vol. 36, no. 7
Primary tabs
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.