vol. 35, no. 10

American

Civil Liberties

Union

Volume XXXV

SAN FRANCISCO, OCTOBER, 1970

No. 10

High School Students

Federal Court

Strikes Down

Leafleting Ban

A three-judge federal court, composed of Federal District.

Judges Alfonso J. Zirpoli and Robert F. Peckham and United

States Court of Appeals. Judge Oliver D. Hamlin, Jr., has

held California Education Code sections 9012 and 9013 un-

constitutional.

Section 9012 provides that:

"No publication of a sectarian

partisan, or denominational

character shall be distributed,

displayed, or used for sec-

tarian, partisan, or denomina-

tional purposes on_ school

premises, but such publica-

tions may be used in school

library collections and for

legitimate instructional pur-

poses."

Section 9013 prohibits the dis-

tribution on school premises of

any publication the purpose of

which is to "spread propaganda."

It further prohibits the distrib-

ution on school premises of any

publication "or article of any

character, the purpose of which

is to foster membership in or

subscription to the funds of any

organization not directly under

the control of the school authori-

ties" unless the organization is

is "nonpartisan" and the govern-

ing board of the school district

has approved the distribution.

Unofficial Newspaper Banned

The suit was filed by Everett

Rowe, a San Jose attorney, on

behalf of his son who had been

denied permission by the Camp-

bell High Schoo] District to dis-

tribute an "unofficial" newspa-

per dealing with school activites.

While the suit was pending the

newspaper was distributed pur-

suant to a restraining order is-

sued by Judge Peckham,

ACLUNC, represented by vol-

unteer attorney Stephen M, Ten-

nis of San Francisco and Paul

Halvonik, filed a brief in the

case and participated in argu-

ment as a friend-of-the-court in

support of high school students.

' Basic Principles

In reaching its conclusion the

federal court announced these

basic principles regarding the

rights of high school students:

1. Students are "persons"

within the meaning of the

Constitution and are posses-

sed of fundamental. rights

which are not lost in school,

2. Students are not the "closed

circuit recipients of only

that which the state wishes

to communicate; they may

not be confined to officially-

approved sentiments.

3. Student freedom of speech

includes personal inter-

communication of contro-

versial ideas,

4. School officials have the

burden of showing consti-

tutionally-valid justifica-

tions for limitations on stu-

dent speech.

5. A generalized fear or appre-

hension of a disturbance is

not a constitutionally ade-

quate justification, A desire

to avoid the expression of

controversial or unpopular

ideas or the discomfort and

unpleasantness which ac-

company them is not a con-

stitutionally adequate justi-

fication.

6. School officials must dem-

onstrate that the prohibited

speech would have actually

caused substantial and ma-

teria] disruption of, or in-

terference with, classwork,

or with the requirements of

discipline appropriate to

the operation of the school,

Reasonable time, place and

manner regulations regard-

ing expression of ideas oral-

ly or in writing are per-

missible, as they are in any

other public institution or

facility.

"Impermissibly Broad"

When measured against those

principles section 9012 and

9013, the Court said, are "im-

permissibly broad, They prevent

the exercise of First Amendment

rights in the schools without re-

gard to disturbance or disrup-

tion of legitimate educational ac-

tivities. They take no account of

a student's rights of personal in-

tercommunication. Under these

statutes so innocent and innocu-

ous a document as a leaflet ex-

plaining one's First Amendment

rights or urging students to

write their Congressmen on

some current issue would be,

and indeed have been, prohib-

ited."

Permissible Regulations

In addition to striking down

the code sections the court also

invalidated a Campbell School

Board resolution which prohib-

ited the distribution of publica-

tions without prior consent of the

school board, Although holding

the statutes and school regulation ~

unconstitutionally overbroad pri-

- or restraints, the Federal Court

did not foreclose schools from

adopting some prior restraints of -

communications on school

grounds, Time, place and man-

ner regulations, it noted, would

adopting some prior restraints on

obscenity and incitement to un-

lawful action, if narrowly drawn,

may receive Federal Court im-

primatur, The Court gave the

school officials ninety days in

which to submit new regulations

that conform to those standards.

Joseph S.

Thompson, Hon.

Treasurer, Dies

Joseph S. Thompson, Honorary

Treasurer of ACLUNC, died last

month at the age of 92. Thomp-

son joined what was then called

the Executive Committee of the

ACLU around 1940 when he was

President of the Pacific Electric

Manufacturing Co. He was Treas-

urer of the local branch of the

ACLU for many years.

Joe, as he was known, was a

friendly man who had a story for

every occasion. He served on

countless boards and was at one

time president of the San Fran-

cisco Symphony and the Bohem-

ian Club.

Thompson was an ardent sup-

porter of the Single Tax ideas of

Henry George. Indeed, a couple

of months before his death he

sent to the ACLU office for dis-

tribution to the branch board a

supply of his latest pamphlet en-

titled, "Simple Talks on Taxa-

tion."

Aclunc Attacks

Abuse of

Contempt Power

Sidney Buegeleisen, a San

Francisco cab driver, was recent-

ly arrested for several Vehicle

Code violations, He and the ar-

resting officers had heated words

at the scene. He pleaded not

guilty and, in a trial before

Judge Charles Goff in the San

Francisco Municipal Court, made

the following statement: "When

this officer wrote me this ticket,

I called him a liar right to his

face, and I will call him a liar

right now." Instantly Judge Goff

found him in contempt of court.

Buegeleisen, who was defending

himself, was quite surprised and

attempted to apologize to the

court, The apology was refused.

The judge thereupon imposed

the maximum fine of $500 for

contempt and a five day suspend-

ed jail sentence.

Ever since In re Hallinan, de-

cided by the State Supreme

Court in 1969, it has been the law

of California that a sentence for

direct contempt (which requires

no trial at all) cannot be im-

posed without warning the po-

tential contemnor or without ac-

cepting a reasonable apology.

This should be especially true

where the language used is rela-

tively mild and its user is a lay-

man defending himself.

ACLUNC is therefore preparing

a habeas corpus petition for Mr.

Buegeleisen asserting an arbi-

trary and illegal abuse of the

contempt power by Judge Goff.

Hearing Refused

In Student Case

The case of Richard Perlman,

a student suspended and later

expelled from Shasta Junior Col-

lege, has been turned down by

the state Supreme Court. In an

action described in the August

ACLU NEWS the Court of Ap-

peal overturned his expulsion

but ruled that the suspension pro-

ceedings did not violate due pro-

cess. Because of the state Su-

preme Court's refusal to hear

the case, both those rulings will

stand.

Anti-Busing Law

Challenged in

State High Court

On September 14 at 11:00 a.m. Governor Ronald Reagan

signed Assembly Bill 551 (the Wakefield bill) which provides:

"No governing board of a school district shall require

any student or pupil to be transported for any purpose

or for any reason without

the parent or guardian."

At 3:00 in the afternoon of the

same day, as the ink was drying,

the San Francisco Unified School

District, supported by ACLUNC,

filed a challenge to the law in the

State Supreme Court. The suit

was prepared by San Francisco

attorneys Jerome B. Falk, Jr. (an

ACLUNC Board member) and

William F. McCabe, in consulta-

tion with ACLUNC's staff attor-

neys Paul Halvonik and Charles

Marson. Falk and McCabe as well

as Stanford law professor An-

thony G. Amsterdam (another

ACLUNC Board member) were

specially appointed by the school

board to represent them in the

litigation.

S.F. Busing Plan Held Up

Respondent in the suit is Donald

Johnson, Complex Planning Of-

ficial for the San Francisco Uni-

fied School District. Johnson's

duties include formulation of

plans for the implementation of

San Francisco's school integra-

tion program. The first part of

that program has already gone

into effect, the second portion is

scheduled for January. Johnson

must requisition a computer study

showing present school assign-

ments for pupils if the January

portion of the integration plan is

to be implemented. Johnson, how-

ever, has refused to requisition

the computer study because he

thinks the plan, since it includes

the busing of students to achieve

racial balance in the schools, may

violate A.B. 551. The school board

has asked the Supreme Court to

instruct Johnson that he must

obey their order to begin imple-

mentation of the integration plan

on the grounds that 1) A.B. 551

is not inconsistent with the plan

or 2) A.B. 551 is unconstitutional.

Read literally, A-B. 551 will not

hinder programs to achieve the

racial integration by means of

busing. A.B. 551. simply prohibits

"comnpulsory busing'? and com-

pulsory busing does not exist in

San Francisco or, as far as we

know, anywhere in California. All

State Supreme Court Stays

Trial of Seaside Paraders

The City of Seaside annually holds a 4th of July parade

and annually delegates. its organization, together with the

power to grant permits, to the Seaside Chamber of Com-

merce. This year five peace-oriented groups applied to march

in the parade. They were Women for Peace, Veterans for

Peace, and the Monterey Penin-

sula College Committee for

Peace, After much negotiation

and the promulgation of new

rules forbidding signs and cos-

tumes that would be "unpatriot-

ic', the applications were even-

tually denied, Some of the mem-

bers of the group marched for a

few blocks anyway, receiving

mild harrassment from the Sea-

side Police. :

No Standards

Eleven days later, spokesmen

for these groups entered the

Seaside City Council chamber to

protest their treatment, They

were cited for violation of a mu-

nicipal ordinance forbidding

blocking the street without a

permit, The ordinance contains

no limitation on the reasons why

Seaside officialdom can grant or

deny permits and is therefore

fairly clearly unconstitutional.

The 19 defendants attempted to

prevent their trial by seeking a

writ of prohibition in the Mon-

terey Superior Court, The appli-

cation was denied. The defend-

ants are represented by Herbert

Schwartz, Richard Barelli of the

Monterey Public Defender's of-

fice, Raymond Shonholtz and

Steve Slatkow. The latter two

are defendants themselves.

ACLUNC Intervenes

ACLUNC filed on their behalf

a writ of prohibition in the Court

of Appeal seeking to stop the

trials on the ground that the

statute under which the defend-

ants were being prosecuted is

unconstitutional on its face. The

trials were to begin on Tuesday,

September 22. On Friday, Sep-

tember 18, the Court of Appeals

denied the petition. That same

day a similar petition was filed

in the State Supreme Court to-

gether with an application for a

stay of trial pending the Court's

decision, On Monday, September

21, the Supreme Court granted a

stay of the trials while it consid-

ers the petition. ACLUNC is

hopeful that the ordinance will

be struck down.

the written permission of

that is compulsory is education

itself, no one is forced to get on a

bus. The buses are simply made

available for the convenience of

students and their parents; any-

one who wishes to use them may

or may not, if he so desires, use

alternative means of transporta-

tion. as long as the student ar-

rives at the appropriate schoo] at

the apprpriate time, the school

ig unconcerned with his choice

of conveyance, Although A.B.

551, if read literally, will not af-

fect school integration it is clear

that many of its supporters, in-

cluding its author, Assemblyman

Floyd Wakefield (R-South Gate)

and Governor Ronald Reagan in-

tended by its enactment to influ-

ence not only how students reach

school but the manner in which

they are assigned to school. In its

original form, A.B. 551 provided:

"No governing board of a

school district shall bus any

student for the purpose of in-

tegration without written per-

mission of the parent or guard-

jan."'

Wakefield has contended that

when he amended the bill he did

not intend to change its effect

but was simply trying to make it

"more constitutional.'' (``More

constitutional" is conceptually

equivalent to "`a little bit preg-

nant.'') But if Wakefield's intent

is read into the bill, the school

board (and ACLUNC) contend,

then the bill is unconstitutional.

The United States Supreme Court

has placed the burden on school

boards to eliminate segregation

"branch and root'? and the state

may not interfere with the dis-

charge of that constitutional duty.

Fulfilling Brown Decision

The school board has asked the

Supreme Court to exercise its

original jurisdiction and decide

the case as expeditiously as pos-

sible. In support of that plea,

staff counsel Paul Halvonik, in an

amicus curiae brief filed simul-

taneously with the suit, observes

that:

"Since the rendition of Brown

v. Board of Education an entire

generation of students have

passed through racially segre-

gated public schools. To- them

Brown has been nothing but an-

other paragraph in their history

texts, another paragraph ex-

pressing laudable sentiments-

but totally at variance with the

world around them. There have

been woefully few exceptions to

this general state of things in

the nation or in California.

Among the exceptions, Berke-

ley, of course, comes immedi-

ately to mind and now San

Francisco has recognized its ob-

ligation at least to begin the

process of uprooting [segrega-

tion]. But in making this com-

mendable, but hardly precipi-

tory, step in compliance with

the Brown decision, the peti-

tioners now find a new obstacle

`in their way: A.B. 551; a law

which may thwart a rather

modest beginning at fulfilling

the Brown promise. The step

San Francisco wishes to take is

deliberate. Sixteen years is not

speedy on anyone's temporal

scale but. surely, anv barriers

to the integration of San Fran-

cisco's schools must be re-

moved as speedily as possible

if there is to be anv vitality to

the Brown decision."

At this writing, the California

Supreme Court has not indicated

whether it will agree to hear the

case.

URDAY, OCTOBER 17%,

that reservation.

gramming including:

1-due process,

agencies or personnel

ete.

to:

ACLUNC

593 Market Street

San Francisco, Ca. 94105

order a lunch for me (at $1.50)

name

All Chapter Conference

Saturday, October 17

MEMBERS ACTIVE IN CHAPTERS ARE URGED TO RE-

SERVE SPACE AT THE CHAPTER CONFERENCE, SAT-

FROM 9:00-4:30 AT THE FRIENDS

HOUSE IN SAN FRANCISCO. Lunch will be provided for

$1.50 and a packet of materials will be sent to all who re-

turn the coupon below or call Carol Weintraub (433-2750)

before October 12; those planning on attending must make

This year's agenda includes morning workshops in areas of

Chapter functioning, to follow descriptions of each Chapter's

programs and activities during the past year. There will

be a panel debate on ACLU's role in the civil liberties issues

of today, and afternoon workshops in areas of Chapter pro.

repressive or unresponsible government

2-community complaint centers, ombudsmen

3-implementing ACLU policies on Indochina, the draft,

The Conference is designed to meet the needs of the Chap-

ters. All members of Chapter Boards and those active on

Chapter committees are urged to attend, as are all Branch

Board members. Other ACLUNC members will be welcome,

facilities permitting, if they notify Carol Weintraub at the

office by October 12. Comments on last year's Chapter Con-

ference indicated enthusiasm for the day's activities, so in-

sure your attendance by mailing the coupon below or phon-

- ing the ACLUNC office, 433-2750, immediately.

Carol Weintraub, Chapter Director

I plan to participate in the Chapter Conference on Saturday,

October 17. I am a member of the

Chapter and (do----) (do not-----) want you to

mail before Oct. 9 or

phone 433-2750 before

October 12, 1970

address

day telephone

Chapter Status

Extended To

Oakland Council

The branch board of directors

granted chapter status to the

Oakland Council at its September

meeting. Organized as the Oak-

land Area Council in June, 1968,

it now becomes the Oakland

Chapter with jurisdiction in Oak-

land, Alameda, Piedmont and

San Leandro. There are now

twelve ACLUNC chapters besides

the San Francisco Council.

The chapter's Board of Direc- .

tors meets the first Tuesday of

each month in the Sumitomo

Bank in Oakland. Members re-

siding in the chapter area who

wish to become actively involved

in the chapter's work should con-

tact the chairman, Michael Cop-

persmith, 562-6418.

Nom. Comm.

Must Make

Progress Rep'ts

At the branch board's Septem-

ber meeting the By-Laws were

amended to require the Nominat-

ing Committee to make progress

reports at the December and Jan-

uary meetings and to provide ``a

written resume or summary of |

qualification with regard to each

prospective nominee'' at the Jan-

uary meeting. Final action on

nominations is taken: by the

Board at the February meeting.

._ The Nominating Committee

this year is composed of Michael

Traynor and Don Vial,

members, and non-board mem-

bers Mrs. Annette Bode, Mrs.

Zora Gross and Dr. William

Reiss.

_ he new language in the By-

Laws reads as follows:

"The Nominating Committee

shall make a progress or interim

report to the Board at both the

December and January meetings

of the Board. Said progress or

interim reports shall be made

prior to any commitment having

been made by the Nominating

Committee to any prospective

nominee with regard to appoint-

ment to the Board.

ACLU NEWS

OCTOBER, 1970

Page 2

board ~

Rules On

Attendance At

Board Meetings

On the recommendation of its

Priorities Committee, the branch

Board of Directors at the Sep-

tember meeting adopted the fol-

lowing regulations governing at-

tendance of ACLUNC members

and Board guests at board meet-

ings:

1. Members of ACLUNC or

guests of Board members may

attend Board meetings.

2. Members or guests may

`speak at Board meetings at the

discretion of the Chair.

3. a. The. Board reserves the

right to have an executive ses-

sion and to invite staff or others

to remain by ruling of the Chair,

or by majority vote of the Board.

b. That the press may at-

tend only with the approval of the

Chair or by majority vote of the

Board.

4. That the rule that visitors

are to sit in a gallery and not

at the Board table is to be strict-

ly enforced.

Vacancies On

S. F. Council

Bd. of Directors

A few vacancies exist on the

Board of Directors of the San

Francisco Council, which meets

the first Sunday evening of each

month, Members who are serious

about participating on the Coun.

cil Board and on Committees

are asked to contact Ron Sipherd,

776-2324; minority group mem-

bers particularly welcome.

"At the January meeting of

the Board, the Nominating Com-

mittee shall present to the Board

a written resume or summary of

qualifications with regard to each

prospective nominee then under

consideration by the Nominating

Committee, copies of which will

be available to each Board mem-

ber. The Committee shall report

its recommendations to the Board

of Directors at the February

meteing. The proposed nomina-

tions shall then be subject to ap-

proval or change by the Board

of Directors at the said meeting,

said vote to be conducted by

closed ballot.''

Letters to the Editor

ACLU, Etc., Etce., Etc.

Editor:

During the years I have been

a member of the American Civil

Liberties Union, I have .taken

pride in the single-minded way

in which the ACLU guarded civil

liberties. It derived its strength

and its credibility, and whatever

influence it had from the non-

partisan, non-political manner in

which it adhered to. its monistic

goal.

Today I am less proud and

the ACLU is less potent, thanks

to that portion of its leadership

that has achieved the pretzel po-

sition of being right thinking

and wrong minded.

I, too, would like to see the

Indo China War end, but there

are abundant organizations dedi-

cated to that objective. For the

ACLU to take a position in so

highly political a matter on the

ground that it has an impact on

civil liberties is flimsy and de-

structive to the real aims of the

organization. As well denounce

North Vietnam on the ground

that its existence has an impact

on the anti-civil liberties con-.

duct of the John Birch Society

and other rightist organizations.

Is there so little to do in the

field of civil liberties that the

ACLU must also express concern

over the "right" of addicts to

use narcotics? To go any further

afield than such recent activi-

ties, one would have to defend

the "right" of entrepreneurs to

make money by crowding work-

ers into firetraps and the "right"

of toilers to take such jobs.

Please, let's not have to re-

name it the American Civil Lib-

erties Union, Etcetera, Etcetera,

Etcetera. - Morton Sontheime,

New York City,

Counting Noses

Editor:

As you seem to be counting

noses, put me down as agreeing

with you entirely on the nation-

al's action in opposing the Viet-

nam war. I belong to several

organizations with just that ob- -

ject, but the ACLU should not

be one of them. There is noth-

ing to take its place if it ab-

sconds from its proper reason for

being.

Of course, I'm not going to

resign, as some of the objectors

did (or cut the N.C. branch out

of my will), but I do hope you

ean do something effective about

changing the national's action.

-Mrs. Maynard Shipley, San

Francisco.

Stay in the Group

Editor:

I am not favorably impressed

by those who, like Louisa May

Alcott's Aunt March, ride off in .

high dudgeon, resigning or

threatening to resign from an

organization which has taken

some action of which they don't

approve.

The August issue of the NEWS

carried a baker's dozen letters

to the editor, all of which decried

the National Board's opposition

to the war in Indochina, and

some of which included resig-

nations - one terminating a

membership of nearly 40 years,

apparently because of a single

disputed action. This doesn't

make sense to me, If an organiza-

tion is worthy of 40 years of

support, why not stay in. the

group and help carry on all of

the other ACLU programs, mean-

while using persuasion to get

others to understand your point

of view.

I have observed that the "anti"

people in any organization or

group are usually quicker to

write letters expressing their

views than are the "pro" people,

who probably assume that their

support is not needed. Thus I

ean't assume that the letters to

the editor which were printed in

the August issue are at all rep-

resentative of the membership.

-James G. Hupp, Orinda.

Supports Board

Editor: I am one ACLU mem-

ber who completely supports the

decision of the Board of Directors

to endorse the national board's

statement opposing the Indochina

War.

The general principle that ev-

ery organization should concen-

trate its efforts in its own field

is a good one. But it seems to

me that any organization. con-

cerned in any way with preser-

ving or improving the quality of

life in this country has to face

the fact that little progress can

be made as long as that illegal,

immoral, and totally obscene

war is allowed to continue.

I hope that this letter support-

ing the Board will appear in the

NEWS. As a reader, it appeared

to me that the editor rather took

advantage of his position to see

that his point of view got a sub-

stantial amount of space.-R. L.

Arnold, Berkeley

The editor did not stack the

deck! ALL letters concerning the

controversial resolution have been

published.-Editor.

Short-Sighted Action -

Editor: I fully agree with the

important views of E. B..in the

July issue on the subject of the

ACLU taking a position on the

Vietnam war or on. any political

issue other than protection of civ-

il liberties. Add my name to

those who wrote letters of sup-

port published in your August

issue. I am sure the list of dis-

senters from the Board's action

is much longer than those who

took the trouble to write.

If the ACLU is to become a po-

litical organization advocating po-

sitions other than the protection

of civil liberties under the Consti-

tution, it will suffer badly. So

will those who need its protection.

To the extent that it favors ad-

vocates of a particular position,

the Union` will weaken, or will

certainly be accused of weaken-

ing, the protection it offers to

opponents of that political issue.

_In fact, it soon may be seriously

doubted that a questioner, or op-

ponent, of the ACLU'S political

position will be able to adequate-

ly arouse its defense for his right -

to question or oppose.

ACLU has distinguished itself

in the past for its impartial de-

fense of advocates of all political

positions. As we have painfully

learned in recent decades, this

right of expression of all view-

points is the most valuable as-

pect of our political system, and

it is constantly threatened. To

now become a political partisan,

no matter how well-motivated,

will be self-defeating.

I hope the Board's members .

will take the time to reflect on

the significance of their short-

sighted action. They should re-

consider and get the Union back

on course. Otherwise, the Union

is headed for a different role. In

the name of liberty, liberals have

often become tyrants.-Ernest H.

Norback, Menlo Park

Madness

Editor:

After nine years of ACLUNC

membership I feel compelled to

tender my resignation in protest

over the ACLUNC Board of Di-

rectors' vote endorsing the na-

tional board's statement opposing

the Indochina War. Mr, Besig's

letter in the July News said all

I would have said.

What prompted this madness is

beyond me, Just count me out

and strike my name from the

membership rolls. Not so re-

spectfully-Earle A. Partington,

Staff Attorney, San Diego De-

fender Project,

Consulting Membership

Editor:

I write to express my objec-

tions to the Board's vote con-

cerning the war in Southeast

Asia. My objections parallel the

arguments of Ernest Besig in

the July 1970 ACLU News, but

I have a further specific ground:

The Board appeared to recog-

nize that taking a stand on a

_ non civil liberties issue was a de-

parture from the tradition and

purposes of the ACLU, but no

accommodation to this fact was

made in the method of decision-

making. The Board presumably

represents and speaks for the

members of ACLU. On an issue

so highly divisive, and a depart-

ure so significant, the Board

should not act without consult-

ing the membership.

Obviously, a ballot on this is-

sue could be presented to the

membership, either in the ACLU

News, or by a special mailing. Or

the Board could establish a sub-

sidiary organization within the

ACLU, with purposes including

opposition to the war, and the

ACLU membership given the

right to check off (and/or pay

extra dues, to finance activities)

whether they wish to belong to

this organization as well as to

the ACLU.

May I respectfully urge that

this matter be given attention

and consideration at the next

meeting of the Board. - George

Gregory, Palo Alto.

Polling Membership

Editor:

I am writing you in regard to

your action of July opposing the

Indochina war.

While I am also in opposition

to this war, I feel that the ACL-

UNC in taking such a position

has violated its commitment to

political neutrality. Once such a

step has been taken, there are

no real limits to the organiza-

tion's possible support for any -

number of worthwhile causes.

An action of this magnitude

`should have only been under-

taken after a polling of the mem-

bership. Unfortunately, the only

way you leave me to register my

opinion is through my withdraw-

al of support.

It is therefore with regret that

after an association of some

years I ask you to remove my

name from your membership

list-Richard 0O. Willetts, San

Anselmo.

"Come Back, Mr, Carpenter"

Editor:

Please accept my strong pro-

test against your 14 correspond-

ents who oppose the ACLUNC

stand against the Vietnam war.

The ACLUNC not only has a

right, but a solemn duty to at-

tack this conflict as unconstitu-

tional, and to fight forced servi-

tude in uniform with the same

vigor it fights mandatory hair-

cuts and prison racism. Let us

hope Mr. Nixon appoints no

more "strict constructionists'" be-

fore the U. S, Supreme Court

has a chance to confirm this.

The argument that in this ac-

tion the ACLU has become, in

the public's eye, "just another

political-liberal organization" is,

in the patois of our day, the ul-

timate cop-out. To Mr. Agnew's

know -nothing silent majority,

there never has been any dif-

ference between civil libertarians

and followers of Karl Marx. But

surely the rest of us do not feel

that peace is "political."

Are church members resign-

ing because their denominational

-Continued on Page 4

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION NEWS

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Second Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, California

ERNEST BESIG.. . Editor

593 Markket Street, San Francisco, California 94105, 433-2750

Subcription Rates - Two Dollars and Fifty Cents a Year

Twenty-Five Cents Per Copy

GE 151

Alviso Election Voided

Chicanos Win

In California

Supreme Court

In 1968 the City of Alviso held an election to determine

whether that city should consolidate with the City of San

Jose. The election was of great significance to the substantial (c)

Chicano population in Alviso because if the consolidation

were successful their chances for an effective voice in gov-

ernment was greatly diminished.

Proponents of consolidation did

win the election but by only

nine votes.

' Nine Illegal Votes

Suit was brought by Jesus Ca-

nales and other Alviso Chicanos

to invalidate the election. A

number of election frauds were

alleged and a number of irregu-

larities were proved. Perhaps

most significant it was estab-

lished that nine votes (the mar-

gin of vitcory) had been cast il-

legally. Moreover, the nine vot-

ers had all signed the petition

to place the consolidation elec-

tion on the ballot.

Equal Distribution

The Chicanos lost their con-

test in the Santa Clara County

Superior Court, The Superior

Court Judge held that there was

no evidence that the nine illegal

votes had been cast in favor of

consolidation and, following

earlier California precedents, he

distributed the illegal votes

equally to each side, Consolida-

tion thus remained the victor by

four and a half votes.

The California Court of Ap-

peal upheld the Superior Court

and the contestants' attorney,

Ephraim Margolin of San Fran-

cisco, petitioned the California

Supreme Court for review. That

Court agreed to hear. the con-

test and ACLUNC filed a friend-

of-the-court brief in support of

the contestants.

Constitutional Issue

The ACLUNC brief, prepared

by Neil Horton of Berkeley and

staff counsel Pau] Halvonik, con-

tended that the Fourteenth

Amendment's command of "one

man, one vote" requires an elec-

tion to be set aside whenever

contestants have established that

there is a "substantial likeli-

hood" that the number of illegal

votes cast exceed the number of

votes by which the election was

carried. In other words, when it

appears likely that an election

was stolen the fundamental right

of franchise has been violated.

Circumstantial Evidence

The Supreme Court, however,

concluded that it need not reach

the constitutional issue posed by

ACLUNC because it could re-

verse the trial court determina-

tion on the basis of state law.

The state law grounds for re-

versal were an innovation, The

Court held that a voter's signa-

ture on a petition urging that an

issue be put on the ballot so that

a certain result may be obtained

is circumstantial evidence tend-

ing to establish that he in fact

voted in favor of that result.

Once it was shown that the il-

legal voters had signed the peti-

tion, the burden shifted to those

benefiting from the election to

establish that the illegal voters

had not voted in favor of con-

solidation, Ju stice Raymond

Peters, writing for the majority,

stated that "although' an elector

who signed the petition may sub-

sequently have changed his

mind, respondents made no ef-

for to show that this ever oc-

cured in fact. As a result the rec-

ord clearly contains substantial

evidence tending to show that

all nine illegal votes were cast

in favor of consolidation, and ab-

solutely no evidence to the con-

trary. Accordingly, this judge-

ment must be reversed for lack

of any evidentiary support."

Dissenting Opinion

Justice Lewis Burke, joined

by Chief Justice Donald Wright

and Justice Marshall McComb,

filed a dissenting opinion ex-

pressing the view that the con-

testants had not sufficiently met

their burden of showing that the

illegal votes had been cast in fa-

vor of consolidation.

The effect of the Supreme

Court opinion is to return the

case to the Superior Court for

retrial. In that retrial judg-

ment will have to be entered for

contestants, and the election

voided, unless the respondents

bring forth evidence to rebut the

presumption that the illegal

voters cast their ballots for con-

solidation.

Sacramento Barb

Court of Appeal

An appeal to the Sacramento

division of the California Court of

Appeal has been filed requesting

that Court to prohibit the prose-

cution of John Westley Young, a

Berkeley Barb vendor, for alleg-

edly violating a Sacramento

County ordinance prohibiting the

"hawking of goods, wares [and]

merchandise . . ."' on public roads

or highways.

Young was arrested while sell-

ing the Barb while sitting on a

sidewalk about three or four feet

off the roadway.

ACLU Suit to

Ban on Vietnam

Assembly Upheld

By Appeals Court

The United States Court of Ap-

peals' has upheld a Federal Dis-

trict Court's dismissal of an

ACLUNC case challenging a U.C.

Regents' rule which prohibits the

use of University facilities for

"unlawful'' activities. The rule

was used to prohibit a U.C.

Berkeley meeting in which a stu-

dent and faculty group known as

Campus Draft Opposition had in-

tended to proclaim their solidar-

ity with those who manifested

their opposition to the war in Viet-

nam by resisting the draft. Gen-

eral counsel Cunningham of U.C.

ruled that such an assembly

would be an `unlawful' activity

in that it would violate federal

laws proscribing the aiding and

abetting of draft-evading. (c)

The Court of Appeals decision

holds that universities may en-

force prior restraints upon speech

and assembly broader in scope

than many other governmental

entities and that persons who wish

to use University facilities are not

entitled to the same safeguards

as persons using other facilities.

Staff counsel Paul Halvonik,

who represented the Campus

Draft Opposition on the appeal,

is preparing a petition asking the

United States Supreme Court to

review the decision.

Case to

In the brief on appeal Clyde

Blackmon, ACLUNC volunteer

Sacramento attorney, contends

that the ordinance is an uncon-

stitutionally overbroad violation

of the First Amendment. The pub-

lic streets, roadways and adja-

cent areas, he notes, are the prin-

cipal forum for the exercise of

the right of free expression by

those who do. not have access to

the established media and the

state may not legally foreclose all

First Amendment use of that

forum.

Invalidate

Residency Requirement

Peter and Nancy Keane, husband and wife, moved to

San Francisco from Texas in late November of 1969. They

immediately set up residence in the city and applied to the

State Bar of California for examination for admission to

practice law. Both are graduates of Southern Methodist

University Law School. In their

applications for admission to the

bar they executed a statement,

under penalty of perjury, stating

that they were `"`bona. fide resi-

dents'' of California continuously

from November of 1969. They

passed their bar examinations,

were admitted to practice law in

California and are now in fact

practicing law in California. Even

though they are members of the

California Bar and residents of

California as far as the Bar As-

sociation is concerned, the San

Francisco Registrar of Voters has

refused to register them to vote

in the upcoming general election.

The Registrar bases his refusal

on a provision of the State Consti-

tution that requires as a qualifi-

cation for voting, that one be

a resident of the State for at

least one year preceding an elec-

tion. The Keane's missed filling

that requirement by but a few:

weeks. se

Unreasonable Qualification

ACLUNC's staff attorneys, Paul

Halvonik and Charles Marson,

brought suit on the Keane's be-

half in the San Francisco Su-

perior Court naming Emmery,

Mihaly, Registrar of Voters, as

respondent. The suit asked the

court to declare the one-year res-

idency qualification unconstitu-

tional as an unreasonable and un-

constitutional infringement on the

fundamental right to vote. Su-

perior Court Judge Robert W.

Merrill denied the petition, hold-

ing that the one-year qualifica-

tion was "reasonable" and did

not infringe any of petitioners'

constitutional rights. Halvonik

and Marson then shifted the liti-

gation to the Supreme Court of

California -which referred the

case to the State Court of Ap-

peal. That court expedited the

matter, heard oral arguments,

and has taken the matter under

submission for decision.

Absurd Assumption

The Keane petition points out

that the effect of the law has

been to penalize them by with-

drawing a sacred constitutional

right because they have moved

to California. The state may not

infringe either the right to vote

or the right of interstate move-

ment unless it can show some

compelling and overriding inter-

est that its infringement pro-

motes. The usual justification

given for a one-year residency |

requirement is that it ensures an

"informed and intelligent'? elec-

torate. It is absurd to suggest

that members of the California

Bar are not sufficiently informed

and intelligent to participate in

the California election process.

Moreover, `in these times of in-

stant electronic communication,

it's equally absurd to suggest that

any one has to spend a year in a

`state in order to become ac-

quainted with the pertinent polit-

ical issue and personalities.

Halvonik and Marson have been

assisted in the preparation of the

Keane litiation by Mrs. Deborah

Hinkle, ACLUNC's summer legal

intern.

Symbolic Free Speech

Flag Desecration

Cases Before Two

Superior Courts

In May of this year, Gregory Allinson, in order to wear

an American flag as a poncho, directed a young lady to cut

a hole in his replica of the flag. The following day he wore

the poncho-flag to the Lassen College campus where he was

enrolled as a student. Attached to the poncho-flag were a

peace button, a button critical ot

Governor Reagan and a button

with the inscription `America,

change it or lose it.''

Action Explained

After entering the campus AI-

Hair Setbacks

In Two Federal

Court Cases

Two federal district court de-

cisions have set back a long cam-

paign to rid state agencies of

rules regulating haircut fashions

based on reasons other than le-

gitimate job requirements.

The first case involved Steve

Wood and his fellow male stu-

dents at Woodland High School.

After a two-day trial in April,

Judge Philip C, Wilkins ruled

that the haircut regulation at

Woodland High School wag not

"arbitrary and capricious" and

was therefore constitutional and

permissable, The decision re-

flects an increasing reluctance

among the federal district courts

to intervene in hair disputes: of

the last 20 reported cases easily

the majority have gone for the

school.

Rule Justified

ACLUNC was successful in

showing at trial that the school's

attempted connection between

the plaintiff.and SDS, various ar-

son attempts at the school, and

various incidents of disruption

were manufactured for the pur-

poses of the litigation. One inci-

dent, however, did occur: after

the lawsuit was filed a few stu-

dents surrounded the _ plaintiff

and threatened to cut his hair.

Although the students them-

selves testified that their actions

were in jest and it was argued

that events after the lawsuit was

field could not retroactively val-

idate a rule invalid at the time

the action was brought, Judge

Wilkins held that one event suf-

ficient to permit school authori-

ties to conclude that hostility to

longer hair could justify a rule

prohibiting it.

The decision, although consis-

tent with many recent district

court decisions, is inconsistent

with Olff v. East Side Union

High School District, a case won _

by ACLUNC in San Jose, and

several other cases, The decision

will be appealed.

Fire Department

The other case involved the

San Francisco Fire Department

and its rule against moustaches

extending beyond the corners of

the mouth and sideburns extend-

ing beyond the middle of the

ear. In that case ACLUNC

brought suit on behalf of fire-

man Robert Burrows claiming

before Judge Alfonso Zirpoli of

the federal district court in San

Francisco that the rule had no

relationship to any safety fac-

tors or any legitimate state in-

terest and was therefore uncon-

stitutional, Although agreeing

with the legal theory of the

plaintiffs case, Judge Zirpoli

was convinced by the Fire De-

partment at an evidentiary hear-

ing that the mask firemen are

required to wear to protect them

from smoke inhalation might be

interfered with by the growing

of the disputed facial hair. Judge

Zirpoli is being asked next

month to modify that ruling at

least insofar as it pertains to

moustaches.

linson was approached by a fel-

low student who said that a teach-

er had requested Allinson to ex-

plain to his class the reasons why

he was wearing an American

flag. The teacher made some re-

marks about ``symbolic speech''

and then introduced Allinson to

the class. Allinson spoke and a

discussion ensued.

Police Informed

Some fellow students, who were

upset by the wearing of a flag,

informed the police who came to

the campus and took Allinson into

custody. While in custody Allin-

son explained to the police that

"he was wearing the flag in mem-

ory or honor of the parents of

some youths that had been slain

in campus disorders.''

After a trial by jury, Allinson

was found guilty of violating sec-

tion 614(d) of the California Mili-

tary and Veterans Code which

provides that any person who:

`Publicly mutilates, defaces,

defiles, or tramples any [Amer-

ican] flag."

is guilty of a misdemeanor.

The probation department rec-

ommended probation for Allinson

but the trial court, instead, sen-

tenced him to 120 days in the

county jail and fined him $500.00.

Amicus Brief

Allinson's attorney, George Pan-

cera of Susanville, promptly ap-

pealed the conviction to the Ap-

pellate Department of the Lassen

County Superior Court. ACLUNC

staff counsel Paul Halvonik last

month filed a friend-of-the-court

brief in the Lassen Court urging

reversal.

Halvonik contends that Allinson

was engaged in symbolic expres-

sion when wearing the flag and

that the only reason he is being

punished is because he was using

the flag to communicate unortho-

dox ideas. A student dressed as

Uncle Sam, he suggests, would

not have been arrested.

Second Case

In another case involving sec-

tion 614(d) Joseph Samuel, a Sac-

ramento volunteer attorney, is at-

tacking the statute on its face.

Samuel has filed a petition in the

Sacramento Superior Court urging

it to strike down the statute as

an affront to the First Amend-

ment because:

`As a national symbol, it is

more than a mere piece of

cloth. It is pregnant with mean-

ing; it is a vehicle of ideas and

a medium of expression repre-

senting a political philosophy.

Its entitlement to protection -

arises from that. Corollary is

the fact that a desecrative act

is, also, expression-expression

which is protected by the First

Amendment."

In the only previous challenge

to 614(d) a Los Angeles Superior

Court upheld the law as constitu-

tional. Neither the Lassen nor

Sacramento courts are bound by

that decision.

Sup. Ct. Review

Part IL of the Review of Sig-

nificant Supreme Court Decisions

for 1969-1970 by Deborah Hinkle

was crowded out of this issue of

the News by an abundance of

copy. The final installment will

appear in the November News.

Page 3

ACLU NEWS

OCTOBER, 1970

Letters to the Editor

Continued from Page 2-

governing bodies are taking a

"non-religious" stand against

war? Are members of. profes-

sional bodies leaving because

"non-academic" peace resolu-

tions are being passed?

The Vietnam war is today's

greatest foe of civil liberties.

Come back, Mr. Carpenter, now

that we need you.-Fred G, Her-

man, Modesto.

Editor:

We share the disappointment

of the many members who have

expressed their opposition to the

Union's stand on the Vietnam

-war. Like so many others, we

detest the war and are working

to bring it to an immediate end.

But we feel that the Union's

past freedom from political in-

volvement transcends in impor-

tance the need for all citizens to

speak out against the war. In

our minds it marks the end of

the American Civil Liberties Un- |

ion as the foremost defender of

Constitutional liberties in the

country, for to be that defender

the Union MUST be free of ANY

political position, just as the

Constitution is free of particu-

larity in politics.

We wonder, too, what the Un-

ion will now do should some in-

dividual seek its aid because he

is refused induction into the

army because of some political

activity he might have engaged

in, It may sound farfetched, but

the Union might find itself com-

promising its defense of an in-

dividual's rights because the

person has assumed a position

contrary tothe Union's. ~

We shall remain members of

the Union for awhile longer,

_ hoping that the Board of Direc-

tors will reverse its stand. If it

does not, we shall have to re-

sign, - Lawrence and Vivian

Johsens, San Jose.

Old Member Resigns

Editor: Over the last 15 years

I have been a faithful contributor

to the ACLU of Northern Califor-

nia, because I regarded your or-

ganization as an ``ombudsman"'

for the defense of people who

cannot speak for themselves and

as an organization which would

oppose totalitarianism from the

left as well as from the right.

I find that my faith was want-

ing, and that the ACLUNC has

deserted the principles of civil

freedom so long as they are being

assaulted by the advocates of

New Left dictatorship in the

United States.

Some indications of these de-

velopments which support my ob-

jections:

1. The emergence of the Berke-

ley unit of ACLUNC as an activ-

~ ist street organization last year

in support of the Berkeley Peo-

ples Park coup which failed.

2. The subsequent transform-

ance of the Berkeley ACLU unit

into an autonomous, separately-

financed organization - a move

which I note that even you op-

posed. Nevertheless, it was ap-

proved by the ACLUNC directors.

3. The defense of a supposed

free speech "`right to assassina-

tion," as demonstrated by your

organization's support of Black

Panther David Hilliard for just

pression and symbolic speech,

exactly that action against the

U.S. President at. the November

New Mobe rally in San Fran-

cisco.

I notice that your letters quote

the late Adlai Stevenson as de-

scribing the ACLU as one of his

"favorite organizations,' but - ~

knowing directly some of his

views - I rather imagine he

would hold his head in shame if

he knew what you are up to

today.

4. The notable silence of the

ACLUNC in the face of several

ACLU NEWS

OCTOBER, 1970

Page 4

recent examples of totalitarian

suppression `attempted by the

New Left so - called `"`peace

groups." I cite developments on

the UC-Berkeley campus of dis-

ruption of classes of those faculty

members who still regard them-

selves as teachers rather than

political propagandists. Or, here

in Mill Valley, the leader of a

"Peace Action Committee" has

proclaimed that everyone must

agree with him or else be ``made

irrelevant'? - a threat entirely in

the spirit of the Soviet Ministry

of State Security.

But I have yet to hear of any

objections by the ACLUNC to

these obvious insanities of the

totalitarian New Left.

5. Finally, I most seriously ob-

ject to the fact that Atty. Wil-

liam Kunstler was honored at

this week's meeting of the San

Francisco ACLUNC unit. Mr.

Kunstler throughout his career~

has been a notable advocate of

Communist dictatorship along the

lines of purest Stalin terror. How

he qualifies as a director of the

National ACLU or a guest of the

San Francisco ACLUNC is quite

beyond me. Yet the record shows

that he so appeared within a

few hours of endorsement of the

SDS Weathermen and all of their

irrational anarchy.

I am old enough to remember

how the ACLU in the 1930s and

1940s stood up to, and defeated,

the efforts of various Communist

factions to take over, utilize and

then destroy this organization.

The incumbent officers and di-

rectors seem to have ignored

these lessons.

Given the present nature of

your organization, I rather doubt

that any dissenting voice will be

allowed in the ACLUNC News.

The least I can ask is that you

cancel my membership and halt

all appeals effectively immedi-

ately.

Some time in the future those

Californians who are opposed to

dictatorship by William Kunstler,

Jerry Rubin or Tom Hayden as

well as the George Wallaces of

America will have to form a

democratic civil liberties organ-

ization-William A. Millis.

Reply by Editor

1. Participation by the chapter

in the People's Park march was

repudiated by the branch office.

2 The Berkeley/Albany chapter

has not been transformed into an

autonomous group. The present

disagreement is over the branch

board's action in allowing the

chapter to make a direct appeal

for funds to the membership.

3. The ACLU has not defended

a "right to assassination" in the

Hilliard case. The question is

whether Hilliard's speech meets

the legal test of direct incitement

to violence.

4. To the extent that teachers

have not been permitted to teach

and students to attend classes

during the _ reconstitution of

classes at U.C. (the facts aren't

entirely clear), there has been a

violation of academic freedom.

The Mill Valley resident's alleged

speech may be extreme but he

has a right to express his opin-

fons.

5. The San Francisco Council

should NOT have "honored'' Wil-

liam Kunstler but "`presented"' or

"featured"? him.-Editor.

Protecting ACLU Minority

Editor: Please count me among

the supporters of your stand in

opposition to the National

Board's resolution on the Viet-

nam War. American entry into

the Second World War caused

even deeper inroads into civil

liberties than the war in Indochi-

na, and yet nobody suggested

that the ACLU oppose that en-

try; everybody realized that the

question of whether the elimi-

nation of fascism was worth the

sacrifices in lives, treasure and

-temporarily-liberties did not

lie within the competence of

ACLU, An anti-war stand now is

undoubtedly more popular

among our membership than it

would have been between 1941

and 1945, but when was popular-

ity a proper test of legitimacy

for the ACLU? Should we not

extend to the minority in our

own ranks (however small),

which either considers the Viet-

nam war necessary or immediate

withdrawal unfeasible, the same

respect for its rights which we

demand for dissenters from ma-

jority views in the community

at large?-Carl Landauer, Berk-

eley :

Headed for Disaster

Editor: Although I am as much

against the war as the next man,

I hope that the Board of Direc-

tors will give the Membership a

chance to express its opinion on

any important `departure from

ACLU purposes.'' Whenever any

governing body, whether of the

U.S. or of the ACLU, loses touch

with the people it is supposed to

represent, it is headed for disas-

ter.-R. H. Good, Albany

State Supreme

Court Denies

Transcripts

Joy Magezis and Barry Bider-

man were convicted in the San

Francisco Municipal Court on a

loitering charge for their partici-

pation in the street play entitled

"Lulu the Red and the Three

Little Pigs', deemed offensive

by the police, They have been

trying since Apri] 1969 to pro-

cure a free transcript (they are

Split 5-2

The California Supreme Court

granted a hearing, heard oral

argument early in February, but

did not rule until late last month.

In a five to two opinion written

by Justice McComb the. Court.

held that in every case indigent

defendants appealing misde-

meanor convictions must attempt

with the judge and prosecutor

` to arrive at an "agreed" or "set-

tled" statement of the events at

trial before seeking a free tran-

script, and that these petitioners

had not made a "reasonably par-

ticularized presentation" of the

need for a transcript rather than

a settled statement.

This holding came despite the

fact that- petitioners' counsel

(they have been represented by

ALCUNC staff counsel through-

out) introduced both affidavits

setting forth the need for the

transcript and fairly through de-

scriptions of why various por-

tions of the transcript were nec-

essary, This showing was not

even opposed by the prosecution

in the trial court, Pointing out

these facts, Justice Matthew To-

briner dissented, joined by Jus-

tice Raymond Peters.

Equa] Justice

The dissenting opinion argues

that the burden of showing tran-

scripts unnecessary ought to be

on the state, at least where such

a complete showing is made as in

this case, The dissenting opinion

closes on this note:

The majority in essence seek

to avoid the expenses of sup-

plying transcripts to financial-

ly disadvantaged defendants by

shifting the burden to already

overburdened lawyers re-

quired to serve with little or

no compensation... -

I cannot join in this misallo-

cation of the scarce resources

of legal manpower available

to indigent defendants. In the

past few decades we have tak-

en great steps toward insuring

to the poor and underprivi-

leged the same access to the

law as that enjoyed by the (c)

affluent and established. If we

now falter in this high endeav-

or we frustrate the rising ex-

pectation of the disadvantaged

for equal justice under law; we

undermine respect for the le-

gal system.

Disrespect for Flag

Court Says Non-Saluters

Need Not Stand

A three-judge Federal court in Miami, Florida ruled on

June 26. last that a public school student cannot be com-

pelled to stand during the flag salute exercise. It therefore

held unconstitutional a school board regulation which au-

thorized such procedure.

The case involved Andrew Rob-

ert Banks, a senior at Coral

Gables High School. He was sus-

pended from school on Janu-

ary 9, 1970, for a period of ten

days, and again for a like term

on February 9, 1970 for refus-

ing to stand during the flag

salute ceremony in his home-

room, The regulation states that

"students who for religious or

other deep personal conviction,

do not participate in the salute

and pledge of allegiance to the

flag will stand quietly."

Black Repression

Banks testified that the basis

of his refusal to abide by the

regulation was his religious be-

liefs. "He testified that he is a

Unitarian, that he believes a

`Uni-world' government is neces-

sary to world peace, that he in-

tends to be a Unitarian minister,

and further that his refusal to

stand was a simple protest

against black repression in the

United States,

"A student in the plaintiff's

homeroom who sits next to him

testified that when the flag sa-

lute period comes, `Sometimes he

(Banks) stands up and doesn't

say anything and sometimes he

just sits down but he doesn't

cause any disturbance in class

or you know, make the other

kids-make it conspicuous just

what he is doing."

No Disruption

The court declared that "The

unrefuted testimony clearly re-

flects that the plaintiff's refusal

to stand has not caused any dis-

ruption in the educational pro-

cess. While there may be some

who would question the sincerity

with which this plaintiff holds his

religious and political views, such

inquiry is not a proper considera-

tion for a court. The First Amend-

ment. guarantees to the plaintiff

the right. to claim that his objec-

tion to standing during the cere-

mony is based upon religious and

political beliefs."

Gesture of Acceptance

The court noted that "standing

is an integral portion of the

pledge ceremony and is no less

a gesture of acceptance and res-

pect than is the salute or the

utterance of the words of alle-

giance, Here . . . the regulation

required the individual to com-

municate, by standing, his ac-

ceptance of and respect for all

that for which our flag is but a

symbol." :

The court went on to say that

"The right to differ and express

one's opinions, to fully vent his

First Amendment rights, even

to the extent of exhibiting dis-

respect for our flag and country

by refusing to stand and partici-

pate in the pledge of allegiance,

cannot be suppressed by the im-

position. of suspensions," and it

therefore held the school regu-

lation as being "in direct con-

flict with the free speech and

expression guarantee of the First

Amendment."

Recurring Issue

The flag salute issue is a recur-

ring one in northern California

and especially refusal of a student

to stand during the ceremony.

In some cases, the issue has been

resolved practically by the stu:

dent agreeing to enter the class-

room after the ceremony has

been performed, Hopefully, the

present decision, although hand-

ed down in another jurisdiction,

will be followed by school ad-

ministrators in northern Califor-

nia,

Statement of Ownership, Management and Circulztion

(Act of October 23, 1962: Section 4369. Title 39. United States Code)

Date of Filing: September 24, 1970

Title of Publication: American Civil Liberties Union NEWS.

Frequency of Issue: Monthly.

Location of Known Office of Publication: 593 Market St , San Francisco,

California 94105.

_ Location of The Headquarters or General Busine ffi -

lishers: 593 Market St., San Francisco, Calif, 94105. Le ee

Publisher: American Civil Liberties Union of Northern Calif., nes 593

Market St., San Francisco, Calif. 94105.

Editor: Ernest Besig, 593 Market St., San Francisco, Calif. 94105.

Managing Editor: None.

Owner: American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, I

Market St., San Francisco, Calif 94105. No stockholders. Pos

Known Bondholders, Mortgagees and Other Security Holders Owning or

Holding 1 Percent or More of Total Amount of Bonds, Mortgages or Other

Securities: None.

Average No.

Copies Each

Issue During

Actual Number

Of Copies Of

Single Issue

Preceding Published Nearest

Extent and Nature of Circulation 12 Months To Filin

A. Total No. Copies Printed = ! peas

(Net Press Run) 11,250 10,500

B. Paid Circulation `

1. Sales Through Dealers and Carriers,

Street Vendors and Counter Sales ................ -0- -0-

25 Mail eSubschiptions, 295s .-.. 8,960 9,005

C2 fotal paid Circulation .-- 8,960 9,005

D. Free Distribution (including samples)

by Mail, Carrier or Other Means ........... .... 1,500 1,000

HE. Total Distribution (Sum of C and D) ..............10,460 10,005

F. Office Use, Left-Over, Unaccounted,

SpoiledeAtter, Printing eee 790 495

G. Total (Sum of E and F-Should equal .

met press) Kun shown imeA)e eee 11,250 10,500

I certify that the statements made by me above are correct and complete.

Signed: Ernest Besig, Editor

The first right of a citizen

Is the right

To be responsible

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

JOIN TODAY

B 151

OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

Patron, Membership... ......-..... .. sui 2100

Sustaining, Membership ...-......,. 6... 0

Business and Professional Membership ............. 29

Family Membership ......: +... Fee oes a wens 15

Annual: Membership' .......,;......-+- a... 10

Student Membership ...... et ee

AGLU. News, Subscription ............2 Bae 192.50

NAMES a ee Oe ee ee eet ` Soe es Gee 4

ABDRESS . ZIP, CODE... ..... a. See om es ee ic Sector ce

TELEPHONE NUMBER... .2.: 32... AMT. ENCLOSED..........

503 Market Street San Francisco, 94105

All contributions tax dedwctible.