vol. 37, no. 9
Primary tabs
oo.
ee rad e.. oth Feng
Volume XXXVIII
Volunteer attorney Dolores Donovan (left) and student
Rosa Della Casa discuss sex discrimination in high
schools.
San Francisco, December 1972 :
No. 9
Bay area girls seek admission
to high school shop courses
In at least one case filed last month, it was not even
necessary to go to court.
ACLU Foundation filed for a writ of mandate
requesting that Nila Seward, a student at Clayton
Valley High School, be admitted to woodshop. A
couple of weeks later, she was enrolled in the course
and the school also opened auto mechanics and
mechanical drawing courses to women students.
When Nila's case was filed, the Foundation also
joined the Youth Law Center in a suit on behalf of
_ Rosa Della Casa at South San Francisco High School.
Rosa wants to take auto mechanics and thus far, school
officials are denying her entrance.
Both girls went through all the normal channels in
the school administrations, but found no satisfaction.
In each case, they were told that the schools had a
policy of not admitting women to shop classes.
Still not willing to give up, the two turned to the
ACLU. Volunteer Attorney Dolores Donovan wrote a
letter to Nila's Principat calling his attention to the
Governor's Advisory Commission on the Status of
Women which sharply criticized sex discrimination in
the public schools.
One of the Commission's specific recommendations
was "`that career and vocational education and
counseling be greatly expanded, and that schools give
much greater encouragement to girls to undertake
education and training that make the most of their
potential and prepare them to meet responsibilities of
the future."
Nevertheless, it took the threat of a law suit before
Clayton Valley changed its policy concerning women
in shop classes. The South San Francisco case,
_ however, is still pending. School administrators there
claim auto courses should be limited to boys because
auto mechanics ``is primarily a male profession.''
Regardless of career effects, Donovan emphasized
"`that it is important for women to learn that all fields
are open to them.'' Suzanne Martinez, an Attorney at
the Youth Law Center, :explained that the suit
contends ``that the policy of excluding women from
shop classes violates the state and federal constitutions
as well as various educational and administrative code
provisions."' :
Nevertheless, Rosais still being denied admission to
the regular auto mechanics course although the School -
Board has offered an after-hours course for girls only.
Rosa says this alternative is also discriminatory. School
officials are required to file a response to the suit this
week. If it is not satisfactory, a hearing date will be set.
Key issues still unsettled despite ballot results
Last month's election results are
causing some rejoicing, some sorrow, and
_ afair amount of confusion among civil
libertarians throughout the State.
Of the six ballot propositions on which
ACLU-NC made recommendations, the
results were split with three being
favorable and three unfavorable.
Proposition 18, the Obscenity
Initiative, was soundly defeated by
California voters. This measure, authored
by State Senator John L. Harmer (R-
Glendale), would have upset the
""`redeeming social importance'' test for
dscenity and replaced it with a vague
qiteria based on ``contempory stan-
dards'' of undefined local areas.
ACLU opposed Proposition 18 on the
gounds that it was plainly un-
wnstitutional and it so strictly dr-
aimscribed what publications and movies
were permissable that it would have
resulted in censorship to the point of
absurdity. The initiative was defeated by a
margin of nearly 2-1.
PRIVACY PROSPECTS BRIGHT
Returns on Proposition 11 also provided
encouragement for expansion of the Billof _
Rights. The constitutional amendment,
which passed handily, adds privacy as an
inalienable right guaranteed in the
California State Constitution.
The scope and the limits of the
amendment are at this time undefined, but
it is clear that it will have little effect on
surveillance and invasion of privacy by the
Federal Government. Nevertheless,
ACLU attorneys are optimistic that forth-
coming test cases will greatly expand the
California citizen's protections against
state government meddling in private lif.
Finally, ACLU members can be pleased
that Proposition 22, the Farm Labor
Initiative, was defeated. Had it passed, the
constitutional rights of agricultural.
workers would have been severely
_ testricted. The proposed law clearly
threatened the very existence of the
United Farm Workers, virtually:
satutes which would make mandatory -
educational "campaign, ~ however, the
outlawing their organizing activities and ~
collective bargaining advantages. Even
sympathizing with a farm worker's
boycott could have become. criminal.
California voters defeated Proposition 22
overwhelmingly.
Three other propositions, two of which
passed and one which was defeated,
represent setbacks for civil liberties.
ACLU-NC has devoted much time and
gergy toward the abolition of capital
punishment, but Proposition 17, which
returns the Death Penalty to California,
passed by more by nearly a 2-1 margin.
DEATH PENALTY UNCERTAIN
Still, the future of the Death Penalty is
in a state of confusion. This arises from
the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court
decision in Furman v. Georgia overrides
ay interpretation of the California State
Constitution. That ruling held that the
Death Penalty could be meted out only
when the sentence was automatic and not
determined by a jury which is vulnerable
to prejudice.
Therefore, only mandatory death
penalties are legal in California, and the
only major crime for which this may exist
(the legal issue is in doubt) is the killing of
a non-inmate by a life-term prisoner. A
@mplication has arisen in a Norwalk,
`California case where Alexander Dukes
has been convicted of first degree murder,
which does not, and historically did not,
carry a mandatory death sentence.
Superior Court Judge Julius Leetham,
however, has ordered the jury to consider
the death sentence for Duke's punish-
ment.
Since even the leading proponents of
capital punishment agree that this move is
unconstitutional, it is very unlikely that
the gas chamber will be invoked in this
case. However, the constitutionality of
Proposition 17 will eventually have to be
tested in the courts.
Meanwhile, the amendment grants to
the State Legislature. power to write
death sentences applicable to other crimes.
For the time being, however, leading
legislators say no such statutes will be
passed.
Proposition 19 was another that was
supported by ACLU-NC but was defeated.
Criminal sanctions for the use and-
possession of marijuana would have been
lifted had the measure passed. Believing
marijuana use to be harmful neither to any
victim nor to society as a whole,the ACLU
endorsed this proposition with the hope
that law enforcement would waste less
time on restricting what should be a
private, individual act. Despite a good
TRIBUTION.
bottom portions of the statement.
Open letter to ACLU members
We have approximately 14,000 ACLU members in Northern California. In December,
we bill our total membership...and ONE THIRD of you respond. When you do that, 99-
44/100 per cent of your renewal goes for civil liberties work. When you don't, more
and more of your money goes to the U.S. Post Office, printers, Pacific Telephone for
repeated billings and phone calls, and an enormous amount of staff and volunteer time is
spent just to get your membership renewal for another year of ACLU survival. Our
rough estimate is that $8,500 was spent in this way in 1972. Because we know that you
would much prefer having your money work DIRECTLY in the tough fight to keep civil
liberties alive, and because the results of a questionnaire we sent to 2,500 members who
had not renewed by the end of September brought to light many areas of confusion about
our renewal system, we enclosed a ``Fact Sheet About ACLU Membership Dues'' with
the December 1 renewal reminder for the 1973 membership year. We hope you will take
a minute to read the material if you haven't responded already.
The fact of the matter is that , as desperately as we need your membership dues, we need
your support as a member of that small embattled group which deeply cares about the
survival of the Bill of Rights. There is strength in numbers. WE NEED YOU, YOUR
VOICE AND COMMITMENT, AS WELL AS YOUR FINANCIAL CON-
PLEASE FREE YOUR MONEY to dowhat you want it to do by sending your renewal
# NOW-TODAY if at all possible. THE U.S. POST OFFICE, THE PRINTER,
| PACIFIC TELEPHONE will xo be grateful to you, but your money will work directly 0x00A7
f for cvilliberties..and that's a good thing.
; My personal thanks to those of you who have already sent in your renewal; thanks to |
f you all for your past support ; and best wishes to you all for the New Year.
Editor's note: When returning your membership renewal, please enclose the top and
measure was defeated.
The Wakefield Amendment, or the
Anti-Busing Initiative, will be the first
proposition passed in November to be
tested in the courts. ACLU-Southern
California has filed an amicus brief in a
Santa Barbara school integration case.
That brief charges that Proposition 21 is
unconstitutional because it violates the
equal protection clause of the 14th
Amendment. The Santa Barbara School
District is voluntarily trying to integrate
its schools, but Proposition 21, if valid,
makes that illegal. The matter is now
_ before the State Supreme Court for review.
_ Howard Jewel 0x00A7
Chairman of the Board }
ACLU of Northern California
Ese Ge FU
December
aclu NEWS
Supreme Court removes abortion restrictions
Women seeking abortions in California will face greatly reduced restrictions following
a recent State Supreme Court ruling which found key portions of California's 1967
Therapeutic Abortion Act unconstitutional. ACLU-NC Foundation submitted an
amicus brief by former Legal Director Paul Halvonik.
In the majority opinion written by Chief Justice Donald Wright, the high court ruled
that the criteria by which hospital staffs were to judge the legality of abortions were so
""impermissably vague'' as to be unconstitutional. Justices Stanley Mosk, Raymond
Peters, and Mathew Tobriner joined Wright in this opinion.
Prior to the Court's action, it was necessary for a woman to petition to a special
committee of doctors for permission to have an abortion. These committees were
required to grant permission only when a ` `substantial risk'' was demonstrated that the
mother's ``mental or physical health'' would be ``gravely impaired by continued
pregnancy,'' or that the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest.
DUE PROCESS DENIED BY VAGUE CRITERIA
Wright comments that these committees of doctors were so unclear about their duties
and how they should make their judgments that the ratios of approved applications
varied widely from time to time and place to place.
A clue to the dilemma is revealed by the fact' that recently nearly all applications for
abortions have been approved because doctors simply despaired at having to judge what
constituted ``physical or mental'' impairment.
Such allowances for un- -directed discretion by the doctors' committees constituted a
denial of `"due process'' according to Wright's opinion. Since standards and procedures
were so ill-defined, a woman seeking approval for an abortion would have no way to
judge how she must conform to the requirements contained in the Therapeutic
Abortion Act. ~
Parts of the law were retained by the Court, however, some of which were opposed in
the ACLU brief. The Court held that abortions must still be performed only in hospitals
accredited by a private hospital accrediting organization and that the abortion be per-
formed by a licensed physician.
ACLU CHALLENGED DISIGNATION OF HOSPITALS
Charging that accredited hospitals were sometimes inaccessible to the poor, the
ACLU brief argued that perfectly safe abortions can be performed in clinics or even
doctors' offices. The designation of accredited hospitals for abortion represents an
arbitrary decision by the legislature that has no valid medical reasoning and denies equal
protection to poor women.
Nevertheless, the Court held that the place the abortion was performed was not at
issue in this particular case and, therefore, did not change that portion of the Act. They
may have to face that issue in a later case however.
Justice Louis Burke, joined by Justices Raymond Sullivan and Marshall McComb
dissented to the striking down of portions of the Act on the grounds that those portions
were sufficiently clear to withstand challenge.
Despite the partial nature of the victory, Legal Director Charles Marson called the
Court's decision ``courageous and correct, another step toward the recognition of the
rights of women to control their own bodies.'' He cautioned, however, that it is still
possible for the Legislature to write new abortion laws that could reimpose restrictions
provided they are constitutional.
Governor Ronald Reagan and some state legislators have voiced outrage at the
Court's decision, and it is likely that abortion legislation will be proposed in the coming
session starting in January. For the present, however, thanks to the Supreme Court's
action, abortion on demand (prior to the 20th week of pregnancy and in an accredited
Franklin wins
unemployment,
but suit is
still pending
`Overturning administrative officials, an
Appeals Hearing Officer for the State
Unemployment Compensation Appeals
Board has recommended that former (c)
Stanford Professor H. Bruce Franklin
should be paid unemployment insurance
benefits. The officials had denied him
benefits on the grounds that ``militant''
activism made him unacceptable to other
universities for employment.
Represented by ACLU volunteer at-
torney Larry Sleizer, Franklin won the
recommendation when the referee decided
his political activity was an exercise of
constitutionally guaranteed free speech
and not sufficient cause for denial of (c)
benefits.
In the suit by ACLU Foundation to
reinstate Franklin to his post in the
English Department Faculty, Stanford has
moved for dismissal. The University
argues that Franklin has received ad-
ministrative hearings and has no right to
contest these in court since his contract
should be read to exclude all remedies
beyond a hearing by the Advisory Board
which recommended his dismissal.
Stanford also contends that it is not a
state-supported agency and therefore not
bound to governmental restrictions
embodied in the Bill of Rights. They
further claim that Franklin should not
even be permitted to try to prove that it is
a government institution.
ACLU's response, written by Legal
Director Charles Marson and Sleizer,
points out that the contract says nothing
of the sort and that, in any event,
provisions of the California Labor Code
prohibiting firing for political activity |
clearly apply.
The brief argues that Stanford's history
and legal structure raise enough doubts
about its private status that evidence on
the matter is surely warranted to show
that the University should be bound by
constitutional guarantees.
Oral argument on the motion to dismiss
will take place this month in Santa Clara
County Superior Court.
hospital) is a virtual reality in California.
Cc fellfer
WITH THE :
BON iC Hae ee 2
AUTCIPATE~ vest
ANleol / : :
wD a
He WIRES.
SIRS
UPPRESS|
AIDS
ne
ALL THAT
OM
BODINS
He WAR? { { :
: i
j Eee co
Pe sues Army, FBI for secret documents
Congress attempted to reduce the ability of the Executive
branch of the government to hide information from the public
by passing the Freedom of Information Act on Independence
Day, 1966. That law provided that files should be made
available on request unless they met certain criteria, principally
that they must be kept secret if Secrecy would be in the interest
of the national defense.
_In 1969, ACLU-NC sued the Department of Defense for
Professor Julius Epstein who was at that time a researcher at the
Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford
University. Epstein had requested a file known as `"`Operation
Keelhaul'' from the U.S. Army but was denied. The
"*Keelhaul'' file is a report on the repatriation of about one
million Jewish and anti-communist refugees back to Russia
after World War II.
Epstein, who has studied these refugees since the early
1950's and is publishing a book on the episode, claims the
Allies knowingly cooperated with the Soviets by forcing the
refugees to return against their will to Russia where they were
either executed or died in slave labor camps.
Denying access to the file, the District Court and the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that the
Defense Department was justified in withholding the file
because an Executive Order of the President declared the report
- crucial to national defense. Epstein believes that the real reason
was that the government did not want everyone to know that
after fighting Hitler because he represented all things un-
democratic, our army helped Stalin commit equally repugnant
crimes against humanity.
Following the renewed interest in government secrecy raised
by the release of the Pentagon Papers, the Executive Order
protecting the Keelhaul documents was revoked. The Army's
defense in the 1969 case was thereby substantially weakened.
Last month, National ACLU filed twin lawsuits in federal
court in Washington, D.C. to again try to implement the
Freedom of Information Act. ACLU-NC Legal Director Charles
_ Marson explained that the suits have been re-opened in
Washington because that court has had the most experience
with the government's resistance to releasing information.
- Along with the Epstein complaint, National also filed suit for
Professor Allen Weinstein, a historian and director of the
American Studies Program at Smith College. Weinstein seeks
access to the `"Hiss-Chambers'' file from the Federal Bureau of
Investigation. The document contains all of the FBI's records of
its investigation of Alger Hiss and Whittaker Chambers bet-
ween 1933 and 1952.
Looking beyond his own scholarly pursuits, Weinstein
commented, ``I view this suit as part of a larger effort by
historians to open up unnecessarily restricted files to competent
researchers. Our professional organizations have taken a keen
interest in the whole problem of government restrictions on
scholarship.''
Both the Army and the FBI are claiming that the Freedom of
Information Act does not apply to the requested documents.
Marson pointed out that ``it is now clear that none of these
documents is at all vital to national defense and that the Army
and FBI are only attempting to keep information that would be
embarassing to the government from the public.''
He emphasized that the public's ``right to know'' is crucial
to the maintainence of open government, and if these suits
succeed, they will represent a blow to the indiscriminate use of
`Top Secret' classifications to thwart public scrutiny of the
government's actions.
LEGISLATIVE
December
aclu NEWS
Equal Rights Amendment
approved by legislature
November 7 1972
California has become the 22nd state to
ratify the Equal Rights Amendment (the
_ 27th Amendment) to the United States
Constitution. Ratification came after a
long and often bitter fight to get the
amendment out of the Senate Rules
Committee where it had been stalled by
Senator James Mills. Senator Mills
released the bill only after a strong
campaign on behalf of women's rights
organizations, particularly the National
Organization of Women. On November
9, 1972 the full Senate voted 29 to 9 to
ratify the amendment. The Assembly
moved swiftly to join in the ratification by
a vote of 54 to 16 on November 13. The
resolution was introduced into the Senate
by Senator Mervyn Dymally and in the
"Genesis"
Assembly by Assemblyman Walter
Karabian.
The Equal Rights Amendment reads as
follows:
`Section 1. Equality of rights
under the law shall not be denied or
abridged by the United States or by
any State on account of sex.
**Section 2. The Congress shall have
the power to enforce, by appropriate
legislation, the provisions of this
article.
"Section: 3: This canneries shall
take effect two years after the date of
ratification.''
A complete legislative report of the just
completed 1972 session will follow in the
next ACLU News.
in public schools
Staffers embark on new duties
Mike Callahan
Associate Editor of his student newspaper
and did publicity for the U.C. Student
Lobby in Sacramento. .
Another addition to the staff is Larry
Sleizer, Chairman of the Mid-Peninsula
Chapter and a June graduate of Stanford
Law School. He has taken over the duties
of Associate Staff Counsel. This came
about due to an unexpected response to
our Fall Special Fund Appeal. The Point
Foundation offered a one-year grant to
Three staff changes went into effect this.
past month and the newcomers are quickly
learning their tasks.
This issue of the ACLU News marks
Mike Callahan's initiation as the paper's
editor and the Affiliate's Public In-
formation Director. Mike took over the
new job after serving as Press Assitant on
the Proposition 17 Campaign. He replaces
Bill Kane who left the post to return to his
previous career in marketing research and
consultation.
A recent graduate from the University
of California at Santa Barbara, Mike was
Editor's note: The State Board of Education recently recommended that science
textbooks in the public schools should offer ``evolution'' and ``creation'' as op-
posing theories of the beginning of the universe. The ACLU is currently deter-
mining what the organization's response to this move should be. While hearings
were being held on the matter, ACLU Board member Paul Halvonik drafted the
following letter to the Board of Education. It well characterizes the natural in-
credulity at the Board of Education's recommendation.
Dear Sir:
The newspaper accounts have been vague and confusing but there seems to be
universal agreement that the State Board of Education is, in one manner or
another, introducing Genesis into the public school curriculum and that it is to be
taught not as an interesting religious theory or a charming folk-tale but as solid
scientific competition for Darwinism.
This I find surprising because a quick glance at my pocket supplement confirms that
the First Amendment and Article 13 Section 24 of the state Constitution have not
been repealed. That being the case, it should be clear that you do not have authority
to use the public schools to promote religious theories.
I assume that you do not intend to flaunt the Constitution which you have sworn to
defend. On the other hand, there are these newspaper stories. I wonder if you would
be good enough to clear this up for me and let me know exactly what the board's
intentions are.
Paul H. Halvonik
P.S. It would be singularly unwise for a School Board, of all bodies, to encourage
the treatment of "`and God created'' stories as fact. Could you honorably exclude
any such stories from the curriculum? Would you include this one, attributed to
Mark Twain? 0x00B0`First God created an idiot, but that was just for practice, then he
created a School Board.''.
Nota Bene
enable Larry to work for the Affiliate. In
his first case since joining the Staff, Larry
Larry Sleizer
won H. Bruce Franklin's appeal for
unemployment compensation.
Finally, Dorothy Ehrlich has joined the
staff as Membership Secretary, replacing
Pam Ford who left the organization after
nine years of devoted service. Dottie was a
CORO intern for us last Spring and since
then has been Assitant Coordinator for the
Death Penalty Campaign.
While in the CORO program, Dottie
graduated from the University of San
Francisco where she was a History major.
Dorothy Ehrlich
9 issues a year, monthly except bi-monthly in March - Rocil July - August,
_ Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California
Howard Jewel, Chairman of the Board
Membership $10 and up of which $2.50 is the annual subscription fee for aclu News.
aclu NEWS |
and November-December
Second Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, California
Jay Miller, Executive Director
Mike Callahan , Editor and Public Information Director
593 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-433-2750
Loyalty questions probe associations
force, violence, or any other unlawful means?
Attorneys who are handling cases
involving violations of Section 647(e) of
the California Penal Code which outlaws
"`refusing to identify yourself and account
for your presence,'' should take note of
these recent developments.
The Statute has been held un-
constitutional by a growing number of
municipal and superior courts in
California despite a California Court of
Appeals decision in 1967 upholding the
section (People v. Weger, 251 Cal. App.
2d 584 cert den. 389 US 1047 (1967) ).
1) People v. Kirk Ruppert McCarter,
June 24, 1971 (Municipal Court for
South Orange County Judicial District)
affirmed by Appellate Department of
Superior Court of Orange County People
v. McCarter, No. AP-1114 (February 1,
1972) transfer refused by Court of Appeal
4 Crim. NL. 5584 (March 3, 1972).
(2) People v. Grayson, No. H45413
July 28, 1972 (Municipal Court for City.
and County of San Francisco Dept. No.
13). People did not appeal.
(3) People v. Stephens, No. 42986,
October 25, 1972 (Municipal Court for
the Berkeley Albany Judicial District).
People did not appeal.
When Peter Cummings and Peter Rudd were interns at
Stanford University, they were denied entrance to a rotating
training program at Palo Alto Veterans Hospital because they
refused to answer questions about their political associations.
They sued the Civil Service Commission and a Federal Court
found that the questions were unconstitutional.
In September, the same two doctors requested employment at
the same hospital. They were asked the same questions that had
been declared unconstitutional with a few minor changes.
Again they refused to answer and again they were denied
employment. They sued the Civil Service Commission in
Federal Court again and won their case.
Now, the Government has appealed the decision of the
District Court to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and
ACLU-NC Foundation has entered the case with an amicus
curiae brief authored by Associate Staff Counsel Peter
Sheehan.
Apparently, the Government is determined to make a test
case out of this set of questions although they have been ruled -
unconstitutional twice. The present form of the questions is as
follows:
(1) Are you now or within the past ten years have you been a
`member of the Communist Party, USA, or any subdivision of
the Communist Party, USA?
(2) Have you ever organized, or helped to organize, or
become a member of any organization or group of persons
which,during the period of your membership or association,
you knew was advocating or teaching that the Government of
_ the United States... should be overthrown or overturned by
If the answer to either question is ``yes,'' the applicant must
answer 7 other inquiries of a more specific nature.
Finding the questions unconstitutional, the District Court
said the first question ``dispenses with any requirement of
knowledge or specific intent. While the second question does
require knowledge, it makes no mention of specific intent.'
""Knowledge'' and ``specific intent'' have been recognized as
essential ingredients. for lawful loyalty questionnaires.
In the ACLU brief, Sheehan takes issue with the Executive
Order which authorized the loyalty questionnaire for Federal
employment in the first place. He argues that the relevant
sections of the Executive Order have. a disastrous ``chilling
effect'? because, in addition to being overbroad, they result in
multiple vagueness since both the standard governing when
inquiries may be made and the standard that describes the
conduct that can be Se into are hopelessly vague.
Ee explains that "`potential applicants will be much less
inclined to join, or even be linked with, any organization that
might impede their chances for employment.''
Malcolm Burnstein, an East Bay Attorney who is
representing Cummings and Rudd, points out that if the
Government succeeds in upholding these inquiries for
physicians in non-sensitive employment, they will have suc-
ceeded in greatly expanding the nature of the inquiries allowed
of Federal job applicants.
``The Government simply wants to increase its ability to
collect dossier information on the political activity of dissidents
by overturning earlier, less repressive court decisions,''
_Burnstein concluded.
CHAPTERS
December
aclu NEWS
Berkeley-A Ibany 2
Plans for ``watchdog'' committees -
have been completed and the Chapter i is
now seeking volunteers who are in-
terested in the program. One com-
mittee will work with the Berkeley City
Council and other governmental
bodies, while the other will attempt to
effect reforms through the Department
of corrections and oversee proposals for
two new prisons. Volunteers are asked
to write the Chapter at P.O. Box 121,
Berkeley, 94701.
Sonoma
Seeking greater representation for
members of racial and _ ethnic
minorities, the Chapter is pressuring
District Attorney John Hawkes to
actively recruit Chicanos, Blacks, and
Native Americans for his staff. In a
letter to Hawkes, Chapter Chairman
Bill Booth said ``agencies of justice in
_ Sonoma County must rigorously seek
racial and ethnic integration if they are
to fulfill their proper function.'' Newly
elected Board officers are Bernard
Sugarman, Chairman; Lee Torliatt,
Vice Chairman; Jack Rudinow,
Treasurer; and Edith Soules,
Secretary.
Mt. Diablo
The chapter is in the process of.
recruiting members to serve on the
Board of Directors and the various
committees. All interested persons are
requested to call Rose Bonhag,
evenings and weekends, at 283-3820..
Santa Clara
The Chapter won a partial victory in
a fight over a noise ordinance in the
City of Saratoga. Required notice for
amplified sound was reduced from 30 to
15 days, and exceptions were provided
to even that limit due to the Chapter's
efforts to guarantee Constitutional
rights in the ordinance. The $50 bond,
which the Chapter had opposed as an
unconstitutional tax on free speech,
was retained by the City Council
however.
San Francisco
Officers of the Board were elected
and several projects planned at the
Chapter's November meeting. Warren
Saltzman will serve as Chairman, with
Arthur Brumwasser, Sally Pall, and
Fran Strauss holding the Vice-Chairs.
Hartly Fleishmann and Peggy Sarasohn
were selected Secretary and Treasurer
respectively. The Board is in the .
process of establishing legislative and
lobbying committees to work with the
Board of Supervisors and various
county and city commissions. Also,
every effort is being made to develop a
telephone tree so that members can be
alerted to the needs of the Chapter.
Anyone who can help should call Fran
Strauss on Monday, Wednesday,
Friday at 433-2750 (evenings: Warren -
Saltzman at 586-6346, Sue Bierman at -
564-4047, or Fran at 673-1085).
Members are requested to begin saving
`serendipity'? for a Garage Sale
planned for the Spring.
Mid-Peninsula
Chapter Chairman Larry Sleizer won
a reversal in the Unemployment In-
surance Appeals. Board for George A.
Peabody. Peabody had been denied
unemployment benefits on the grounds
that his long hair and beard made him
unavailabie for work although these in
no way affected his ability to work. The
referee in the matter decided that such
criteria were improper for use in
determining eligibility and recom-
mended the payment of compensation
benefits to Peabody.
Fresno
In an effort to attract more members,
the Chapter is expanding its regular
monthly business meetings to include
programs on current issues that will be
of interest to all. This effort began with
a dinner meeting last Monday,
featuring Jay Miller, Executive
Director, and Laura Monroe,
Associate Director of ACLU-NC.
Subsequent meetings on special topics
will take place at the First Christian
Church in Fresno on the second
Monday of each month.
Monterey
New officers: were elected at the last
meeting. Pearl Carey will serve as
Chairwoman for the coming year and
Peter Lewis will be Vice-Chairman.
Elizabeth Harris was chosen Secretary,
and Mary Webb will have the
Treasurer responsibilities. The Chapter
is planning action in two suits. One
involves a young man who was refused
service at a Carmel grocery store on the
grounds that he was a homosexual, and
another which deals with banning of
books by the Salinas School Board.
Six seats added to Board
to increase ratio of women
Recognizing the underrepresentation of women and attempting to set an example for
an end to discriminatory patterns in other agencies, the ACLU-NC Board of Directors
voted at their last meeting to expand the size of the Board by six seats, all of which will
be filled by women.
This decision came after a National ACLU Committee suggested that affiliates `"take
affirmative and vigorous action within its own structure to increase significantly the
representation of women on all policy-making bodies and committees of the
organization.'
In response, the NC Women's Rights Gammitce submitted the proposal which was
adopted. The Committee reported it hesitated to expand the size of the Board, but after
discovering that no significant number of seats would be vacated until 1974, agreed on
the creation of six new seats.
At present, there are 31 Board members, six of whom are women. The new policy
will establish a:ratio of 12 women to 25 men. Finding that women comprise ap-
proximately 40 percent of the NC membership, the Board recognizes that its recent
action does not completely solve the problem of equal representation for women.
To help remedy this, further nominating committees will be instructed "`to make a
serious effort to seek out women nominees for the Board. Also, in order to maintain a
degree of intimacy on the Board, the resolution provided that of every two seats vacated
in the future, only one will be refilled until the Board is again at 31.
Since Chapter representatives on the Board are elected by Chapter membership, there
is no way the Board can control the ratio of these 14 members, four of whom are
women. Chapters are asked, however, to be mindful that women are adequately
represented throughout the leadership of their organizations.
If you have any suggestions for women to serve on the Board, please send their names
and background to Dorothy Patterson, Chairwoman of the Nominating Committee. To
be considered, all nominations should be received by the committee before January 8,
1973.
If you have any suggestions, you should call or write Ingrid Hanbrich at the ACLU-
NC office for the list of qualifications for Board membership. She can be contacted
during business hours at (415) 433-2750 or write 593 Market Street, San Francisco,
94105.
"Quotas" and "goals" discussion
Affirmative Action Programs pose a
difficult dilemma to civil libertarians.
Should the Government enforce
preferences for minority groups in
hiring and education? The USS.
Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare has demanded that any agency
receiving Federal aid must end
discrimination through plans which
would set goals for minority par-
ticipation.
On the one hand, some believe that
this policy favors members of
minorities to the exclusion of equally
qualified non-minority applicants.
They conclude that this is a clear denial
of ``equal protection of the Laws'' and
something the ACLU must oppose.
Others, however, hold that in light
of the centuries of oppression and
deprivation, a legal concept of
""compensatory equal protection''
must be developed to make up for the
wrongs of the past and to provide
minorities with true equality in
American society. These believe the
ACLU should actively support Af
firmative Action Programs. For many, -
the controversy boils down to whether
minority policies are to be charac-
terized as ``quotas'' or as ``goals.'"
Obviously, in a relatively closed job
market and in already over-crowded
colleges and universities, any plan to
increase minority participation is going
to intensify the friction.
These questions will be the topic of a
special meeting of all concerned
members of ACLU-NC to be hosted by
the San Francisco Chapter on Sunday,
January 21 at 4 p.m. The panel
discussion will be moderated by
Stanford Law Professor Anthony
Amsterdam at the Fireman's Fund
Building, 3333 California Street, San
Francisco. Mark the date on your
calendar and plan to attend.
FOR MORE EFFECTIVE SERVICE -:
"FISHING EXPEDITION"
Three submit to grand jury pressure, testify
Using ``contempt of grand jury'' charges, Guy Goodwin, Chief
of the Internal Security Division of the Department of Justice, has
succeeded in forcing two witnesses to testify before the Federal
Grand Jury and a third has promised to do so this month.
This occurred only after appeals for bail pending appeal of the
contempt charges went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and
were denied. Once bail had been refused, the witnesses could either
continue not to testify and await rulings on the contempt appeals in
jail, or talk. They chose the latter.
Now, the contempt appeals have been ruled moot in the Ninth
Circuit Court since the contempt violations were ""purged'' when
the three agreed to testify.
`As of today, six more witnesses have been called upon to answer
questions and all refused. Should the government offer them
immunity from prosecution, as is expected, they too are likely to
be found in contempt. Since there will be little chance of bail,
several of these have indicated they will go to jail and appeal the
contempt charges.
Only by such action can the conetrutionality of Goodwin's
tactics be challenged. Thus far, he has found the Grand Jury to be
an effective tool for probing citizens' political associations and
activities.. The Organized Crime Control Act contains a provision
that if a witness is offered immunity, he must testify whether it is
incriminating or not.
Goodwin is using this law to force people involved in leftist
politics to incriminate others. The two witnesses who testified
were asked about people they lived with, mail they and others
received, people they know and their political associations during a
period in 1971.
If the remaining 12 witnesses are found in contempt, ACLU-NC
and the National Lawyers Guild, representing them, will appeal
the charges. But, in view of the bail denial by the Supreme Court,
the witnesses will oe have to go to jail to await' an outcome of
the appeals.
Staff Counsel Joseph Reicha explained that the witnesses will
contend on appeal that the contempt charges should be overturned
because the govvernment failed to completely deny illegal elec-
tronic surveillance of the defendants and their attorneys. The
witnesses also contend that they are entitled to trial by jury before
being held in contempt and that the Grand Jury is improperly
probing into matters protected by the First Amendment.
Should these appeals fail, the witnesss will have only the choice
of staying in jail for the duration of the Grand Jury, estimated to be
another 16 months, or agree to testify. Either way, Guy Goodwin
and the Grand Jury will have struck a serious blow to the Bill of
Rights.
When writing about: change of address,
adjustments, complaint, renewal, etc.,
please attach mailing label to insure
prompt, efficient service. Correspondence
regarding these matters should be ad-
- ACLU Northern Cal.
Membership Dept.
593 Market St.,
San Francisco, Ca. 94105
ATTACH LABEL HERE
name (please print) phone no.
address apt. no,
city state zip code
`For uninterrupted delivery please give us
eight weeks' notice to process change.
Attach present label with old address and.
enter new address above.