrison and Foerster.

No date has yet been scheduled for the |

rehearing.

ted for the June 13 public hearing.

At the public hearing, not a single wit-

ness favored the new policy, and numerous

organizations spoke against it, including

the California First Amendment Coalition,

the HIV/AIDS in Prison Project, the Society

of Professional Journalists, the American

Jewish Congress and representatives from

several major media outlets.

face Interviews with Specific

Inmates -

| "All alternatives to face-to-face interviews

| are inadequate. Reliance on inmate com-

_ munication with attorneys or family visi-

| tors to get their stories to the media does

| little for the inmates who do not have an

| attorney and who do not have regular visi-

The Prohibition of Face-to-

"The expansion of the prison system

should not be accompanied by an

expansion of secrecy about its

operations."

Despite the public outcry, no senior

officials from the Corrections Department

attended the hearing and according to a

department spokesman, these officials

would probably never hear the public com-

ments.

The California Office of Administrative

Law will review the proposed CDC regula-

tions for "necessity" and "consistency" and

then send them to Governor Wilson for

approval.

Below are excerpts of the ACLU-NC tes-

timony Schlosser authored and sent to the

Chief of Regulation and _ Policy

Management at the Department of

Corrections' for the public hearing.

| tors. Although inmates are allowed to tele-

_ phone media representatives, inmates'

_ calls may be monitored, and can be cut off

| at any point in the conversation. Inmates

may have media representatives placed on

their official visiting list, but this process is

' cumbersome and lengthy, sometimes tak-

| ing weeks or even months.

Although state interest in preserving

| internal order and security within our pen-

| itentiaries remains important, social and

| political conditions have changed in a

| manner that calls into serious question the

| prohibition's importance today for the pro-

| tection of prison security. It is curious that

the most serious specific threat to prison

security relied on (the 1971 riots) predates

the alleged failed experiment with media

access to inmates.

The Abrogation of

Confidentiality for Inmates'

Letters to the Media

Unmonitored communication between

prison inmates and the press insures that

the public has access to information and

perspectives about prison conditions other

than official government sources.

The primary interest advanced by the

government in support of the elimination of

confidential media mail is the interest in

maintaining prison security.. The link

-between the preservation of our prison sys-

tem's internal security and the inspection

of outgoing correspondence from prisoners

to the media is tenuous.

The Department has suggested that the

purpose of this new restriction is to ensure

that inmates do not obtain the unwitting

cooperation of media in the planning or

commission of escapes or other crimes.'

This argument is pure speculation that is

unsupported by any evidence that the poli-

cy of confidentiality of media correspon-

dence over the past twenty years has

resulted in such security problems.

The Department has also advanced

administrative inconvenience as another

reason for amending prison policy.

Administrative inconvenience does not jus-

tify an infringement of First Amendment

rights.

Public confidence and accountability

require that the present system of media

access which has worked well over the past

twenty years, be maintained. The current

proposal is contrary to First Amendment

principles and is unsound as a matter of

public policy."

SOHOSHOHSHHOHSHSHSHHHOHSHOHHHSHSHHHHHHSHHHHSHHHSHHHHHHHHEHHHHHHHHHHHTHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH88HHHHEHSEEE

ACLU Probes Deadly Aspects

of Pepper Spray

by Maria Archuleta

ew new law enforcement technolo-

F gies have created as much controver-

sy as Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) also

known as "pepper spray." In California,

since being approved for law enforcement

use in 19938, it has been associated with

roughly one in-custody death per month

and involved in at least 85 such deaths to

date. The ACLU continues to raise ques-

tions regarding the safety and effectiveness

of pepper spray as the number of fatalities,

following its use by law enforcement, con-

tinues to grow.

The ACLU affiliates of Northern and

Southern California have been monitoring

law enforcement's use of pepper spray and

pushing for police to follow policies that

would maximize pepper spray's effective-

ness and minimize its risks. The ACLU-NC

Police Practices Project has already helped

several area police departments to over-

haul their policies and upgrade their train-

ing on pepper spray.

SFPD Use

In San Francisco, over the past two years,

the Police Commission has held several

major hearings on the use of pepper spray

and has adopted many guidelines heavily

based on ACLU-NC suggestions. However,

the Police Commission's revised policies still

are not as stringent as the ACLU would like.

"The San Francisco Police Department

and Commission have been extremely

receptive to the ACLU's concerns regarding

these issues," said ACLU-NC Police

Practices Director John Crew. "We are,

however, still urging the Department to

adopt much stronger pepper spray regula-

tions in regard to those most vulnerable to

the effects of pepper spray."

In-Custody Deaths

Crew explained, "The majority of in-cus-

tody death victims exposed to pepper spray

tend to fit a universal pattern: they exhibit

bizarre behavior (drug-induced or a result

of mental illness), do not respond to police

commands, and often become combative or

violent when confronted. Pepper spray has

no subduing effect and often actually caus-

es these individuals to act in an even more

violent and erratic manner. Certain

_ testraint and positioning methods also are

| more risky when used on this group, often

_ resulting in positional asphyxia."

The recent pepper spray related in-cus-

| tody deaths of Aaron Williams and Mark

Garcia in San Francisco - both men fitting

the pattern Crew described - have height-

_ ened law enforcement's as well as public

| awareness of the possible dangers in using

_| the chemical weapon.

The dangers of pepper spray received

national attention when the accuracy of the

main study cited by law enforcement agen-

_ cies to affirm their use of the chemical, was

- called into question. The FBI agent who

conducted the study pled guilty in February

to accepting $57,500 from a major pepper

spray manufacturer. The resulting scrutiny

of the study brought to light the fact that

the test subjects were FBI and law enforce-

ment trainees - of healthy physical condi-

tion; not members of the group most

_ vulnerable harm from the spray.

On the day of the agent's sentencing to

two months in prison, the FBI announced

that a new study of the possible health

risks of pepper spray would be prepared in

conjunction with the National Institute of

Justice.

ACLU Study

The controversy drew new attention to a

pepper spray report issued by the ACLU

affiliates of Northern and Southern

California in June of last year. The ACLU

research uncovered that California's

Environmental Protection Agency office

also saw a pattern in the deaths after police

use of pepper spray and had warned the

California Department of Justice and

Attorney General Dan Lungren of their

reservations about pepper spray and con-

cerns about its possible role in causing

fatalities. No action was taken.

In addition to other findings, the report

pointed out the critical lack of medical

research on this weapon and warnings,

| from the largest supplier of OC in

California, that serious health risks may

ensue by spraying a person with more than

a single burst of one second duration.

Since its publication, copies of the ACLU

| report have been requested by community

_ and law enforcement groups throughout

the state, country and world.

"The ACLU is not calling for a ban of

pepper spray. Instead, we have repeatedly

stressed that the use of the weapon should

be controlled by carefully defined and rig-

orously enforced policies.

"Tf officers had been thoroughly trained

and adhered to regulations designed to

minimize risk when using OC, we believe

most of the deaths associated with pepper

spray could have been avoided," Crew con-

cluded. @

ACLU News = Summer 1996 = Pace 7

Supporters of Affirmative Action Mobilize

to Defeat Ballot Initiative

Glasses were raised and checks were signed by enthusiastic affirmative

action supporters who mobilized for a successful fundraiser in San

Francisco for the "No on CCRI" campaign.

The packed event raised more than $45,000 to fight the deceptively titled

California Civil Rights Initiative slated for the November 5 ballot.

"CCRI would turn the clock back on civil rights," said ACLU-NC Chair

Dick Grosboll who organized the June 11 fundraiser. "It would ban affir-

Event organizer Dick Grosboll, Chair of the ACLU-NC, (center) with San Francisco

Chapter activists Phil Mehas (1.) and Angelo Butler.

mative action programs for women and minorities in public education,

employment and contracting and eliminate state constitutional protec-

tions against gender discrimination.

`We must defeat this measure," Grosboll told the crowd of more than 200

| guests. "And with the money that we raise here, we will be well on our way

to doing so."

Puotos BY HENRY WOON

Irving Hochman, Co-chair of the Bill of Rights Advocates Campaign, and San Francisco

| Chapter activist Florence Moore gave out hundreds of ACLU brochures and flyers for peo-

| ple to distribute in their neighborhoods.

SCOSHSHOHSHSHSHSSHSSHHSHSHSHSHSHHSHSHSHHSHSHHSHSHHHSHSHHFHHSHHSHSHSHHSHSHHSHSHSHSHHSHHHSHSHHHSSHHSHSHSHHSHSHSHSHHSHSHSHSHHSHSHSHHSHSHSHSHSHSHSHSHHSHHSHSHSHSHSSHSHSHSHSHOHSHOSHSOSSOS2SESELEES

Affitmativen ps;

LnaveActionCalitornia

Histo; ice Anetan

LETT Action ort a et

lenged by Harvey Gantt - an African

American committed to civil rights - Gantt

| would not be able raise sufficient funds

| without contributions from people outside

by a medical professional. The Medical | the state interested in encouraging the

Marijuana Initiative would end the sense- participation of under-represented groups

less criminalization of people seeking | Additionally, the enforcement of this

relief from suffering due to sickness. | proposed law would require a disclosure

The ACLU opposes laws which crimi- policy. The ACLU has a long-standing poli-

nalize the cultivation, possession, manu- cy of opposing such disclosures, as they

facturing and distribution of marijuana on | have an unreasonable chilling effect on the

the principle that the right of political

criminal law cannot be expression.

used to protect individ-

uals from the conse-

quences of their own

autonomous choices or

to impose a majoritari-

an conception of moral-

ity and responsibility.

In recent years, the

California Legislature

has passed three bills

easing the use of mari-

Juana for medical uses,

with support from the

Civil Liberties ...

Continued from page |

e ACLU opposes

laws which criminal-

ize the cultivation,

possession, manufactur-

ing and distribution of

maryuana on the princi-

ple that the criminal law

cannot be used to protect

individuals from the con-

sequences of their own

autonomous choices or to

impose a majoritarian

PROPOSITION

212 --

NEUTRAL

After lengthy analysis

and discussion of this

measure, the ACLU-NC

decided to take a neu-

tral position on the ini-

tiative. Although to

some extent this mea-

sure balances better

than the above propo-

ACLU and from both lib- : : sition the ACLU's First

eral and conservative | COMC P ion of : morality Amendment concerns

legislators. Governor | @nd responsibility. with the prevention of

Wilson vetoed all three corruption of the elec-

measures. toral process, there

was enough concern regarding the poten-

tial effects of this measure on civil liberties

for the Board to take a neutral position. In

addition, the initiative is difficult to under-

stand and its language lacks clarity; there-

fore, it does not meet the ACLU standard

that any regulation on campaign finance

be very carefully structured so as to pre-

vent infringement of First Amendment

rights.

PROPOSITION 208 -- NO

The "good government" title of this mea-

sure obscures the danger that it would do

to participatory democracy.

This initiative would limit contribu-

tions from out-of-district donors to 25% of a

candidate's donations; ban contributions

from non-profit agencies and corporations;

and cap individual contributions at $25.

The ACLU-NC opposes this initiative

because it would hinder the participation

in the electoral process of the under-repre-

sented- e.g., minority and gay/lesbian

candidates - and severely sap the ability of

minority and/or gay and lesbian candidates

to successfully mount campaigns in many

parts of the country due to lack of funding. .

For example, in the up-coming election in |

North Carolina where Jesse Helms is chal-

BALLOT UPDATES

The ACLU-NC Board of Directors is cur-

rently considering positions on other

November ballot initiatives. These posi-

tions will appear in the next edition of the

ACLU News. You can also look for updates

on our positions on the ACLU website

http://www.aclu.org or on America On-

Line at keyword "ACLU."

ACLU News = SuMMER 1996 = PacES

Teachers Focus on -

Violence in Schools |

by Jesse Ducker

eachers from around the Bay Area

[Tne at Cal State Hayward for a June

28-29 Teachers' Institute, "Helping

Educators Effectively Address the Physical

and Psychological Components of

Violence," sponsored by the Howard A.

Friedman Project of the ACLU-NC.

"The purpose of the Teachers' Institute

was to provide teachers and administra-

tors alternative ways to address violence

on campuses and to think twice before

labeling everything as gang violence,"

explained Project Director Nancy Otto.

"We aimed to give them creative ideas on

how to address conflict on campuses with-

out stepping on students' rights."

Drawing on experts from the fields of

education, law enforcement, and sociolo-

gy, the first day of the course focused on

violence in the schools. Panelists included

Professor Howard Pinderhughes of the

Department of Social and Behavioral

Sciences at UCSF; Millie Cleveland,

Project Director of the Student Conflict

Resolution Program at the West Oakland

Mental Health Center; Jim Hernandez, a

gang mediator with the City of Concord

Police Department; attorney and ACLU-

NC Board member Luz Buitrago; Haidee

Foust-Whitmore, Assistant Principal of

Homestead High School in Cupertino; Dr.

Leland Yee, President of the San Francisco

Board of Education; and Ear] Sanders,

Assistant Chief of

Police for the San

Francisco Police

Department.

The second day

highlighted ways of

creating environments

in the classroom that

allow for safe discus-

sions about lesbian ~

and gay issues and

racism. Exercises led

by Crystal Jang of

Support Services for

Lesbian and Gay Youth

in the San Francisco

Unified School District

and Steve Harrell from

Oakland Unified School

District, as well as dis-

cussions led by high

school teachers Janet

Thomas of Campolindo High School in

Moraga and Deborah Juarez of Calvin

Simmons Middle School in Oakland

allowed participants to explore methods of

introducing critical thinking about diver-

sity in the classroom.

The overall instructor for the two-day

course was longtime ACLU-NC activist

Dale Brodsky, an attorney who is currently

teaching English at Ygnacio Valley High

School in Concord. Although this is the

sixth seminar that the ACLU-NC has

offered on civil liberties issues for educa-

~o"

3s High School

Journalists

Sixth annual high sehool

journalism COnre renee

a

Wiieine Nour

Tacs

Topics will include: Combatting Censorship;

Covering Controversial Issues; Investigative

Journalism On Campus; Underground Newspapers,

Cartoons and. "Zines; Access to Information;

and Boundaries on Free Speech.

Tuesday, October 22

MartinyLuther King Jr. Student Union

(corner of Telegraph/Bancroft)

UC Berkeley

FREE

Sponsored by the ACLU-NC Howard A. Friedman

First Amendment Education Project.

To reserve a place, call 415/621-2006 ext. 37

This conference is open to all high school students

enrolled in a journalism class,

newspaper or interested in journalism.

limited - so reserve your place ASAP!

working on a student

But seating is

UC Regents Suit...

Continued from page !

and a quorum of the U.C. Board of Regents

violated the Bagley-Keene Open Meetings

Act by secretly agreeing in a series of phone

calls to eliminate affirmative action in the

University of California prior to their July

20, 1995 public session.

Tim Molloy, campus reporter for UC

Santa Barbara's Daily Nexus tried through

numerous Public Records Act requests to

gain information from the Governor about

his conversations with other Board mem-

bers in which his effort to end affirmative

action hiring and admissions programs (c)

throughout the University system was dis-

cussed.

Through a series of secret telephone

conversations to other Regents, Governor

Wilson locked up the vote on the anti-affir-

mative action resolutions ahead of time,

plaintiffs charge. The Governor then con-

tors, this was the first time academic or

continuing education credit was offered to

the participants.

Jesse Ducker is an intern with the

Friedman Project.

Nancy Orto

Panelists and participants at the Friedman Project's first accredited Teacher Training Seminar on the issue

of violence in the schools.

cealed his misconduct, falsely informing

Molloy that there had been no secret phone

calls and refusing to release the relevant

telephone records.

After Superior Court Judge William

Cahill refused to dismiss the suit, the

Governor appealed unsuccessfully to the

Court of Appeal and then to the Supreme

Court. This ruling means that the case will

now proceed to trial in Superior Court,

where, through discovery, the plaintiffs will

try to get all the documents pertaining to

the U.C. Regents' decision-making process

as well as depose Wilson and a number of

the Regents.

If the court rules that Board violated

the Open Meetings Act, the decision abol-

ishing affirmative action would be "null

and void."

The case was filed by ACLU-NC attor-

ney Ed Chen, ACLU-SC attorneys Mark

Rosenbaum, Dan Tokaji and Karl

Manheim; James Wheaton and Elizabeth

Pritzker of the First Amendment Project

and others. @

Peak News = Summer 1996 = Pace 9 =