vol. 36, no. 7

American

Civil Liberties

Union

Volume XXXVI

SAN FRANCISCO, JULY, 1971

No. 7

ERNEST BESIG, who will retire on July 6 after 36 years as ACLUNC execu-

tive director and more than 37 years association with the ACLU. He will be

available at the ACLUNC office until July 15.

rights?

Libertarians.

We shall miss him!

printed in the ``News."

Helen Salz' Tribute |

To Ernest Besig

It seems a long time ago that Dr. Alexander Meiklejohn,

Charles Hogan, then our chairman, and I engaged Ernest Besig,

an intrepid and forthright young man passionately deveted to

the Bill of Rights in all its vivid chastity.

He has carried on modestly, and yet. with magnificent

skill ever since then - for thirty-six years -in many arenas.

There have been the people, first a few and then a flood, who

came to the ACLU office with all their varied grievances -

some genuine, some debateable. What were their constitutional

And the Japanese concentration camps - the thousands

of interned Jazanese - what were their constitutional rights?

Ernest Besig and Wayne Collins, backed by a strong Board, took

the lone leadership in the U.S. in this struggle for justice.

Ernie prepared our monthly agenda, published an informa-

tive monthly builetin, watched our finances scrupulously, and

helped our organization grow from a few hundred members to

more than eight thousand. Over the years he found himself

dealing with a legislative office in Sacramento, and twelve

eager, energetic chapters extending from Sacramento to Fresno.

Monthly Board meetings, which in early days brought half a

dozen members, are, as the chapters have become deeply in-

volved, now attended by thirty to thirty-five dedicated Civil

Ernie Besig has spent tireless hours in the office each day,

many of his Saturdays, and countless evenings lecturing on

Civil Liberties in and out of town.

His knowledge of the law has been invaluable, and he has

represented hundreds of individuals in naturalization, immigra-

tion, loyalty, security and other administrative hearings. He

has, for all of us in the ACLU, been a wise and capable execu-

tive. And to many, many Americans he has become known af-

fectionately as ``Mr. Civil Liberties.'' :

-The foregoing statement was presented by Helen Salz,

vice chairman of the Board of Directors and one of the founders

of the branch,.at the June 10, 1971 board meeting. It was ordered

Bond Vote Decisions Overturned

ACLUNC recently successfully

participated in a case in the Cali-

fornia Supreme Court in which

that Court held that the California

constitutional provision requiring

the approval' of two-thirds of the

voters for a general obligation

bond issue violated the equal pro-

tection clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment. The decision was

made in a suit brought by Mayor

Joseph Alioto and others to test

the constitutional provision.

West Virginia Decision

A similar case arising in West

Virginia was heard by the United

States Supreme Court this term,

and on June 7th, that court

reached the opposite result. In a

7-2 opinion, the court held that

West Virginia's constitutional re-

quirement of the approval of 60%

of the voters for a general obliga-

tion bond issue did not violate the

equal protection of the laws and

did not violate the Supreme Court

decisions concerning the one man

one vote rule. A few days later,

the Supreme Court, relying on its

West Virginia decision, reversed

the California Supreme Court's

decision in Westbrook v. Mihaly.

No "Identifiable Class''

The Supreme Court said that `"`so

long as such provisions do not dis-

criminate against or authorize

-Continued on Page 4

S.F. State College

"Ernest Besig

Lectures On

Civil Liberties

Howard A. Friedman, ACLUNC

Treasurer, announced last month

the establishment of the ``Ernest

Besig Lectures on Civil Liberties''

at San Francisco State College.

They will begin the Spring semes-

ter of 1972 and continue for five

years.

The lectureship is sponsored by

members of ACLUNC and San

Francisco State College as a trib-

ute to and in recognition of Ernest

Besig's 36 years of dedicated serv-

ice as Executive Director of the

American Civil Liberties Union of

Northern California and to offer

the San Francisco community the

opportunity to share in Mr. Besig's

unique knowledge and experience

in the field of civil liberties.

Mr. Besig will give a series of

15 lectures per year covering the

spectrum of civil liberties as en-

compassed by the Bill of Rights.

The lectures will be open to the

general public as well as the stu-

dents and faculty of San Fran-

cisco State College. Admission will

be free.

In addition, next February, Mr.

Besig will teach a 4-unit course

on individual rights at San Fran-

cisco State College that will be

open to undergraduate students.

Citizenship

Granted

After answering four innocuous

questions asked by a naturaliza-

tion examiner, Joseph F. Costandi

was recommended for citizenship

and finally admitted to citizenship

by a US. District Judge on June

23. Costandi affirmed his declara-

tion of allegiance and omitted the

words ``So help me God."

For details of this case see the

June 1971 ``News."'

Arbitrary Police Action

U.S. Supreme Court

Astrup Held

Eligible For _.

Citizenship

ee 0x00A7,

The United States Supreme Court, reversing |

District and Court of Appeals decisions, has unani. -_

ruled that Ib Otto Astrup is eligible for citizenshsip.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service had denied

Astrup citizenship because, in 1950, he executed an alien's

exemption from military service

which stated that, in return for

being relieved from military serv-

ice, he would be exempt from the

draft.

Astrup signed the exemption in

the year when he came here from

his native Denmark. Having just

concluded a fourteen month tour

of duty with the Danish Navy, and

being uncertain whether he wished

to settle in the United States, the

bargain offered him by the gov-

ernment seemed reasonab`e. He

would be forever exempt from the

draft and would forever forfeit

his right to be a citizen. But As-

trup, it turned out, was not re-

lieved from the draft. In 1951

Congress amended the Uraft law

to make resident aliens conscript-

able. Astrup's draft board then

removed his alien classification

and placed him in J-A status. He

received an order to report for

induction, wound up his personal

affairs, and reported for his phy-

sical examination. He flunked the

physical and it was his failure to

pass the physical examination that

kept him from citizenship.

All aliens who signed requests

for exemption from military serv-

ice have not been excluded from

citizenship. Those who, like As-

trup, signed the exemption but

were later drafted and, unlike As-

trup, actually served in the armed

forces have been admitted to

citizenship pursuant to a 1952 law

which provides that aliens are

only ineligible for citizenship if

they 1) signed the exemption and

2) are relieved from military serv-

ice by virtue of that exemption.

The Immigration and Naturaliza-

tion Service concluded that since

Astrup had flunked his physical

he had in fact been "relieved"

from military service.

ACLUNC Defends Street

Artists and Artisans

The City of San Francisco is blessed with a number of

very talented street artists and artisans who fashion, and

then attempt to sell, paintings, sculptures, leather work,

jewelry and the like. But their profession, it turns out, is

illegal in the City of San Francisco. San Francisco does not

have a law that expressly states

that no one may be a street

artist or artisan in San Francisco

but it achieves the same results

by means of its `"`business permit''

laws. It is illegal to sell goods

without a license and the Police

Department refuses to issue li-

censes to street artists.

No Standards

The ordinance making it a

crime to sell without a license

contains no standards to guide

the permit granting authority. The

Police Department, in its un-

guided discretion, may decide who

shall and who shall not conduct

a business in San Francisco.

Probably Unconstitutional

ACLUNC is representing two

large groups of street artists who

were arrested in San Francisco

for selling their wares. One of

the groups is consolidated in a

single case before Judge Albert

Axelrod of the San Francisco

Municipal Court who has indicated

that he is of the opinion that the

permit ordinance is probably un-

constitutional. A decision by

Judge Axelrod on the constitution-

ality of the law will probably be

rendered in July.

Judge O'Kane Disagrees

Judge John O'Kane of the same

Municipal Court, however, does

not share Judge Axelrod's view

of the law. He repelled ACLUNC's

challenge on behalf of street art-

ists, ruling the law constitutional.

ACLUNC has now sought a writ

prohibiting Judge O'Kane from

trying the street artists in the

State Court of Appeal. That writ,

prepared by Staff Counsel Paul

Halvonik and volunteer attorney

Robert Kantor of San Francisco

contends that the City may no

more license artists pursuant to

a standardless ``business permit''

system than it may license the

business of producing newspapers.

Symbolic Free Expression

The works fashioned by artists

are symbolic free expression pro-

tected by the First Amendment.

The City's licensing scheme, since

it permits the officials to deny

`one a permit simply because he

does not like the content of his

work, is a blatant form of prior

censorship of expression. More-

over, the Fourteenth Amendment

guarantees the fundamental right

to make a livelihood. That right

cannot be arbitrarily denied by

the. police. In a free society we

cannot have the police determin-

ing in their unguided discretion

who may and who may not pursue

a particular profession.

Writing for the court, Justice

Hugo Black described Astrup's

plight:

"The Selective Service Sys-

tem attempted to draft As-

trup and would have succeeded

in putting him into uniform

but for the fact that he was de-

termined to be physically unfit

for the draft. Later, when Ast-

rup decided that he would like to

become an American citizen, the

Government attempted to en-

force Astrup's promise even

though it was unwilling to keep

its own promise."

Noting that the government ex-

tended citizenship to aliens who

had signed the exemption but ac-

tually served in the armed forces,

Justice Black concluded that ex-

cluding Astrup from citizenship

would be unconscionable. There

is, he said, nothing in the immi-

gration laws which: :

``Leads us to believe the Con-

gress intended such harsh and

bizarre consequences to flow

from an individual's failure to

pass a physical examination.

Congress . . . (provided)...

that an alien who requests ex-

emption from the military serv-

ice be held to his agreement to

relinquish all claims to natural-

ized citizenship only when the

Government abides by its part

of the agreement and com-

pletely exempts him from

service in our armed forces."

Significance of Decision -

Astrup's victory was of course

exceedingly significant for him.

Its significance for others is dif-

ficult to measure but, from the

broad language used by the Court,

it is not unreasonable to infer

that practically all persons who

signed the requests for exemption

from military service prior to

`1951 are now eligible for citizen-

ship. :

Astrup was represented before

the Supreme Court by Staff Coun-

sel Paul Halvonik. He was assisted

in the preparation of the brief

by Mrs. Deborah Hinkle, ACLU-

NC's 1970 summer intern.

Sidney Wolinsky

Elected to

Bd. of Directors

Sidney M. Wolinsky, crusading

San Francisco attorney, last

month was elected to fill a va-

cancy on San Francisco's board

of directors. Wolinsky, 35, resides

in Berkeley and is presently Di-

rector of Litigation for the San

Francisco Neighborhood Legal

Assistance Foundation. - Rumor

has it that he and another attor-

ney will soon open an office to

handle "public interest" issues.

The office, it is said, will be sup-

ported by a Foundation grant.

Wolinsky graduated from Yale

Law School in 1961 where he

served on the Law Journal and

held many other distinctions. He

received his B. A., cum laude,

from Princeton . University in

1958. He was elected a member

of Phi Beta Kappa.

Prior to coming to San Fran-

cisco, Wolinsky worked for six

years with a Beverly Hills law

firm of which he had become a

partner. At one time, too, he

served as law clerk to Judge

George T. Washington of the U.

S. Circuit Court of Appeals in

Washington, D. C.

Wolinsky is married and has

three children.

3H

L3yoc0

By-Laws

American Civil Liberties Union

of Northern California, Inc.

Article I

Name

The name of this organization

shall be the American Civil Lib-

erties Union of Nothern Califor-

nia, Inc.

ARTCILE Il

Headquarters

The headquarters of the Union .

shall be in San Francisco.

ARTICLE Ill

_ Affiliation

This organization shall func-

tion as an affiliate of the Ameri-

can Civil Liberties Union, Inc., of

New York.

ARTICLE IV

Object

Its object shall be to maintain

the rights of free speech, free

press, free assemblage and other

civil rights and to take all legiti-

mate action in furtherance of such

purposes. The Union's object shall

be sought wholly without political

partisanship.

ARTICLE V

Membership and Dues

All persons wishing to further

the purposes of the Union are

eligible for membership. Member-

ship is established by signing an

application and paying the annual

dues. Dues shall be fixed by the

Board of Directors.

ARTICLE VI

Board of Directors and Officers

la. The direction and adminis-

tration of the Union (sometimes

called Branch) shall be under the

control of a Board of Directors of

not less than (15) nor more than

(30) members at-large elected

pursuant to Article VI 1f-1j, plus

one representative member, if

elected, from each chapter in good

standing, chartered pursuant to

Article VIII of these By-Laws, ~

subject to the provisions of sub-

paragraph e. Each board member

shall be a member of ACLUNC

in good standing at the time of his

nomination, election and service

on the board. The Board of Di-

rectors shall meet once each

month. at a time and place as

fixed bv the Chairman. or on re-

quest of five or more of its mem-

bers. Thirteen members of the

Board shall constitute a quorum.

b. Members of the Board of Di-

rectors who fail to attend five con-

secutive meetings without expla-

nation may be dropped from

membership in the Board by a

majority vote of all the members

of the Board, provided, however,

that should a Chanter-elected

member fail to attend three con-

secutive meetings of the ACLUNC

Board without sufficient reason,

or should he resign during his

term, the Chapter Board may ap-

point a replacement member to

fill the unexpired term of office.

The Branch board may also ap-

point persons to fill the unexpired

terms of members-at-large.

c. Chapter representative mem-

bers are subject to all of the fore-

going and in addition Chapter rep-

resentative members shall be

eligible for Branch Board mem-

bership only if: (i) the chapter

charter is in full force and effect;

(ii) the chapter representative

member has been elected by the

membership of the chapter at

large in an election held pursuant

to By-Law provisions of the chap-

ters previously approved by the

Branch Board of Directors; (iii)

such chapter representative has

been elected by the membership

of each chapter at the same time

and by the same means used for

nominating and electing its own

Chapter Board; (iv) and that such

election of the chapter representa-

ACLU NEWS

JULY, 1971

Page 2

As Amended March 11, 1971

tive has been held between Oc-

tober 1 and March 1 of any year.

d. The term of office of such a

Chapter-elected member to the

ACLUNC Board shall be one to

three years at the option of each

Chapter and maximum tenure in

office shall be no more than six

years, after which a member shall

again become eligible for election

only after at least one year's ab-

- sence from the Board.

e. Subparagraphs f. and g. of

this Article VI shall apply only

to members who are not chapter

representative members.

f. Members-at-large of the

Board of Directors shall be elect-

ed for three-year terms, com-

- mencing on March 1 of any year

and are eligible for two full con-

secutive three-year terms. The

foregoing limitation shall not ap-

ply to an incumbent chairman of

the board; however, nine years

shall be the maximum served in

"any event. Prior election to un-

expired terms shall be permissi-

ble in addition to the two full

terms. After having served two

consecutive terms, members shall

again become eligible for election

only after at least one year's ab-

sence from the board, and they

shall continue to be eligible for

election for periods of two full

consecutive three-year terms, so

long as such periods of service

are interrupted by at least one

year's absence from the Board.

g. An exception to the foregoing

provisions shall be made in the

case of board members who

served on the original Board of

Directors. After the expiration of

their present terms of office, said

board members shall hold office

for life, with full voting rights.

h. Each year, at the September

meeting of the Board of Directors,

a committee of five persons com-

posed of two members of the

Board of Directors, and three

members of the American Civil

Liberties Union who are not mem-

bers of the Board of Directors,

shall be appointed by the Chair-

man to serve as a nominating

committee to nominate persons to

fill Board of Director terms ex-

piring during the current year as

well as any unexpired terms that

may be vacant.

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 in-

terim reports shall be made prior

to any commitment having been

made by the Nominating Com-

mittee to any prospective nomi-

nee with regard to appointment

to the Board.

At the January meeting of the

Board, the Nominating Commit-

tee 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 meet-

ing. The proposed nominations

shall then be subject to avproval

or change by the Board of Direc-

tors at the said meeting, said

vote to be conducted by closed

ballot.

i. Every year, the September

issue of the ACLU News shall

carry an invitation to the Union's

membership to suggest names to

the nominating committee, and

such names must reach the Un-

ion's office not later than Sep-

tember 30 in order to receive con-

sideration. The nominating com-

mitee shall consider such sugges-

tions but shall not make any

nominations until after September

30.

j. In addition to the foregoing

method of proposing names to the

nominating committee, members

may make nominations directly to

the Board of Directors in the fol-

lowing manner: Not later than

January 2 of each year, nomina-

tions may be submitted by the

membership directly to the Board

of Directors, provided each nomi-

nation be supported by the signa-

tures of 15 or more members in

good standing and be accompa-

nied by a summary of qualifica-

tions and the written consent of

the nominee.

2a. The officers of the Union

shall be: a Chairman, three Vice-

Chairmen, a Secretary-Treasurer,

`and an Executive Director, who

shall be elected by and hold of-

fice at the pleasure of the Board

of Directors. -

b. Officers of the Board of Di-

rectors shall be elected annually

for terms beginning March 1.

ce. Each year at the January

meeting the chairman shall ap-

point three members of the Board

to act as a Nominating Commit-

tee for officers of the Board. The

committee shall present its nomi-

nations to the Board at the Feb-

ruary meeting.

3. The Chairman shall preside

at all meetings of the member-

ship and the Board of Directors

and act in cooperation with the

other officers and with commit-

tees as found necessary or desir-

able.

4. The Vice-Chairmen shall act

in lieu of the Chairman in event

of the latter's absence or inability

to serve.

5. The Secretary-Treasurer shall

perform the usual duties of such

an office.

6. The Executive Director shall

conduct the office of the Union,

issue its monthly publication,

maintain minutes of all meetings

of the Union and the Board of

Directors. keep the records of

membership and of receipts and

disbursements, handle all matters

of civil liberties coming to the

attention of the Union between

meetings of the Board of Direc-

tors and report thereon at the fol-

lowing meeting of the Board, se-

cure the services of attorneys,

apvear before vublic bodies on

behalf of the Union, and perform

such other duties as may be as-

signed by the Board of Directors.

7. Such other committees as

may be found necessary or desir-

able may be elected or appointed

as determined by the Board of

Directors.

ARTICLE VII

Meetings

la. A general membership meet-

ing shall be held in San Francisco

at least once each year for the

purpose of receiving reports of

activities during the preceding

year, and considering such other

business as the Board of Direc-

tors may lay before it.

b. Special meetings of the mem-

bers may be called at any time

by a majority of the Board of

Directors or shall be called by

the chairman on the written re-

quest of at least 10 percent of the

membership. Any such petition

and the notice of such meetings

shall state the purpose thereof;

notice shall be sent 10 days be-

fore the date set for such meeting.

No business other than that speci-

fied in the notice of the meeting

shall be transacted. The presence

of 15 percent of the membership

at any special meeting shall con-

stitute a quorum.

2. Additional membership meet-

ings for the transaction of busi-

ness indicated in the preceding

section shall be held at the call

of the Board of Directors.

Letters

... to the Editor

An Affront to Atheists

Editor: As a devout atheist and

ACLUNC member, I was glad to

read in the June 1971 ACLU News

(p. 4) that we are assisting Mr.

Constandi of Oakland. Certainly

the way he was treated by an

official of the Naturalization

Service was an instance of religi-

ous persecution.

Unfortunately, our action to

"challenge the Government's right

`to test'? Constandi's beliefs as an

athiest"' does not go far enough.

In point of fact, it is an affront

to an atheist to be asked to say

"so help me god" in the first

place. If that were changed to

"so help me Buddha,' there

would be immediate screams from

christians and jews, but in fact

the phrase ``so help me god'' is

just as distasteful to us atheists.

There is clearly a constitutional

issue here which some day will be

changed either by the courts or

by legislation. The first' amend-

ment states that ``Congress shall

make no law respecting an estab-

lishment of religion.'? I am sure

that this amendment is now in-

terpreted as it was originally con-

ceived. i.e. freedom to choose

among religions, but not freedom

to choose no religion by denying

the existance of any ``god.'' This

interpretation is clearly not in ac-

cord with modern ideas of civil

rights. It has allowed this coun-

try to become blatantly theist and

persecute (e.g. to the best of my

knowledge, an atheist can be

barred from giving testimony in

court or holding a federal job or

public office). And if an atheist

wants to pledge allegiance to his

country, he must also acknowl-

edge a deity.

Oddly enough, when I was

trained by the Army Intelligence

Corps a number of years ago to

administer an oath in obtaining

testimony, I was taught that ``so

help me god'"' was no longer ac-

ceptable, Instead, we were taught

to end with ``so help me.'' The

lawyer who taught this course

had a very logical explanation.

"So help me god," he said, pre-

supposes that perjury would lead

to punishment by god.. But the

government has never been able

to get this god's cooperation in

meting out punishments. There-

fore, it is more logical to have

a witness affirm on penalty of

punishment by his own fellowmen.

I hope that ACLUNC will see

fit to test the blantantly theistic

phrase contained in the INS's reg-

ulations and all other theistic

government regulations. Not only

are they an affront to atheists; as

long as they remain on the books,

any petty official can, at his whim,

cause an atheist serious inconven-

ience (as in this case, 18 years

after a similar case was over-

turned).-Robert E. Jacobs, Stan-

ford.

3. Luncheon, dinner, mass or

area meetings may be held or

lectures may be sponsored, as di-

rected by the Board of Directors.

ARTICLE VIII

Chapters

The Union by a majority vote

of its Board of Directors may

grant a charter to any petitioning

local group in Northern California

which has given satisfactory evi-

dence of vitality, leadership and

devotion to the objectives and

program of the Union. Charters

may be revoked for cause by a

two-thirds vote of the Board of

Directors, but only after a state-

ment of reasons has been sent by

the Board of Directors to the

chapter officers and members of

the chapter board and a full hear-

ing accorded. Chapter By-Laws

shall not go into effect until they

Jay Miller,

Auction, at

Sonoma Picnic

Jay Miller, ACLUNC's new Ex-

ecutive Director, will be the main

speaker at the Sonoma County

chapter's annual picnic on July 18.

The picnic will feature an auction

of art work donated by local art-

ists and craftsmen, and provide

facilities for volley ball and swim-

ming for the children. The set-

ting for the picnic will again be

Jack Warnick's apple ranch near

Sebastapol at 10650 Green Valley

Road.

The picnic has become a tradi-

tional affair, offering an oppor-

tunity for Sonoma County ACLU

members and friends to get to-

gether for a purpose other than

the usual one of combatting some

new outrage against civil liberties.

This year's picnic will also give

the members of Sonoma and sur-

rounding counties a chance to

become acquainted with Jay Mil-

ler, who succeeds veteran Execu-

tive Director Ernest Besig on July

6. In addition to the customary

good fellowship, art auctions at

past picnics have successfully

performed the magical feat of

painless fund-raising by offering

the work of outstanding local art-

ists at bargain prices. Donated

art objects at the July 18 affair

will include painting, ceramics,

macrame and handicrafts.

Artists wishing to donate their

work for the auction should con-

tact Jerry Tucker, 201 Woodside

Drive, Santa Rosa. Maps to the

Warnick ranch are also available

from Mr. Tucker. Green Valley

Road intersects state highway 116

four miles north of Sebastapol and

a quarter mile south of Guerne-

ville Road.

Growth In

Membership

As the ``News'' goes to press,

membership enrollment since last

November has reached a record

high of 7190. On June 30 last

year the enrollment stood at 7095

and at the end of the fiscal year

on October 31, 1970 the member-

ship stood at 7993. Membership

enrollment should reach some-

where around 8100 or 8200 this

year, which would again be a

record high.

The growth in membership is

attributable in great measure to

the 262 memberships given by

members to honor Ernest Besig'

on his retirement. Without them

the enrollment would be lagging

a couple hundred behind last year.

The undertaking to honor Ernest

Besig netted ACLUNC $2268.

are approved by the Board of Di-

rectors. The ACLUNC Board of

Directors reserves the right to re-

view the diverse nominating and

electing procedures presently fol-

lowed by Chapters if unforeseen

difficulties arise in applying the

foregoing By-Laws as they relate

to chapter-elected representatives,

and to require such changes as

may be necessary to fulfill its

proper responsibility as the gov-

erning body of the corporation.

ARTICLE IX

Rules of Order .

Except as covered in the fore-

going, ``Roberts Rules of Order,

Revised,' shall govern the con-

duct of all meetings of the mem-

bership, the committees and

Board of the Union.

ARTICLE X

Amending By-Laws

The BY-LAWS may be amended

at any meeting of the Board of

Directors by a vote of a majority

of all the members of the Board,

provided the proposed amend-

ments are first submitted to the

members of the Board.

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 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105, 433-2750

Subcription Rates - Two Dollars and Fifty Cents a Year

Twenty-Five Cents Per Copy

B 151

Legislative Report

Unproductive

Session Will

Go On And On

This column reported last year that the 1970 regular |

session of the legislature was the longest in its history. 1971

will make that fact obsolete. As the end of June approaches,

the legislature is about to climax its annual battle over the

budget, and will undoubtedly do so in the first or second

week of July (after the State is

bankrupt for a few days) with

the appropriate charges and ac-

cusations from all sides. But aside

from the budget, it has resolved

none of the pressing and vital

issues before it, welfare, school

finance, tax reform, Medi-Cal,

election law reform, and most of

all, re-apportionment remain to

be acted upon. The legislature

therefore plans to adjourn at the

end of July for the month of

August, reconvene close to Labor

Day, and continue in session for

an undetermined period in the

Fall. This will be the first time

in the history of the California

Legislature that such action has

been necessary, though once tak-

en, it will set a likely precedent

for all future years. It amounts,

in effect, to a concession that from

now on the California Legislature

`will operate like the Federal Con-

gress on a year round basis.

Less Action

Because the legislators know

that this session will drag on into

the Fall, and because they are

therefore under much less pres-

sure to decide on difficult bills,

and because they are all collect-

ing $30.00 a day in expenses, less

action than usual for this time of

year has been taken. Among the

Civil Liberties areas that have

seen action in the last months

are these:

Death Penalty

_ The annual show concerning

the abolition of the death penalty

has been held in front of the

Assembly Criminal Justice Com-

mittee, but this time with a quite

different result. Assembly Bill 13

by Alan Sieroty (D-Beverly Hills),

would abolish the death penalty

in California. Sieroty introduces

this bill regularly every year and

for many years it has been killed

in the Assembly Committee. This

year, however, the Committee is

made up of five Democrats and

four Republicans, and all five

Democrats believe in the aboli-

tion of capital. punishment. They

are, in fact, all co-authors of

Sieroty's bill.

Clark and Amsterdam

Therefore, on June 22, when the

bill was heard in Committee, its

chances looked quite good. They

were given a substantial boost

by the testimony of former Attor-

ney-General Ramsey Clark and

Professor of Law (and ACLUNC

Board Member) Anthony Amster-

dam of Stanford. For the first

time in many years, law enforce-

ment officials and the Reagan Ad-

ministration (represented by the

Department of Corrections),

showed up to oppose the bills

quoting J. Edgar Hoover to the

effect that capital punishment is

like a lighthouse on the coast, no-

body ever knows how many ships

did not get wrecked because it

was there. The audience, com-

posed largely of abolitionists,

hooted and jeered. Eventually the

bill was sent to the Assembly

Floor with a favorable recom-

mendation, based on a straight

party line vote.

The fate of the bill on the As-

sembly floor is quite uncertain;

if a great deal of effort is invested

by its supporters it may have

some chance of passage.

Jury Voir Dire

- The proposal to eliminate the

right of attorneys to ask ques-

tions of prospective jurors

in criminal cases has been de-

layed, perhaps indefinitely in the

Senate Judiciary Committee.

Lacking the necessary votes, the

authors of the proposals have had

them referred to a sub-committee

for further study. No one knows

whether the authors can achieve

an additional vote to send the

proposals to the Senate Floor,

Aid to Parochial Schools

A growing interest in the use

of State money to aid private

schools in various ways has re-

sulted in the passage of an im-

portant bill from the Senate Edu-

cation Committee. A bill by Sen-

ator George Moscone (D-San

Francisco) would provide a sys-

tem for vouchers to the parents

of school age children which could

be redeemed by private schools.

The maximum amount of money

for each child per semester is

$60.00. The appropriation neces-

sary for the plan is 40 million

dollars. The bill was heard at

length by the Senate Education

Committe and, over the opposi- (c)

tion of ACLU and other groups,

was passed out favorably to that

Committee. It now goes to the

Senate Finance Committee, where

its fate is not yet known. Similar

legislation is temporarily suspend-

ed in the Assembly Ways and

Means Committee.

Abortion

After a lengthy and unruly night

hearing, the Assembly Committee

on Health has disposed of a num-

ber of bills which attack the "`lib-

eral'? California Abortion law.

Following hours of testimony and

much audience participation, the

Committee approved bills to study

the effects of the therapeutic abor-

tion law and to provide that no

doctor on the three-man panel

that now approves therapeutic

abortions can profit from per-

forming the abortion. A number

of more dangerous bills were

killed at the same Committee

hearing. One would have provided

that the woman seeking. an abor-

tion had to be interviewed by the

panel approving her abortion to

see whether she truly `"`consent-

~ ed'' to it; another would have pro-

hibited all abortions after ten

weeks of pregnancy; another

would have prohibited abortions

by the saline solution method; and

still another would have provided

that an abortion could not be

granted on the grounds of the

mental health of the mother un-

less, at the time of conception,

the mother was undergoing psy-

chiatric care.-Charles C, Marson,

Asst. Staff Counsel and Legislative

Representative.

Board Approves

Added Expenses

For Current Year

ACLUNC's budget for the fiscal

year ending October 31, 1971 was

fixed at $150,293.40. As a result (c)

of the board authorizing $9,156 in

additional expenditures, the cur-

rent budget stands at $159,349.40.

The increase includes an allot-

ment of $3,600 for the Berkeley/

Albany Chapter's Police Com-

plaint Center. In addition, the Ex- ~

ecutive Director Committee was

given $1,500 and the board recent-

ly agreed to pay Jay Miller's

$2,056 moving expenses from Chi-

cago to San Francisco. A special

mailing was authorized at a cost

of $1,500 and another $500 ex-

pense results from increased post-

al rates.

Pearlman -

Conviction

Reversed

While the United States Su-

preme Court has been considering

the constitutionality of criminal

conviction for the public display

of the slogan ``Fuck the Draft''

ACLUNC has been defending

Richard Pearlman, who had been

convicted of displaying obscenity

because he decorated his automo-

bile with a sign reading `Fuck

War.'' Unlike. Cohen, who was

convicted of disturbing the peace,

Pearlman was convicted in the

Corning Justice Court of violating

the Penal Code prohibition against

exhibiting obscene material. Thus,

in addition to arguing the consti-

tutionally protected nature of

Pearlman's expression, ACLUNC

has been arguing as the case has

progressed through the Courts

that Pearlman was convicted un-

der the wrong section of the Penal

Code. This suggestion has repeat-

edly been made that any highway

patrolman whose prurient interest

is aroused by a sign reading

"Fuck War" is uniquely per-

verted.

A. G. Concedes

The Third District Court of Ap-

peal in Sacramento was scheduled

to hear argument on Pearlman's

petition for a Writ of Habeas Cor-

pus. filed by ACLUNC, when the

decision in the Cohen case was

handed down by the United States

Supreme Court. A few days later,

the Attorney General conceded

that Pearlman's conviction was

improper according to the Cohen

case and the Writ of Habeas Cor-

pus was issued.

Wrong Law

The Court of Avpeal also handed

down an opinion in which it held

that not only was Pearlman's ex-

pression constitutionally protected

but also, even if it was not, the

obscenity statute was the wrong

law under which such a prosecu-~

tion could be brought. The Court

took the view that the word Fuck,

taken in conjunction with the word

War, was totally devoid of any

sexual connotation and ``can only

be deemed to have been employed

in its alternative sense as an ex-

pression of decisive rejection of

the verson using it (equivalent to

`To Hell with War') or as an in-

dication of his extreme dismay,

anger or aversion."

Greatest Obscenity

The Court continued with this

interesting statement:

"Nor could it reasonably be

said that the poster was utterly

without redeeming social im-

Unpopular Political Opinions

Pretext Found

For Ousting (c)

Modesto Teacher

Christo Tom Bekiaris was a teacher in the Modesto

school system. He was also a member of the Peace and Free-

dom Party who appeared at City Council meetings and wrote

letters to the editor of the Modesto Bee. His letters and

public comments were generally favorable to the Peace and

Freedom Party, the Black Panth-

ers and Caesar Chavez. None of

these causes are particularly pop-

ular in Modesto. Nor is it popu-

lar, in Modesto, to tell a class of

high school students that consent-

ing adults ought to be able, in

private, to lead their own sexual

lives unmolested by the state or

that marijuana is not an addictive

or dangerous drug. Bekiaris ex-

pressed those views in his classes.

School Board Terminates

Not surprisingly, the school au-

thorities decided that they should

end Bekiaris' teaching career in

Modesto. They wrote to the Coun-

ty Counsel and asked if they could

fire Bekiaris because of his baro-

que political views. The County

Counsel informed them that such

a termination would not be lawful.

The school authorities then framed

`"nonpolitical'' charges against Be-

kiaris. They were the customary

charges brought against political

deviants, failure to follow a course

outline and the like. An impartial

hearing examiner heard the

charges against Bekiaris, decided

that there was nothing to them

and ruled in his favor. The hear-

ing officer's conclusion was

passed upon by the governing

board of the school district which,

predictably, decided that the hear-

ing officer was wrong and that

Bekiaris should be terminated.

_ Political Charges Supported

Bekiaris' attorney, Stewart

Weinberg of San Francisco, then

took the matter to the Stanislaus

portance. To the contrary, in its

condemnation of war, petition-

er's language-whatever its bad

taste - might reasonably be

deemed a condemnation of what

some view as mankind's great-

est obscenity."

The case was handled by

' Charles Marson, assistant staff

counsel.

"Daily Californian'

Recommend Dismissal (c)

Of Disciplinary Charges

The Student-Faculty Conduct

Committee, last month recom-

mended dismissal of disciplinary

proceedings against three Univer-

sity of California, Berkeley,

"Daily Californian" editors. The

charges stemmed from an editor-

ial in the May 11, 1971 issue

which advocated ``taking the

Park again' on the second anni-

versary of its extinction, 4

days later. The editorial was writ-

ten by Jim Blodgett, while David

Dozier and Fran Hawthorne

agreed to its publication.

Two Charges Dismissed

Charges of disorderly conduct

and using the university facili-

ties to organize and carry on un-

lawful activity were both dismiss-

ed following a stipulation of the

facts.

_ The three editors were also

found ``Not Guilty' of physical

abuse or conduct which threatens

the health or safety of any per-

son on University owned or con-

trolled property, as well as `Not

Guilty' of conduct which adverse-

ly affects a student's suitability

as a member of the academic

community. :

Five of the seven Committee

members (four student and three

professors) found insufficient evi-

dence in the light of subsequent

editorials and other evidence to

support the charges, as well as

insufficient evidence of a clear

and present danger to health and

safety of persons on the campus.

The minority felt that approp-

riate action in relation to edi-

torials should be taken by the

publisher's board and not through

other disciplinary channels and

that the publisher's board should

have terminated the matter.

The Chancellor has the power

to rule on the findings and to

make a final determination in the

case.

ACLUNC Representation

Brian M. Sax, volunteer ACLU

attorney of Berkeley, appeared

for the three students. The ACLU

contended that there was no clear

and present danger resulting from

the editorial since by appearing

four days before the proposed

retaking there was plenty of time

to discuss the merits of the pro-

posal and the editors, themselves,

among others, participated in the

discussion urging non-violence.

Superior Court. He urged that

there was no substantial evidence

to support the decision to termi-

nate Bekiaris. Superior Court

Judge Robert Carter ruled that

there was evidence to support the

termination because of Bekiaris'

political views. He ruled:

"The petitioner, Bekiaris, ap-

parently overlooks the fact that

there is a distinction between his

personal views and the forum

in which he may express them

in his responsibility as a teach-

er in the Modesto City Schools

system. This court indeed finds

it most strange that petitioner

would seek to use a high school

classroom and the assertion

that homosexuals should be able

to practice homosexual acts in

the privacy of their home as

even a reasonable relationship

to the fundamental liberties

guaranteed under the Bill of

Rights. Likewise, petitioner's

affirmative statement that `evi-

dence shows that marijuana is

not harmful or addictive', while

indeed a most proper topic for

discussion with high school stu-

dents, demonstrates such a de-

gree of immaturity and lack of

consciousness as to a reasonable

teacher's responsibility in re-

lationship to the minds affected

by his activities and opinions, as

to make it readily clear, why

the actions of the respondent

board are sustained and sup-

ported with substantial evi-

dence.

Review Granted

Weinberg took the case to the

Court of Appeal which decided

that Judge Carter's political state-

ments were somewhat out of line

but that the termination of Bekia-

ris was lawful. Weinberg then

asked the Supreme Court of Cali-

fornia to review the case. That

Court has agreed to hear the mat-

ter and ACLUNC has filed a brief,

as a friend-of-the-court, urging

that Court to reverse the Superior

Court decision and reinstate Be-

kiaris as a teacher in the Modesto

system.

ACLUNC Contentions

The brief, prepared by Staff

Counsel Paul Halvonik, contends

that the right of teachers to ex-

press themselves politically will

be an illusory right if teachers

can be terminated on this sort of

transparent pretext that resulted

in Bekiaris losing his job:

"There is no teacher who is

able to avoid transgressing at

some point in his career some

insignificant rule of conduct.

There is no teacher, in other

words, who cannot be fired on

pretext if a governing board

finds his political views uncon-

genial.

"The First Amendment, how-

ever, is made of sturdier stuff.

Its protections cannot disappear

at the wave of a pretext. Minor

transgressions, even when it is

established that they have in

fact occurred, cannot serve as

the basis for state sanction when

it is apparent that the sanction

has been invoked for the ulterior

purpose of inhibiting the exer-

cise of First Amendment

rights."'

The Bekiaris case will be ar-

gued in the fall and a decision

is expected by next winter.

ACLU NEWS

JULY, 1971

Page 3

Council Survey

Employment

Discrimination

In San Francisco

Infringements upon the civil liberties of an individual

probably occur most frequently in the employment practices

of private businesses. Believing this to be of vital importance

to everyone, the San Francisco Council of ACLUNC has

formed a committee whose primary concern is the civil lib-

erties of individuals in relation to

private and quasi-public organiza-

tions. Since civil liberties infringe-

ments are most likely to develop

from the hiring and firing prac-

tices of these organizations, the

committee first decided to find

out about these practices by send-

ing out a questionnaire in August

of 1970 to over 500 employers in

San Francisco. Specific questions

in areas not covered by law, such

as "`hair,'' sexual orientation, po-

litical and social activism, and

marital status were asked, along

with three `"`Women's Lib'' ques-

tions thought to be outside the

scope of the Civil Rights Act. With

each questionnaire was a `"`cover

letter,'' which explained the pur-

pose of the project, the projected

use of the results, and assured

complete confidentiality regarding

all responses. Replies, prompted

by a follow-up letter, were re-

ceived by the middle of October

and amounted to an 8. percent

response.

Kinds of Discrimination

The largest response concerned

jobs reserved for women, with

26% replying that such is the

case. This apparent interest in

reserving jobs for women is

matched by the large affirmative

responses to `"`restrictions'' and

"`limitations`` 19% and 16%) on

women. It seems that only the low

level jobs are for women only;

advancement is reserved for men.

As might be expected, ``hair'' was

given as the most likely reason

for an applicant to go unhired or

for an employee to be fired. Also

it appears that employers are

about equally concerned with style

of dress and sexual orientations

(16% each). However, many re-

sponses included comments which

indicated the concern about sex-

uality was often whether one ``ap-

peared'' to be homosexual rather

than the orientation itself. Least

concern was with marital status

(0% ), membership in civil rights

organizations (2%), and interest

in helping minorities (2%). One

criticism of the survey was that

it did not inquire about limitations

on advancement, except in the

case of women. Such a question

might have indicated restrictions

on other groups.

Another approach to the data

is provided by showing the per-

centage of employers discriminat-

ing in just one area, in two areas,

ete. Particularly distressing is

the fact that almost half (49% ) of

those responding said they dis-

criminate in at least one area and

40% did so in two or more areas.

More encouragingly, 42% reported

that they did not discriminate in

any of the areas listed. A general

conclusion from the data is that

few employers who discriminate

at all limit their discrimination to

a single area - three and five

areas are most common. Also it

was found that both large and

small companies discriminate

equally. :

Bond Decision

Continued from Page 1-

discrimination against an identi-

fiable class they do not violate

the equal protection clause.'' Since

the Supreme Court did not regard

those voting in favor of bonded

indebtedness as an "identifiable

class'', the case was held to be

distinguishable from earlier cases

dealing with fair housing legisla-

tion and the like.

ACLU NEWS

JULY, 1971

Page 4

- Lack of Response

Perhaps more significant than

the data was the lack of response.

A consultation with a statistician

suggested that 8.5% was a very

low percentage response to a

campaign conducted as this was

and that the expected return is

20 to 25 percent. This reluctance

to answer the questionnaire sug-

gests that ACLUNC has touched

on a very sensitive area with em-

ployers, indicating at the least,

that employers feel this subject

matter is not fer public scrutiny

and, perhaps more, that their si-

lence is an admission of infringe-

ment practices.

Even before the survey, the

committee sought the endorse-

ment of the Downtown Associa-

tion, the Chamber of Commerce,

the Junior Chamber of Commerce,

and the San Francisco Civil Sery-

ice Commission. All refused to

do so. These experiences indi-

cate that a solid wall of protection

exists with respect to any in-

trusion into the employment prac-

tices of a private employer. Given

the changing life styles in San

Francesco today, it appears that

these practices will produce in-

creased confrontation and friction

between employee and employer.

ACLU Scope Limited

ACLUNC, at present, limits it-

self to those cases involving dis-

crimination against an individual

by his government. The commit-

tee hopes that this Employment

Survey will be the initial step

which stimulates ACLUNC to

broaden its scope of interests.

New Trial In

Gurner-Maginnis

Abortion Case

Rowena Gurner and Patricia

Maginnis, legalized abortion cru-

saders, went to trial last month

before San Mateo County Superior

Court Judge W. Howard Hartley.

They were charged with circulat-

ing literature about do-it-yourself

abortions in violation of Section

601 of the Business and Profes-

sions Code. It was alleged that

they ``did wilfully, unlawfully, and

feloniously write, compose and

publish a notice and advertise-

ment of a medicine and means for

producing and facilitating a mis-

carriage and abortion."

Four-Year-Old Case (c)

The case has been kicking

around the California courts for

more than four years. In June of

1967 Municival Judge Roy W. Sea-

graves held that the law was un-

constitutional but his decision was

overturned by the District Court

of Appeal on the ground that the

facts did not establish guilt and,

therefore, there was no necessity

to pass on the constitutional is-

sues.

Only One Witness

In the present trial, the only

witness against Miss Maginnis and

Miss Gurner was Sheriff's Lieu-

tenant Leonard Cardoza. who said

he was present at a February,

1967, meeting where they handed

out do-it-yourself abortion litera-

ture. Paul Halvonik, ACLUNC

staff counsel, did not even cross-

examine the witness.

tion is that the literature is pro-

tected under the Bill of Rights.

Briefs to be Filed

Legal briefs will be filed in the

next 90 days after which Judge

Hartley will render a decision. If

His conten-

Urge High

Court to Retain

Standing Rule

In a joint brief, the Northern

and Southern California branches

of ACLU have urged the Califor-

nia Supreme Court to retain the

traditional rule that a defendant

in a criminal case may urge the

illegality of a search and seizure

carried out against another per-

son, where the fruit of the illegal

search is introduced in evidence

against a defendant.

Dangerous Drug Case

The question arises in the case

of Clifford Kaplan, who will short-

ly be brought to trial in an Orange

County Superior Court. The attor-

neys for Kaplan, who is on trial

for the sale of dangerous drugs,

discovered at the preliminary

hearing that the prosecution was

relying on the testimony of a

party to the illegal transaction to

whom the prosecution had given

immunity from prosecution. The

search and seizure that resulted

in the arrest of the witness were

unquestionably illegal; the ques-

tion decided adversely to Kaplan

in the Superior Court was whether

the defendant had standing to

urge the illegality of the search

carried out against the testifying

witness. The Superior Court held

that the defendant could not bene-

fit from the exclusionary rule in

the circumstances, and the Court

of Appeal in Los Angeles agreed.

Prosecution Argument

There is no question that prior

to the enactment of the Evidence

Code by the Legislature in 1965,

Kaplan could have benefited from

the exclusionary rule. The argu-

ment of the prosecution accepted

by the Court of Appeal, is that the

Evidence Code abolished the prior

rule from which Kaplan would

have benefited by passing Section

351 of the Evidence Code, which

provides: `except as otherwise

provided by statute all relevant

evidence is admissable.'' The Court

of Appeals decided that Section

351 abolished the pre-existing case

law to the effect that the evidence

would be inadmissable under the

exclusionary rule even though the

defendant was not the victim of

the illegal search.

ACLU Contentions

The ACLU brief, prepared by

volunteer attorney Coleman

Blease of Sacramento, argues

both that the Court of Appeals in-

terpretation of the Evidence Code

is incorrect in light of the legisla-

tive history and that the ``vicari-

ous exclusionary rule' is a matter

of constiutional necessity which

canot be reversed by statute. The

brief is being submitted because

the California Supreme Court has

agreed to hear the case.

A `Small Gesture'

Editor: A friend loaned me a

copy of your April, 1971, edition

of ACLU News, in which I found

the enclosed "JOIN TODAY"

clipping. For several years I have

wanted to make a small contri-

bution to the work you are doing,

but I was never approached and

never saw an address to which

I could mail my contribuiton.

I don't know what a "patron

membership" is, but I wanted to

take the most expensive form of

membership I could get. After

four years in S.E. Asia, I can no

longer witness the results of our

program to save people from

communism by destroying them.

I am, in a current phrase, ``drop-

ping out'' of this insanity. I intend

to retire to a quiet mountain re-

treat and write yet another book

about Vietnam, and some more

realistic albeit fictional things.

That means I will be unemployed

for the foreseeable future, and,

if I am going to be without any

means of supvort, I feel I should

try to alleviate your financial

plight now. If others feel the

same, vour problem might be

solved-Larry Newberry, Saigon

the defendants are found guilty

the ACLUNC will, of course, ap-

peal and the constitutionality of

the statute will be in issue.

U.S. Supreme Court

"That" Dirty Word

Conviction Set Aside

In a novel and highly important First Amendment deci-

sion, the United States Supreme Court has reversed the

disturbing the peace conviction of Paul Robert Cohen, who

was convicted of disturbing the peace by "offensive conduct"

when he wore in the Los Angeles County Courthouse a jacket

bearing the words `Fuck the

Draft.'"? The California Court of

Apveal confirmed the conviction

and the California Supreme Court

refused to hear the case. The

United States Supreme Court,

however, granted certiorari to

consider the issue. Both the North-

ern and Southern California ACLU

branches filed briefs in the case.

In a 6-3 decision authored by

Justice John Harlan, it was held

that the words on Cohen's jacket

could not be punished consistent

with the First Amendment.

Violent Reactions

The opinion rejects California's

argument that the words can be

prohibited because they are in-

herently likely to cause violent

reaction. `"`There may be some

persons," the Court said, ``with

such lawless and violent proclivi-

ties, but that is an insufficient

base upon which to erect, consist-

ent with constitutional values, a

governmental power to force per-

sons who wish to ventilate their

dissident views into avoiding par-

ticular forms of expression."'

Polite Discourse

The Court also rejected the arg-

ument that California had a right

to punish the public utterance of

Cohen's language in order to

maintain a suitable level of dis-

course in the body politic. The

Court was careful to point out,

however, that the words on

Cohens' jacket were not likely to

provoke any individual to anger

because they were not directed at

any individual, thereby suggest-

ing the possibility that had the

words been directed at a person

rather than an institution, convic-

tion might have been proper. The

Court also rejected the notion that

the language was obscene, there-

by suggesting the possibility that

if the word employed by Cohen

could be said to be used in the

context of obscenity, conviction on

that ground would be. possible as

well.

Amsterdam Brief

ACLUNC participated as amicus

curiae in the case, with board

member Anthony Amsterdam

writing the brief.

One Win, One Loss In

Credential Controversies

William Skyles, a teacher of

English at Skyline College, was

recently arrested in San Jose and

convicted of obstructing a public

thoroughfare when he and others

sat in a street to protest the in- -

vasion of Cambodia. After an in-

formal hearing before the Com-

mittee of Credentials at which

Skyles was represented by Assist-

ant Staff Counsel Charles Marson,

the Committee voted to drop its

effort to revoke Skyles' teaching

credential.

Second Case

Bernardo Garcia - Pandavenes,

an instructor at Merritt College,

has not been so fortunate. Al-

though ACLUNC was successful

in securing for Garcia Pandav-

enes a community college teach-

ing credential, he has been denied

a secondary credential by an ad-

ministrative procedure act hear-

ing officer. After a two-day ad-

ministrative hearing at which

many charges were made, includ-

ing one of assaulting a_ police

officer with a large glass bottle,

the hearing officer ruled against

Garcia Pandavenes and in favor

of the Committee of Credentials.

Basis of Denial

Although the charge that he was

guilty of assaulting police was

found in his favor, the hearing

officer took the position that it

was sufficient to deny his cre-

dential and that he had twice

been arrested for petty shoplift-

ing offenses, had wilfully blocked

an entrance at Sather Gate on

the Berkeley campus during an

AFT picket line, and had been

active in the Third World Libera-

tion Front during its strike at

the University of California at

Berkeley campus in the winter

of 1969.

Still Teaching

Garcia Pandavenes will be able

to continue as a teacher at Mer-

ritt because he holds the approp-

riate credential for that position,

while ACLUNC will seek his sec-

ondary credential-in the Courts.

Charles C. Marson, Asst. Staff

_Counsel, has been handling both

cases...

College of Marin

Paper Wins _

Free Press Fight

With the assistance of ACLU-

NC's Marin Chapter, the College

of Marin Times last month won

its fight for freedom of the press.

Robert McCreadie of Novato ap-

peared in the case as friend of

the court for the ACLU.

Municipal Judge Peter Allen

Smith quashed a subpoena requir-

ing the editors of the student news-

paper to produce unpublished

photographs taken of an anti-war

sit-in at the offices of the San Ra-

fael Selective Service Board on

March 5. The subpoena was issued

by attorneys for the defendants.

The subpoena was quashed with-

out comment.

The ACLU took the position

that issuance of the subpoena

would have a chilling effect on

freedom of the press.

The first right of a citizen

Is the right

To be responsible

AMERICAN CIVIL

JOIN TODAY

E 151

LIBERTIES UNION

OF. NORTHERN SOON

Patron Membership .3 2. 0. cues. es eect

Sustaining Membership ........... Set ee a 00

Business and Professional Membership . ee ee

Family Membership ......... ee eS

Annual Membership ............ ee Cae 10

Student Membership ...... oer ee 3

ACLU News Subscription ............ =... oo 82. 50

NAME Be ee oe es Sect ie. se Bic etre

ADDRESS = Z1P CODE. Se. ee: ; woes eee

TELEPHONE NUMBER 23... 5... AMA, ENCLOSED... .......

593 Market Street

San Francisco, 94105

All contributions tax deductible.