vol. 40, no. 1

Primary tabs

Ye)


aA C Ul


%6 VD AD1SNUaG


DOSTINVUS STLT


Sdi1 VIAID o/3


Volume XXXX


Despite several last minute changes,


including cancellation by the major


speaker, all who attended agreed that


the ACLU Foundation's Second An-


nual Bill of Rights Day Celebration and


presentation of the Earl Warren Civil


Liberties Award was a great success.


Much of the credit for the evening's


success is due to Nancy McDermid,


Vice-Chairperson of the Foundation


Board of Governors, who stepped into


the breach to chair the event. In her


opening remarks, Nancy reminded us


that the real purpose of the affair was to


rededicate ourselves to the Bill of


Rights and to remember the constant


vigilance that requires.


Nancy McDermid


ACLU-NC Vice-chair


She said, "I worry about the Bill of


Rights. I'm not satisfied. Despite the


gains we have. made, civil liberties are


still under constant attack - in the


Supreme Court, in grand juries, in the


prisons, in mental institutions.


"When the Founding Fathers began


January 1975, San Francisco


discussing the Bill of Rights, many said


it would be dangerous, it was un-


necessary. But some of those early


leaders were stubborn. They demanded


and fought for adoption of the Bill of


Rights even though it would be


dangerous or less orderly for society. I


like to think those stubborn leaders


were ACLU types. We must remember


that history tonight, we must remain


stubborn - sometimes even loud-


mouthed - in our defense of the Bill of


_ Rights.


ACLU-NC Board Member Edison


Uno was in the hospital the night of the


event. He was to have delivered an


address on his personal perspective on


the life of Eari Warren. Nancy Mc-


Dermid read his comments in his


absence. Edison explained that he had


spent many years talking with Earl


Warren before his death, to obtain a


repudiation of the then Attorney


General's complicity in the Japanese


internment during World War II.


Edison said that the former Chief


Justice has privately expressed his


sorrow at his actions and that his about


to be published papers will do so


publicly.


Edison wrote: `Even Earl Warren, a


man of great character and intelligence,


fell victim to the hysteria against the


Japanese. But then, the ACLU of


Northern California was one of the few


who stood up. Nevertheless, I am ex-


tremely pleased about the Earl Warren


Civil Liberites Award - he was truly


the greatest civil libertarian of our


times. Our memorializing of Earl


Warren will help make us keenly aware


of the way we should pattern our lives."


Earl Warren, SJr., son of the former


[L. te R.] Earl Warren, Jr.; Michael Traynor; ACLU Foundation Chairperson,


Howard Jewel; and Nancy McDermid look on as Charles Morgan speaks at Bill


of Rights Celebration.


Photos by Poe Asher


`Traynor honored at Second


Bill of Rights Celebration


Chief. Justice and a- Superior Court


Judge in Sacramento, presented the


award named for his father to the


retired Chief Justice of the California


Supreme Court, Roger Traynor.


Warren explained that "each year, the


ACLU Foundation honors a Northern


Californian who has through actions,


ideas and leadership advanced the


personal freedoms of us all. Few


Northern Californians are more


deserving than Roger J. Traynor."


Since Traynor is teaching in


England at Cambridge, the aware was


accepted on his behalf by his son,


Michael Traynor, who read a telegram


of appreciation from his father.


Finally, the main speaker who was


standing in for Julian Bond who had a


last minute conflict was Charles


Morgan, Jr., the National ACLU


Legislative Director.


Morgan noted that Earl Warren's


decision in 1954 in the Brown vy. Board


of Education case was a "goodness so


great that it will never be surpassed.


But, it caused us to come to rely on


judges for social change. Earl Warren


and Roger Traynor would frown on this


emphasis on the judiciary. Lawyers and


judges have hardly been in the forefront


of social change historically. We turned


to the courts in the 1950's only because


no other branch of government was


No. 1


Charles Morgan, Jr.


ACLU Legislative Dir.


open to us."


"The Bill of Rights and the Con-


stitution are about trust in people -


not trust in the courts, or the


legislature, or the executive. Our rights


will be secure only if we refuse to trust


our institutions and rely on the common


sense and political instincts of the


people.


"We have to end government secrecy,


open its operations to public scrutiny


and we have to depend on juries and the


electorate. If we let the people know


what their government is doing, they


won't let_us down."


99% for civil liberties work


As you know, this is the second


year we are doing our initial renewal


mailing in January instead of


December. Some of you sent your


1975 dues in December anyway. We


will automatically enter you as paid


for 1975.


Normally when we do our initial


billing, one-third of you respond.


When you do that, 99-44/100


percent of your renewal goes for civil


liberties work. When you don't more


and more of your money goes to the .


Post Office, printers, 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 close to


$10,000 was spent in this way in


1974.


Because we know that you would


much prefer having your money


work directly in the tough fight to


keep civil liberties alive, we hope that


you will take a minute to read the


renewal materials we have sent you


and respond immediately.


We realize that these are difficult


times and that there are many demands


on your money. If it would help,


perhaps you would like to consider


pledging your contribution in quarterly


installments to ease the pinch. Details


of the pledge plan can be found on the


back side of your renewal notice.


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 num-


bers. We need you, we need your


voice and commitment as well as


your financial contribution.


Please free your money to do what


you want by sending your renewal


now - today if at all possible. The


U.S. Post Office, the printer, Pacific


Telephone will not be grateful to you,


but your money will work directly for


civil liberties... and that's a good


thing.


We thank those of you who have


already sent in your renewal; thanks


to you all for your past support; and


best wishes to you all for the New


Year.


Jan. 1975


aclu news


LEGAL


Sterilization halted by Court of Appeals


For the first time in history the California Court of


Appeal ruled last month that county superior courts


have no authority to order the involuntary sterilization


of an adult incompetent ward.


The ACLU Foundation appealed the case last


February. on behalf of Holly K., a mildly retarded


black woman who had been ordered sterilized at the


request of her father. The Contra Costa County


Superior Court, sitting as a probate court which has


jurisdiction over guardian-ward matters, granted the


petition for a sterilization.


Superior Court Judge S.C. Masterson, who presided


over the case, appointed a public defender to protect


Holly's interests in the matter. Holly is 32 years old


and lives in a nursing home in Contra Costa County,


where she is under constant supervision. Two years


ago, her father, Joseph K. of Richmond, California,


asked the court to appoint him as Holly's guardian.


He then immediately petitioned the court to order the


sterilization.


To support his request, Holly's father claimed that


she might engage in intercourse and that a pregnancy


would endanger her health. He introduced affidavits


Farmworkers may sue again


Last November, in response to a


meaningful and orderly fashion. In-


from several doctors who in fact concluded that Holly


should not be sterilized. One of the physicians stated,


"It is plausible that the woman might employ poor


judgment in her sexual conduct but the fact of her


retardation does not justify the use of the most


dramatic procedure when more conservative and less


psychologically traumatic methods are avaiable and


should be attempted first."


Another doctor wrote, "Before ech surgery is


_ carried out it certainly seems that patient should have


an opportunity for a less-severe alternative form of


birth control which would require no hospitalization."'


None of the evidence presented by Holly's father


was direct and the court never even established


whether or not Holly had ever engaged in intercourse


or whether other birth control methods had been


thoroughly considered. No men reside at the nursing


home. Nevertheless, Judge Masterson issued an order


which "authorized and directed" Holly's father to


consent to the sterilization of his daughter.


On the appeal, ACLU Staff Counsel Joseph


Remcho argued that the trial court's casual approval


of permanent sterilization invaded Holly's privacy,


denied her equal protection of the laws, and imposed


cruel and unusual punishment in violation of state


and federal Constitutions. In addition, ACLU charged


that she was denied `due process of law" by the


failure of her court-appointed counsel to provide


minimally effective representation and that the court


had no jurisdiction to issue such a sweeping and


irrevocable order.


The opinion of the unanimous Court of Appeal


concluded that there is no statutory or case law to


"support the proposition that a probate court may


order the sterilization of a mentally incompetent


ward." The Court noted that extensive conditions


must be met before any sterilization may be allowed,


and that none of those requirements were met in this


case.


Remcho commented that he was `"`gratified that the


Appellate Court unanimously refused to become a


party to the medieval, eugenic procedures and in-


voluntary invasion of this woman's body contemplated


by the trial court."


UFW pickets challenge


contempt citations


petition from the International deed, no single tenet of our system of


Brotherhood of Teamsters, Riverside jurisprudence has been more


County Superior Court Judge Frederick scrupulously defended against en- ACLU-NC filed an amicus curiae


Metheny issued an _ unprecedented croachment." | brief in the California State Supreme


Temporary Restraining Order against


the United Farmworkers (AFL-CIO).


Provisions of the order prevented the


Farmworkers Union from filing any


lawsuit in federal or state courts against


the Teamsters which would re-litigate


the issues of any lawsuits previously


decided against the Union. Judge


Metheny also restrained the Farm-


workers from filing any new lawsuits


which would litigate subject matters


already pending before the courts in


other suits.


Specifically, the TRO denied the


Farmworkers the right to file any suit in


federal or state courts which is based


upon alleged violations of certain


sections of the California Labor Code


by the Teamsters; or, allegations of a


conspiracy between the teamsters and


growers and shippers of fresh produce


in California.


In the lawsuits already filed by the


Farmworkers but not yet served on the


Teamsters, Judge Metheny ordered that


the Union may not serve process upon


the Teamsters, their officers or agents,


or Frank Fitzsimmons, the President of


the Teamsters.


Finally, the court restrained the


Farmworkers from ``commencing or


causing to be commenced any


proceeding in the federal or state courts


in the State of California against the


`Teamsters or their officers and agents,


and thereafter cause the press to


publish the contents of the complaint."


ACLU of Northern California joined


the ACLU of Southern California and


twenty-eight other private attorneys to


overturn the restraining order and


oppose the issuance of an injunction


against the Farmworkers in the


Riverside Superior Court.


In a memorandum to the court,


ACLU-SC Staff Counsel


Rosenbaum argued that "firmly im-


planted as the cornerstone of the Bill of


Rights is the right to assert those rights


within the judicial structure in a


Mark


Rosenbaum noted that the teamsters


have sought relief from the court which


tramples upon these rights in an un-


paralled manner. ``Simply put, they


have effectively asked this Court to


hamstring the litigation activities of the


United Farm Workers, and


simultaneously to grant the Teamsters


unprecedented immunity from un-


constitutional conduct."


The Morandum states that counsel


for the Farm Workers are aware of no


case, and the Teamsters have cited no


case, in which any party to a lawsuit has


even had the temerity to request an


order as sweeping as this TRO; nor has


any court even suggested that such an -


order could be appropriately granted.


The state's two ACLU's and the other


co-counsel for the Farm Workers


charged that Judge Metheny's order to


prohibit the filing of lawsuits ``con-


stitutes an unconstitutional prior


restraint on the Union's right to secure


redress of grievances within the judicial


system in violation of the First


Amendment." They added that the


effect of the order was that the judge


had named himself official censor of


any complaints the Union might wish to


file in any courtroom in the state.


The memorandum in opposition to


Judge Metheny's order also pointed out


that the section preventing the Union


from causing "the press to publish the


contents of the complaint" is wholly


unconstitutional. Complaints are a part


of the public record and since they |


involve ``public issues requiring


uninhibited, robust, and wide open


debate,"' public dissemination of their


contents should be encouraged.


At a hearing last month on a


preliminary injunction, Judge Metheny


acceded to the ACLU's arguments and


dissolved the Temporary Restraining


Order. He also denied the Teamsters'


request for a preliminary injunction. As


a result, the Farm Workers are again


free to seek their rights in the judicial


process.


Court last month in the case of Safer v.


Ventura County Superior Court on


behalf of 22 United Farm Worker


Union supporters cited for contempt.


The ACLU brief was prepared by


volunteer attorney, Norton Tooby. The


case is being handled directly by Ellen


Lake, who was a staff counsel for UFW


before becoming the attorney for the


ACLU Foundation's Women's Rights


Project.


On May 30, 1974, several strawberry


growers in Ventura County filed a civil


action in the Superior Court seeking an


order against picketing by the Union.


The Court issued a temporary


restraining order severely limiting the


picketing. The next day, the 22 persons


were afrested and charged with


violation of a lawful court order. The


charge is a criminal offense and all of


the defendants pleaded not guilty and


requested jury trials.


Five days before the first of the trials


was to begin, the District Attorney


dismissed the criminal complaints and


instead charged them with civil con-


tempt. A deputy District Attorney


stated that the reason was that the jury


trials in Municipal Court could be


avoided and the matter could go


straight to the Superior Court.


The Farm Workers protested that the


Superior Court refused the petition for


a jury trial and set a date for the trial to


proceed.


In her appeal, Lake charge: "Such a


gross abuse of prosecutorial power


should not be tolerated by this Court.


The District Attorney must not be


allowed to have his cake and eat it, too.


Either a contempt proceeding under the


Code of Civil Procedure is essentially


civil, and thus beyond the District


Attorney's power; or, if it is essentially


criminal, and thus within his duties,


then petitioners must be afforded the


constitutional and statutory rights of


others charged with criminal


violations."


In ACLU's amicus brief, Tooby only


deals with the issue of whether the


petitioners should be accorded a jury


trial. He argues that whenever the


punishment for an offense is im-


prisonment, "the right of trial by jury


shall...remain inviolate.'' The


District Attorney's tactic of changing


the label on the proceeding cannot be


employed to deny petitioners their right


to a jury trial.


In virtually all respects except for the


right of trial by jury, persons accused of


- contempt are entitled to all the rights of


criminal defendants. "For all other


purposes, contempt has been seen for


the criminal proceeding that it is,


Granting petitioners their right to trial


District Attorney had no authority to by jury is only consistent with


charge them with contempt and they established principles,' Tooby con-


again requested a jury trial. The (c) cluded.


ey


aclu news


9 issues a year, monthly except bi-monthly in March-April, July-August,


and November -December


Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California


Second Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, California


Richard DeLancie, Chairman of the Board Jay Miller, Executive Director |


Mike Callahan, Editor and Public Information Director


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


Membership $15 and up of which $2.50 is the annual subscription fee for aclu News.


`LEGAL


Jan. 1975-


aclu news


2


Supreme Court to review death sentence.


By MIKE CALLAHAN


Editor, ACLU News


The last execution in California was


that of Aaron Mitchell in the San


Quentin gas chamber almost eight


-years ago. In February, 1972, the


California Supreme Court voted 6-1 in


the case of People v. Anderson that


henceforth, capital punishment would


be banned in the State of California as


cruel and unusual punishment. Many


thought the gas chamber would become


only a macabre memory.


Today, however, ten men reside on


death row at San Quentin and the gas


chamber stands ready to take their


lives. Following the court's decision in


the Anderson case, State Attorney


General Evelle Younger announced a


campaign to put a death penalty


initiative on the November, 1972 ballot


which would overturn the Court.


The Attorney General's proposed


initiative constitutional amendment


purported to reinstate all death penalty


statutues in effect before February,


1972 and that "the death penalty


provided for under those statutes shall


not be deemed to be, or to constitute,


the infliction of cruel or unusual


punishments within the meaning of


Article I, Section 6 nor shall such


punishment for such offenses be


deemed to contravene any other


provision of this Constitution."


On June 29, 1972, Proposition 17


qualified for the ballot having received


the required number of signatures. On


that same day, the Supreme Court of


the United States held in Furman y.


Georgia that the death penalty was


unconstitutional under the U.S.


Constitution whenever the death


sentence is handed down at the


discretion of the sentencer.


In essence, the Court did not rule on


the constitutionality of the death


penalty itself, but rather, it decided that


the way in which the sentence had


historically been determined was ar-


bitrary and unfair. This opinion left


open the possibility that a `"`mandatory"


death sentence in which no discretion is


involved, might pass a constitutional


test.


With respect to Proposition 17, the


effect of the Furman decision was that


the death penalty, in the form which the


initiative principally sought to reinstate,


was unconstitutional because by


California law, capital punishment was _


in virtually all cases a "discretionary"


sentence. S


Nevertheless, Proposition 17 was


submitted to the electorate on the ballot


of the November 7, 1972 general


election, and was approved. Since the


initiative could not reinstate the


California death penalty laws which


had already been invalidated by the


Furman decision, the State Legislature


took upon itself the task of writing new


statutes which might meet the stan-


dards outlined by the U.S. Supreme


Court.


On September 24, 1973, Governor


Ronald Reagan signed into law Senate


Bill 450 which provided that persons


convicted of first degree murder should


be sentenced to die upon a finding of


one of more enumerated `"`special


circumstances" to be determined by the


trial jury.


from


These "`special circumstances' are:


murder for hire; murder where the


victim is a peace officer engaged in the


performance of duties; murder where |


the victim was a witness to a crime with


the intention of preventing the victim


testifying in a criminal


proceeding; murder during the com-


mission of the crimes of robbery,


kidnapping, rape, lewd or lascivious


acts upon the person of a child, or


burglary with an intent to commit


grand or petit larceny or rape; and


finally, murder after the defendant has


been convicted of more than one offense


of first or second degree murder in a 7


prior proceeding. _


When Senate Bill 450 became law,


the stage was set for another hearing in


the State Supreme Court on capital


punishment. It was only a matter of


time before the first case of a defendant


sentenced to death under the new law


_ worked its way up through the lower


courts, finally reaching the automatic


appeal to the Supreme Court granted


in all capital punishment cases.


The defendant is Donald Lee Ber-


nard, convicted of murder committed in


the course of stealing a car, in San


Bernardino County Superior Court.


ACLU-NC Board `member and


Stanford Law School Professor An-


thony Amsterdam filed a 170-page


amicus brief in the Supreme Court last


month.


Amsterdam successfully argued the


Anderson case in California as well as


`the Furman case in the U.S. Supreme


Court. He prepared the Bernard brief


for ACLU-NC, the N.A.A.C.P. Legal


Defense and Educational Fund, the


California Public Defenders Associa-


tion, California Attorneys for Criminal


Justice.


Amsterdam advises that the Court


really has two questions before it to


determine the constitutionality of


Bernard's death sentence. First,


whether the passage of Proposition 17,


and its addition to the Constitution, can


abrogate the Anderson decision and


authorize the death penalty when the


same constitution proscribes "cruel or


unusual punishment.'' Secondly,


whether imposition of the death penalty


pursuant to S.B. 450 is cruel and


unusual punishment forbidden by the


Eight and Fourteenth Amendments to


the U.S. Constitution, or alternatively,


whether S.B. 450 withstands the


Furman decision.


Amsterdam first turns to the


narrower, procedural questions in-


volving the passage of Proposition 17.


_ He argues that the initiative measure is


invalid since it promised something that


it could not deliver. Specifically,


Proposition 17 declared that `"`... all


statutes of this state in effect on


February 17, 1972 _ requiring,


authorizing, imposing or relating to the


death penalty are in full force and


effect..." However, as noted earlier,


those same statutes were invalidated by


the Furman decision the same day the


initiative was placed on the ballot. In


other words, Proposition'17 could not


reinstate the death penalty statutes


which is exactly what it claimed to do.


Since Proposition 17 failed to enact


the laws it promised, Amsterdam goes


on to urge that the measure could not


enact some other speculative form of


the death penalty not in effect before


February, 1972. Once the federally


invalid part of the first paragraph of


Proposition 17 is excised, nothing


remains but the phrase: "subject to


legislative amendment or repeal by


statute, initiative or referendum."


Amsterdam argues that the language


of the Proposition cannot be severed in


this fashion to leave an unintelligible


fragment that means nothing. The


voters cannot vote intelligently on the


matter and the legislature can hardly


view it as a license to enact an entirely


new body of death penalty laws. He


concludes that the language is not


severable and since the first and most


important portion of the measure is


unconstitutional, the entire initiative is


unconstitutional.


Another reason that Amsterdam


claims the Proposition is invalid is that


it was not lawfully adopted since a key


"truth in packaging" provision, erected


to protect the integrity of the initiative


process, was flouted by the manner in


which Proposition 17 was placed on the


ballot.


California law provides that the


Attorney General must prepare a ``true


and impartial statement' explaining -


the chief purposes of the measure. (c)


Though the Attorney General drafted


Proposition 17, he omitted an im-


portant provision of the initiative in his


"true and impartial statement."


Notably absent from Younger's


ballot summary is any reference to the


clause "...nor shall such punishment


for such offenses be deemed to con-


_travene any other provision of this


constitution."" The clear intent of this


section is to insulate death penalty laws


from judicial review, one of the crucial


cornerstones of our "checks and


balances system."'


"Surely citizens who are asked to sign


petitions for an amendment working


such a radical change in our institutions


ought to be told the import of what they


are signing. The failure of the Attorney


General's summary even to hint at this


chief feature of Proposition 17 -


particularly where the Attorney General


drafted the Proposition and was plainly


aware of its radical intent - violates


to legislate a


the Election Code and voids the


initiative," Amsterdam argues.


Turning to the federal constitution


questions, the brief of amici charges


that the death penalty author`zed by


S.B. 450 is a cruel and unusual punish-


ment forbidden by the Eighth and


Fourteenth Amendments. In People y.


Anderson, the California Supreme


Court already held unequivocally that


the death penalty was both "un-


constitutionally cruel'? and also


"literally, an unusual punishment."


Anthony Amsterdam ~


"it kills for no reason"


Amsterdam notes that the Anderson


decision ``thus impliedly resolves the


Eighth Amendment issue, ... But


because of the additional enlighten-


ment shed upon the federal question by


Furman yv. Georgia, we venture to


revisit that question in Furman's


wake."


One thing is clear from the Furman


opinions - any arbitrary imposition of


the death penalty, whatever the source


or mechanism of the arbitrariness, is


forbidden. Though S.B. 450 purported


"mandatory" death


penalty through the ``special cir-


cumstances'' mechanism. Amsterdam


argues that the actual practice of the


law is riddled with discretion at every


level.


He explains that the prosecutor has


first of all discretion of what crime is to


be charged or if any crime is to be


charged. Assuming he filed charges, the


prosecutor must then decide, without


any guidance or standards whatsoever,


whether "`special circumstances" will or


will not be charged.


Another point of entry for discretion


and for arbitrary selectivity in the


administration of the death penalty is


the unfettered power of the District


Attorney to accept or to negotiate a plea


of guilty to a lesser degree of homocide


than first degree murder, or to accept a


first degree murder plea in exchange for


not alleging the ``special cir-


cumstances."


Similarly, the trial jury retains broad


discretionary powers despite S.B. 450's


claims to the contrary. The jury may


convict the defendant of a lesser offense


than first degree murder, or fail to find


the "special circumstances" necessary


to support a death verdict, as well as


acquit him altogether regardless of the


evidence. Amsterdam comments that if


anything, the vagueness of the "`special


circumstances' increases the ar-


bitrariness of the jury's decision.


Even where a jury has made findings


of "special circumstances" calling for


_ continued on page 6


Jan. 1975


aclu news


_ORGANIZATION


An open lies a fie membership


from the Chairman of lie Board


Quite naturally, many ot you have speed


concern about the resignation of Jay Miller as


Executive Director of the ACLU of Northern


California. This concern was heightened - by


newspaper accounts of the causes of the resignation,


such as the article in the November 28 edition of the


_ San Francisco Chronicle. It is my view that you who


`make ACLU-NC possible are entitled to an ac-


counting with respect to the matter, and that is the


- purpose of this letter.


Several months ago, the Board of Directors became


aware that there were serious tensions between Mr.


Miller and the staff, and, adopting an Executive


Committee recommendation, instructed me to ap-


_ point a committee to deal with the problem.


I appointed a committee consisting of three


members of the Executive Committee of the Board:


Irving Cohen, Marin Chapter's Board representative


and Chairman of the Chapter Committee; Alice


Daniel, former faculty member of Hastings College of


the Law; and Marilyn Patel, an attorney in private


practice. I served on the committee ex-officio.


_ The committee had extensive discussions with the


staff, except for Mr. Miller and the Associate


Director, Thomas Layton, who had previously an-


nounced his intention to resign. It found that


meaningful communication between the staff and Mr.


Miller had broken down almost completely.


Disturbed by its findings, the committee decided


that before reaching any final position it wanted to


have its views subject to others' perspectives. Con-


sequently, I asked Paul Halvonik, Board member and


General Counsel of the Affiliate, and Howard Jewel,


Board member and Chairperson of the Board of


Governors of our Foundation, to join the committee.


Mr. Halvonik, formerly legal director, was a member


of the committee which recommended to the Board in


1971 that Mr. Miller be elected Executive Director.


Mr. Jewel was Chairperson of the affiliate Board at


the time. Both are members of the Executive Com-


mittee.


The expanded committee also had discussions with


the staff (except for Mr. Layton) and with Mr. Miller.


It concurred unanimously with the original com-


mittee's view of the seriousness of the problem and


concluded that it was unrealistic to expect any im-


provement in the relationship between Mr. Miller and


the rest of the staff, a conclusion shared by Mr. Miller.


It also reached the following conclusions:


1) That neither racism nor sexism was involved


in the dispute.


2) That, in particular (and contrary to later


statements in the press), policy disagreements


over the affiliate's women's rights project or


affirmative action programs were not the cause of


the problems; but


3) That, as contrasted with disagreement on


civil liberties policies, the staff's strong objection


was to Mr. Miller's way of handling a wide range


of matters.


4) That the staff was acting responsibly, out of a


deep concern for the work of the affiliate.


5) That the effectiveness of the affiliate was


being severely impeded by the relationship


between Mr. Miller and the staff. (It is important


to note that both Mr. Miller, who hired all but


one staff member, and those Board members who


have worked with members of the staff continue


to have a high reagard for them, both personally


and professionally.)


The enlarged committee, augmented by the


Executive Committee to which it reported, conveyed


its conclusions to Mr. Miller. It did so with great


anguish because every member of the Committee


considers that Mr. Miller has made an important


contribution to the cause of civil liberties in Northern


California - including expanding the membership


and the ongoing program, recruiting an outstanding


staff, raising funds for a number of important special


projects, and building the Foundation as an effective


force in its own right. Mr. Miller concurred with the


Committee's view that a reconciliation was not


feasible and indicated his intention to resign. He


offered his resignation at the November Board


meeting. After an extended discussion in executive


session, the Board voted unanimously to accept his


resignation with regret.


In his letter of resignation Mr. Miller elaborated


upon his perception of the reason for his estrangement


from the staff, which was different from the com-


mittee's assessment of the problem. Unfortunately, a


copy of his letter, which was intended to be a con-


fidential document for the guidance of the Board, fell


into the hands of a newspaper reporter and, in


distorted form, appeared in the article mentioned


earlier.


_ Consideration was given to a press conference or


`other response to the news coverage in the hope that a


balanced view of the situation could be conveyed to


the public. Upon the advice of those wise in the ways


of the mass media no such action was taken, it being


concluded that adding fuel to the fire would further


damage all parties.


At the time Mr. Miller's resignation was accepted


by the Board it was anticipated that it would not be


effective for several months, possibly not until a new


Executive Director had been recruited. As a result of


the media coverage, however, the strain in the office


increased almost to the breaking point. The Executive


Committee concluded that nothing short of the


immediate appointment of an Acting Executive


Director would restore effectiveness to the affiliate. It


recommended that action to the Board at its .


December 12 meeting. By great good fortune, we were


also able to propose Alice Daniel as Acting Executive


Director. The Board unanimously accepted those


recommendations, to be effective December 16.


Ms. Daniel has been a member of the Board since


1973 and has worked very actively with the staff since


that time, principally in connection with the affiliate's


program of litigation. Until recently she was a


member of the faculty of Hastings College of the Law.


Prior to that she was on the national legal staff of the


NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. She is


highly admired and respected by all of us in the ACLU


community who have had the privilege of knowing


her. It will thus come as no surprise to hear that her


willingness to take on this challenging interim


- assignment was greeted by Board, staff, and all others


concerned with both great enthusiasm and great


relief.


Action on the recruiting of a permanent Executive


Director is under way. At the December meeting the


Board authorized me to appoint a committee to


search for candidates and to recommend two or three


to the Board for its selection. I have appointed a


committee consisting of Jerry Berg, Zora Gross,


Dorothy Patterson, Warren Saltzman, and Emily


_ Skolnick as voting members and Howard Jewel,


Joseph Remcho and me as nonvoting members. Ms.


Gross is a member of the Board of Governors of our


Foundation, Ms. Patterson is Vice Chairperson of the


affiliate, and Mr. Berg is the Mid-Peninsula Chapter


representative on the affiliate Board. Mr. Saltzman


and Ms. Skolnick are members of ACLU-NC who


have long been very actively involved in its affairs,


both having been on the affiliate Board. Howard Jewel


was, until 1973, Chairperson of the affiliate and is now


_ Chairperson of our Foundation. Joseph Remcho is


acting Legal Director of the Foundation and


represents the staff on the committee.


We anticipated that several months will be je


to select a new Executive Director. We would welcome :


any suggestions you have; you may send such


suggestions on either an open or a confidential basis


`to the Search Committee at the affiliate office.


All of us have every reason to feel confident that the


period between now and the selection of a new


Executive Director will be characterized as far more


| Was one.


Miller wishes best


for the ACLU-NC


The following are remarks of retiring Executive


Director, Jay A. Miller, to the Board of Directors at its


last meeting on December 12, 1974:


Over three and one-half years ago, just before the


Board of Directors was to meet in a special session to


determine who they would choose as Executive


Director of the Northern California Affiliate, our then


Chairperson. Howard Jewel, received a letter from a


Board member and former Chairperson. The letter


characterized, based on past history and reputation,


the qualities of the two leading candidates, of which I


In his letter that Board member indicated that he


believed I would push the Affiliate very hard and fast


to increase membership resources and program. He


further mentioned that in view of the past history of


the Affiliate some members and Directors might not


be comfortable with the changes I was likely to bring.


I was informed of the letter and agreed with the


characterization. I urged Howard Jewel to distribute it


to each Board member and that he be sure they


understood its intent.


I have pushed this Affiliate hard and while I am


sorry for some inevitable mistakes, and perhaps most


important, that in my haste I apparently did not


develop good communication with my stasff nor was I


sensitive enough to their concerns, still I have a great


sense of achievement. We have succeeded in over


doubling our membership, resources, and program so


that we are now better able to meet our responsibility


to defend and extend civil liberties - and that was my


clear intent in leaving the Illinois Affiliate and coming


to Northern California.


I deeply appreciate the many expressions of concern


for my future and that of the Affiliate from members,


Directors, and Chapter leaders which I have received


since my resignation became public.


(Incidentally, I thought it most unfortunate that the


media picked up and distorted the reasons leading to


my resignation in such a way as to have the public


believe I had resigned because of differences over the


design of the Women's Rights. Project. Anyone who


has been close to the workings of the organization


knows the error of that characterization.)


As to my future, it has been almost twenty-five years


since I have not been employed working for one good


cause or another. I can now take off for a couple of


months to relax and think about what I should do


next. Fortunately there are several possibilities both in


ACLU and outside. I find myself growing quite ex-


cited by these possible new directions.


As to the Affiliate, I believe it will continue to grow


stronger. The foundation is established, the direction


is one of innovation and openness, the staff is first


rate, and I have been impressed with the interim


Executive Director, Alice Daniel.


In the future as I learn about the successes of the


Northern California Affiliate in the struggle for civil


liberites I will take great pride in the knowledge that I


helped to build that foundation on which those


achievements will be based.


I wish you all well.


than an interregnum under a caretaker government.


From the moment she took over, Ms. Daniel infused


into the organization a sense of purpose and en-


thusiasm which is bound to lead to another upsurge in


the potential of the American Civil Liberties Union of


Northern California to secure and extend the liberties


of all Americans. But that potential can be realized


only if each of us goes the extra mile in providing the


expanded membership, legislative and public support,


and financial resources which will be needed. May we


count on you?


Sincerely,


Richard De Lancie, Chairperson


ACLU-NC Board of Directors


PROJECTS |


Jan. 1975


aa news 5


S.F. Police | nt rights


The Northern California Police


Practices Project -filed suit in U.S.


District Court last month charging that


two veteran San Francisco police of-


ficers have been denied their rights of


free speech and association. The suit for


injunctive relief was filed on behalf of


Jesse Byrd, a Black patrolman who has


- been on the force for thirteen years and


Art Tapia, a six-year veteran in the


Department Community Relations


Unit.


__ Byrd is President of the Officers for


Justice, a police officers association


comprised of minority members of the


Department. Tapia is a member of


Officers for Justice and _ the


organization is also named as a plaintiff


in the suit. Both officers were


reprimanded by Police Chief Donald


Scott for statements they made to the


press and public regarding police


policies and practices. .


Patrolman Byrd received a written


teptimand for speaking out publicly


against the tactics used by the


Department during the Zebra _in-


vestigations last April. He did so while


out of uniform and on his own time.


Five days after Patrolman Byrd ex-


`pressed his concern and disapproval of


_ the tactics used by the Police Depart-


ment during the Zebra investigation,


the Police Department issued an intra-


departmental memorandum stating


that the investigative tactics used in the


Parole revocation challenged


Zebra investigation had been "un-


productive and ineffective.'' Never-


theless on October 10 Patrolman Byrd


received an official reprimand from


Chief Scott, who stated the reprimand


was issued, ``for violation of Rule 2.13


of the Rules and Procedures when you


accused the Department and many of


its members of using gestapo-like


tactics during the Zebra manhunt. Such


vicious remarks against the Depart-


ment or any member of this Depart-


ment without proof is not conducive to


a harmonious and efficient force."


_ Patrolman Tapia charges he was


unlawfully reprimanded on October


17th for speaking in public about the


many complaints expressed by


numerous citizens regarding harsh


treatment perpetrated by various police


officers against Latinos during an


incident at Dolores Park in February.


Patrolman Tapia voiced his opinions


during a press conference with other


Latino leaders and appeared out of


uniform on his own time.


Patrolman Tapia was _ recently


recognized for his outstanding service


in the Community Relations Bureau by


being nominated as International


Community Relations Officer of the


Year in competition sponsored by the


International Association of Police


Chiefs. San Francisco Police Chief


Donald Scott nominated Patrolman


Tapia for the honor.


Defendants in the case are the San


Francisco Police Commission, the


Police Department Bureau of Internal (c)


Affairs which investigated the cases,


and Police Chief Donald Scott. Police


Practices Project Director Amitai Sch-


wartz is asking the federal court to


order the defendants to destroy any


records of the complaints or


reprimands against Byrd or Tapia and


to enjoin them from violating the of-


ficers' First Amendment rights in the


future.


The reprimands that now reside in


their personnel files and damage their.


chances for promotion, charge both


Byrd and Tapia with violations of


Section 2.13 of the Rules and Procedures


of the San Francisco Police Department


which states:


"Any breach of the peace, neglect of |


duty, misconduct or any conduct on the


part of any member either within or


without the state which tends to subvert


the good order, efficiency or discipline


of the department or which reflects


discredit upon the department or any


member thereof or that is prejudicial to


the efficiency and discipline of the


department, though such offenses are


not specifically defined or laid down in


these Rules and Procedures shall be


considered unofficerlike conduct triable (c)


and punishable by the Board."


In this instance, the ``not specifically


defined" violation appears to be one of


exercising First Amendment rights.


Schwartz is arguing that this rule is


unconstitutionally vague both on its


face as well as how it was applied


toward Byrd and Tapia. He is asking


that court to declare it void.


At a press conference announcing the


suit, Schwartz stated, ``The police


officers in this case did not violate a


direct order of any superior officer, nor


did they prejudice the interests of the


Department. They have been caught by


the Department's version of Catch-22.


They made statements with which


others disagree. Therefore, they are


liable for punishment affecting their


future careers.' :


He added, "If the court does not rule


out this type of disciplinary action, it


will serve as a warning to all police -


officers that they are not free to express


their opinions on the operation of the


Department. When the issue is freedom


of expression, the First Amendment -


does not encourage an uninformed


public; but rather, it preserves the


open, robust, public debate which


makes democracy work."'


The Northern California Police


Practices Project is a joint Project of the


American Civil Liberties Union


Foundation of Northern California, the


NAACP Legal Defense and Education


Fund, and the Mexican-American


Legal Defense and Education Fund.


Women's Project


Frazee Cole was on parole from his conviction for


the sale of marijuana. After serving 23 months of a


two-year parole term, without incident, he was ac-


cused of rape and burglary by a woman with whom he


claimed to have had a prior relationship. -


Cole was acquitted of the charges by virtue of in-


sanity, and went to Atascadero State Hospital where


he remained for 19 months. Finally, he was released


on a successful writ of habeas corpus after a jury had


found that he had been restored to sanity and was no


longer a danger to himself or others. Nevertheless, the


California Adult Authority proposed to revoke his


parole and return him to prison on the grounds that


the alleged burglary and rape had been parole


violations.


ACLU-NC. volunteer attorney Alice Daniel


represented Cole at the revocation hearings. She


argued that there was insufficient proof either that the


alleged crime had ever occurred, or that if it had, that


Cole had committed it. He himself had no memory of


the alleged events, and his claim of amnesia was


accepted as valid by the psychiatrists who examined


him. The woman who had made the charges had


disappeared. It was Cole's belief that she had trumped


Lie detector


Scott Hepburn, who was a Police Cadet for the San


Francisco Police Department, was ordered to take a


polygraph test in the course of an investigation into


his background. One of the reasons given for ordering


the polygraph test was a letter from Hepburn's high


school counselor stating that the Cadet had an


inability to fire weapons at human beings.


During the polygraph test, the examiner began


asking Hepburn personal questions about his sex life


and other matters. Hepburn refused to complete the


test and protested that the questions were not related


to the reasons requiring the test. He was then ordered


to complete the test by his commanding officer but


still refused. He was then terminated by the


Department.


ACLU-NC Legal Director Charles Marson filed


up the charges in retaliation for his breaking off their


relationship.


At the hearing, Daniel pointed out that an act


committed while insane can no more be the basis of a


parole revocation than it can be the basis of a


criminal conviction. The principle prohibiting con-


`viction - that no person should be punished for an


act for which he is not volitionally responsible, is


equally applicable to parole revocations. In addition,


she argued that the jury's decision that Cole is no


longer dangerous is binding upon the Adult


Authority.


The parole board rejected ACLU's arguments in


theory, but agreed to re-release Cole on Parole. Daniel


"While we had the satisfaction of


commented,


preventing injustice in an individual case, we were


frustrated by our long-range goal of convincing the


courts that they must impose a variety of legal.


restrictions on the now unfettered discretion of the


parole board. The disposition of this case followed a


now familiar pattern, in which the parole board


releases an individual in order to render the legal


issues moot, thereby successfully evading any judicial


review of their actions or procedures."'


test upheld


suit on Hepburn's behalf in U.S. District Court last


_ August. He argued that the polygraph test, the


questions asked and the termination violated Hep-


burn's rights to due process, equal protection and


_ privacy.


In testimony at the trial, both Hepburn and his


superior officer expressed no real fear that any of the


information obtained in the examination would be


damaging to Hepburn. His main reason for ceasing


the examination was his strong objection to answering


questions of a very personal nature which he felt were


unrelated to the job of police officer.


Nevertheless, District Court Judge Oliver J. Carter


ruled last November that the polygraph test is a


proper method of investigation which does not in-


fringe the right of privacy or equal protection.


moves on several


new lawsuits


In the brief time since the Women's Rights Project


began last November, work has begun on several |


significant lawsuits including:


A challenge to the `domestic quit'' provision of the


state unemployment compensation law, which bars


payment of benefits to a woman who has left work for


whatever reasons, however compelling, unless she can


prove that she is the major wage earner in the family.


The prohibition applies even if the combined family


income is below the poverty level.


A challenge to a "recent experience'' requirement


of the civil service laws, which prevents otherwise -


_ qualified women from returning to work after a time


lapse caused by domestic or other obligations.


An attack on a non-job-related height requirement


which effectively excludes women, Asians and


Chicanos from membership on the state police force.


Also, the Project is studying proposals which will


assist in: bringing domestic workers within the


coverage of the unemployment compensation and


worker's compensation laws; and, prohibit


discrimination against women in credit matters.


The ACLU Board of Directors has authorized the


formation of a Women's Rights Committee which will


work in a consultative and advisory relationship with


Eve Reingold, the Project Developer, and Ellen Lake,


the Project Attorney. The Committee is composed of


several Board members and up to fifteen others.


Committee Chairperson Nancy McDermid stated,


"We are now interested in expanding the Committee


so that there can be a broader spectrum of expertise


and representation of other groups working in the


struggle for women's rights." ~*


ACLU members who are interested in working with


the Committee should contact Eve Reingold or Ellen


Lake by calling or writing: Women's Rights Project,


ACLU-NC, 593 Market St., San Francisco 9410S.


Phone: 781-2597.


Jan. 1975


aclu news


ine Gal


Bank privacy proclaimed by Court


A unanimous California State Supreme Court


issued an opinion last month which could have


significant impact on the right of financial privacy.


The case, Burrows v. San Bernardino County Superior


Court, in which the ACLU Foundation participated as


amicus curiae, involved an attorney suspected of


having mis-appropriated the funds of a client.


The Superior Court issued a warrant for the search


of Burrows' office. Acting on the warrant, the police


searched his office over his objection and a large


number of documents and files were confiscated.


Using these confiscated records, a police detective


discovered where Burrows maintained bank accounts.


Without a warrant, the detective then went to the


banks and requested photostatic copies of Burrows'


bank statements and other documents relating to his


financial transactions.


At the trial, Burrows moved to suppress the


evidence but the trial court ruled that there was


probable cause to issue the warrant for the search of


his office and that the warrantless search and seizure


of his bank records was reasonable.


Writing for the Court, Justice Stanley Mosk found


that Burrows' rights under Article I, Section 13 of the


California Constitution were violated by the police


when they obtained, without the benefit of legal


process, copies of statements from a bank in which he


maintained an account. Article I, Section 13 provides,


Send your


in part: ``The right of the people to be secure in their


persons, houses, papers, and effects against


unreasonable seizures and searches may not be


violated .


Mosk stated, "A bank customer' s reasonable


expectation is that, absent compulsion by legal


process, the matters he reveals to the bank would be


used only for internal banking purposes. Thus, we


hold petitioner (Burrows) had a reasonable ex-


pectation that the bank would maintain the con-


fidentiality of those papers which originated with


him."


Calling this seizure of bank records a "sweeping


exploratory invasion into an individuals' privacy,'' the


Court ruled that if this search were deemed


reasonable, nothing could prevent law enforcement


officers from requesting and obtaining any person's or


business' records, "though such records might have


no relevance to a crime ...; and those records could


be introduced into evidence in any subsequent


criminal prosecution."'


On behalf of the government, the Attorney General -


had argued not that disclosure of bank records was


necessary for effective law enforcement, but rather


that, banks want to cooperate with law enforcement


officials because they desire to foster a favorable


public image, and like any good citizen, to assist in the


detection of crime. The Supreme Court rejected this


notion.


As was argued by ACLU Legal Director Charles


Marson, the Court agreed that disclosure by in-


dividuals of their financial affairs to a bank is not


entirely voluntary since it is virtually impossible to


participate in the economic life of our society without.


a bank account. In the course of such dealings, bank


depositors reveal many aspects of their personal


affairs, opinions, habits and associations which


provide a virtual current biography.


Mosk added that the ``development of


photocopying machines, electronic computers and


other sophisticated instruments have accelerated the


ability of government to intrude into areas which a


person normally chooses to exclude from prying eyes


and inquisitive minds. Consequently, judicial in-


terpretations of the reach of the constitutional


protection of individual privacy must keep pace with


the perils created by these new devices."


The Court also concluded that the warrant relied


upon to authorize the original search of Burrows'


office was overly broad and therefore invalid.


Therefore the Court issued an order to suppress the


evidence obtained from the office search and the bank


records. The decision could well be one of the most


significant yet issued in the United States in


developing the individual's right to bank record


privacy.


Death sentence reviewed


19%5


renewal today !


STILL HUNGRY?


You can read more about civil liberties-and gain a greater


understanding of the issues-by subscribing to the new quarterly,


The Civil Liberties Review.


Don't let the title scare you. This is one review that you don't


have to be a lawyer or a scholar to appreciate. All you need is an


appetite to know more about what is happening to your rights and


why.


Each 150-page issue Is a collection of readable articles by the


thinkers and activists who make. civil liberties happen; interviews


with prominent civil libertarians; reviews of other publications for


your additional reading; drawings and photographs; and a regular


department, ``Taking Liberties,"


where you'll find brief, lively opin-


ion pieces. And if you are a lawyer or a scholar, each major article


is followed by full documentation of sources and cases.


Edited by Alan F. Westin, the Review has published two issues


to date, including pieces by Morton Halperin, Anthony Lewis, Eliza-


beth Janeway, Edward Kennedy, Norman Dorsen, and Howard Zinn.


A cooperative venture between ACLU and John Wiley and Sons, pub-


lishers, the Review is specially priced for ACLU members at just $10


(regular annual rate $15).


Try it for a year. See if the work of ACLU doesn't take on more


eee as you know more about it.


- Name


To: THE CIVIL LIBERTIES REVIEW, Subscription Department


10 Pelham Parkway, Pelham Manor, N.Y. 10803


Enclosed is payment for a one-year subscription (four quarterly issues)


to The Civil Liberties Review at the special rate for ACLU members of


$10. (Please make check payable to `The Civil Liberties Review."')


ACLU-AFF


Address


City State


Zip


continued from page 3


the death penalty, the trial judge has


complete and unfettered discretionary


power to modify the sentence. And


finally, the governor has the con-


stitutional power to grant reprieves,


pardons and commutations after the


defendant is sentenced.


Amsterdam concludes that the


various forms of arbitrary selectivity


that have been retained under the


purportedly ``mandatory'' death-


penalty procedures enacted by S.B. 450


insure that now, as before, there is and


will be "no meaningful basis for


distinguishing the few cases in which


the death sentence is imposed from the


many cases in which it is not."


"The arbitrariness of the entire


procedural system is cumulative, and


the gautlet which a capitally charged


defendant must continue to run is fully


as unpredictable - its results equally


capricious - as under the pre-Furman


system.'' Quoting Justice Potter


Stewart's opinion in the Furman case,


"The Eighth and Fourteenth Amend-


ments cannot tolerate the infliction of a


sentence of death under legal systems


that permit this unique penalty to be so


wantonly and so freakishly imposed."


Before either the California Supreme


Court or the U.S. Supreme Court ruled


against capital punishment, executions


had disappeared on their own. There


have been none at all since 1967 and in


that year there were only two. This


contrasts with 776 executions between


the years of 1930-1934.


Amsterdam points out that juries had


repudiated the death penalty so


completely by 1972 that it was found to


be condemned by "`the evolving


standards of decency that mark the


progress of a matufing society." He


notes that the opinions of Justice


Douglas, Stewart and White hold that


"capital punishment is unacceptable


to society today" axd Justices Brennan


and Marshall imply as much.


Concluding his arguments,


sterdam charges that |


penalty violates the Eighth Amendment


because it is a wanton and excessive


exercise of cruelty, practiced without


purpose by a society that has outgrown


it. The occasional and virtually random


extinction of human life was a cruelty


compounded : by inequity, and that


same randomness and rarity belied any


claim that it fulfilled an acceptable


penal. purpose."


He notes that there is absolutely no


evidence that capital punishment serves


as a deterrent to the commission of


criminal homocide, in fact there are


indications that it may have an opposite


effect. The death penalty must be


judged to be excessive and un-


serviceable in terms of any legitimate


goals of the criminal justice system.


Indeed, even where states have rein-


stituted the death penalty since the


Furman decision, the legislators have


always provided for some form of


discretion so that they can always avoid


the death sentence.


In Amsterdam's words, "The few


men whom it kills die for no reason;


they are executed in the name of a


theory in which the executioners do not


believe. The cycle can be broken only if


the Eighth Amendment is employed in


its most vital and essential function: to


assure that principles of human


decency are universally enforced, even


- and especially - where rare and


random application of a punishment


makes their occasional violation vir-


tually invisible except to the con-


demned."'


Am-


The decision now is once again left to


the California Supreme Court. Those


seven men have the heavy respon-


sibility before them of determining once


and for all whether San Quentin's gas


chamber shall be finally dismantled.


"the death _


Jan. 1975


aclu news


7


_ False assumptions on compulsory education


By STEVEN COHEN


All of the Western societies today


have fought for compulsory education


on three major assumptions. Firstly,


compulsory education gives each


student an equal opportunity to raise (c)


his rank in society (from poor to middle


class to rich). Theoretically, this would


seem true. However, in actuality,


compulsory education is an insurance


to the rich that the poor will stay poor.


Schools teach children how to be law-


abiding, orderly, and respectful of


authority - the authority of the rich


and THEIR values. Although there is


always a chance that a poor child could


_ become a rich adult by means of a good


education, that chance is now very


slight. Not only do most of the poor


have insufficient money to go: on to


college (and scholarships don't even


come close to narrowing the gap) but


they don't have the ambition. Thus,


they are only paying (through taxes) for


education that is unnecessary for them.


On the other hand, the rich can take


advantage of their education to go to


college and become even richer. Is this


equal opportunity for all?


The second major assumption is that


there is no place in society for 15-18


year olds. Without school, they would


all end up "`in the streets." In the city,


where more and more people are now


beginning to live, if a student now


wished to drop out of high school in


order to get a job, his opportunities


would be' scarce. True, however, I


believe that jobs can always be created


and that in order to create these jobs, -


the government must encourage large


corporations to begin apprenticeship


- programs for the youth.


Instead of three years in high school,


the youngsters could spend that time


preparing directly on the job. Ap-


prenticeship is the most practical and


efficient way to learn because it is


taught first hand. Although each


corporation would have to set aside a


certain number of employees to teach


the youngsters, the corporations would


be paid money (which instead would


have gone to each individual's high


school education) by the state, and


would later have much more efficient


workers because of the on-the-job


training. The government should also


organize a clean-up crew of youth that


would help fight against certain aspects


of pollution (such as picking up the


garbage on public beaches and parks).


Finally, the present government


believes that 15 and 16 year olds are not


old enough to decide what they want to


do, and thus their decisions will not be


the "right'' ones. Instead, the govern-


ment makes these decisions for them by


forcing them to attend school. If a


student wishes to drop out of high


school in order to pursue a free life of -


his own, "`he doesn't know any better."


15 and 16 year olds are not considered


responsible enough to make their own


decisions and lead their own lives. How


are they ever going to become


responsible if they are not given the


chance? As recent as the nineteenth


century, 13-year-old boys had to


support whole families, or were forced


to run away and make a living on their


own. 13 year olds were responsible then _


and I believe 15 year olds are now.


Two students were awarded the two


prizes in the San Francisco Chapter,


American Civil Liberties Union first


annual essay contest.


The first winner of a $75 check was


Steven Cohen, a junior at Lick


Wilmerding High School. Sunil


Dhawan, a senior at Lowell High


School, won second prize of $50. The


Lick Wilmerding Library was also


recipient of $25.


The winners were chosen from SO


students who wrote essays on the topic:


"Should School Be Compulsory? "'


The contest was open to all senior


high school students in San Francisco.


Presentations were made by Ms.


Ruth Jacobs, Chapter president, at the


organization's 183rd celebration of the


Bill of Rights held Sunday, December


15.


The Contest was sponsored as a


means to develop a greater awareness


among students, of the freedoms


guaranteed to all.


The present educational system in the


Western nations has developed on these


three massive misconceptions. Too


many students have not learned well,


and are unhappy with school. Vast


unemployment threatens the youth and


not even a college degree assures one a


job anymore. It is my belief that major |


changes must be made if the situation is


to alter. ne of these changes is


abolishing compulsory education after


9th grade. Today, many of the students


feel they are forced to go to school.


Generally, these students do not accept


what is taught to them and only slow


down the education of others who are


more willing to learn. If the people who


do not wish to be taught, the so called


trouble makers, did not have to go to


school, much more would be learned by


the students who do wish to go on. For


the people who will not get a job


requiring a high school diploma, high


school education is meaningless. For


the people who need jobs and money


now when it is needed, rather than


later, high school is nothing but three


wasted years. For the people who are


simply not interested in school and


would rather spend their time doing


what they want, or learning what they


are interested in - on their own (not


what they may not be interested in


school), high school is only turning -


them off from society.


Ideally, school should not be com-


pulsory at all. However, people are not


yet ready for a completely non-


compulsory educational system, and so


far it is only an objective for the future.


I believe that everyone, poor and rich


alike, wishes their children to be able to


read, write and understand arithmetic.


The first nine grades should basically


emphasize these skills - not the att-


titudes of patriotism and morality they


`do now. Even though some parents are


capable and have the time to teach their


children, certain things cannot be


taught at home. The elementary schools


are the melting pots of American, and it


is in these schools that peoples of


different backgrounds and different


values can learn to get along with


others. For this reason, compulsory


schools through ninth grade are


necessary for the present government to


survive, although specific cultures


should be emphasized within the |


system. However, once a student has


passed ninth grade, he should have the


choice of: (1) continuing on to academic


high school, (2) transferring to either a


trade school, art school, or instrumental


school or (3) not going to school at all. |


Abolishing compulsory education


alone could work against the interests


of the youth. Quotas for how many


students can enter certain high schools


(depending on who gets the best marks)


might be established thus forcing


students into dropping out of school


against their will. Some students learn


slower than others and their future


might be decided prematurely. Also, (c)


many industries in search of cheap


labor might exploit the youngsters.


Laws must be passed to halt such


quotas, and set new minimum wages in


order to guarantee the freedom of


choice for all youngsters.


Presently, this basic right of freedom


of choice has been taken away from the


youth - who deserve it, and I believe


that it should be returned. In an


educational system that is not com-


pulsory, there is always a choice bet-


ween going to school and not going to


school, and nothing is forced upon the


students. If a decision is made that is


later regretted students should always


have the right to go-back and start over.


Night schools should be set up for those


students who decided to drop school


and later wished to go back. (Often, .


people are not willing to learn when


they are young, but as they grow older,


they change and desire to return to


school.) The main thing is that people


who are responsible, and I think 15 and


16 year olds are, have the choice to do


what they want to do. By abolishing |


compulsory high school, different


alternatives to growing and learning


can be made.


Only the truly educated are free


By SUNIL DHAWAN


In this country, there exists a system


which is in serious trouble, a system


whose function it is to serve as a barrier


between our children and the kind of


education that can free their enormous


potential. I am referring to, of course,


the educational system - a vast suf-


focating web of people, practices, and


presumptions. Now, when educational


alternatives abound, we may be


overlooking the simplest - that of non-


compulsory school education.


You have probably wondered at one


time or the other, "What the hell am I


doing in school?'"' Well many


psychologists are also wondering,


"What the hell are you doing in


school? '' This brings me to present in


the following paragraphs perhaps the


most forceful psychological and


sociological reasons against compulsory


school education.


In the entire field of psychology we


see no evidence per se, that the teacher


helps education, but we can find much


evidence indicative of the fact that the


teacher does harm to the learning


process. The average school is, in fact,


no place to learn. The school's most


basic conditions create a feeling of


resistance to learning. Physically, the


student is fatigued, and frequently worn


down by sitting in one position for


inordinate periods of time. The.


sameness of the surroundings and the


monotony of what he learns, combine to


dull his senses.


When a student gets an opportunity


to respond (which is rare) to a


teacher's questions, he regurgitates


what the teacher wants to hear. All too


often the student gives the teacher a


response, which in a true educational


sense might be the right response, but a


response the teacher does not want to


_accept. The student is then disparaged


for his boldness in having an original


idea or point of view which differs from


that of the teacher. In such class


situations the student does not learn,


but rather he conforms to accepted


educational norms.


Now, many parents and educators


argue that school is a preparation for


life in the "outside world." Only too


often school respects the ``conformist,"'


the student who accepts the status quo


without question. The real leader is the


rebel, the one who dares to stand up


and be counted, the student who has


been taught, and who has learned, to


think for himself.


From an educational and intellectual


standpoint, school is no place to learn.


It is no peculiar coincidence that the


gtowth rate of intelligence falls just as


the child enters school. What is the


responses,


reason for this? Simply put, the brain is


taught to stop making its natural


and rather, to make


repetitive standard responses. The child


is squeezed into conforming patterns of


educational norms. In the end there is


only room for "right answers." And


when the bare facts are laid out, from


my own experience, the amount of


learning that goes on in school is


miniscule. Take for example our


English textbooks from seventh


through twelfth grades. They are


basically the same books. To quote the


National Council of Teachers of


LEnglish, "Forty years of teaching


traditional English grammar to


American students of varying


backgrounds has failed to improve their


ability to speak or write it.''


It was once said, "The realization


that a problem exists is half the


problem solved." Just as I have


presented a case against compulsory


school education, so I have perhaps


contributed to the realization that a


problem does exist in our school system.


Maybe compulsory school education is


"not the answer. Maybe something else


is. We must keep on seeking for better


methods, better ways, better ideas, to


improve the quality of education not


only for ourselves, but for future


generations! -


Jan. 1975


aclu news


San Francisco


The First Annual City-wide Essay


Contest was a great success. High


school students in public, private and


parochial schools participated, writing


pro and con on the subject SHOULD


SCHOOL BE COMPULSORY? The


judges - Mr. Herbert Gold; Dr.


Zuretti Goosby; Ms. Judy Stone; and


Mr. John L. Wasserman - selected the


winners: Steven Cohen, a junior at Lick


Wilmerding, son the first prize of $75


and Sunil Dhawan, a senior at Lowell


High, won the second prize of $50. Lick


Wilmerding library also received $25.


Essays and photo are on page 7.


Re-elected to the Board of Directors


at the Annual meeting were: Ruth


Jacobs, Nancy McDermid, Poe Asher.


New members elected to the Board are:


Lorraine Honig, Bruce Johnston, David


Nevins, Tony Rothschild and Richard


B. Weinstein.


The new Board got off to a flying


start. After having learned that the San


Francisco Police Commission will soon


consider approval of a new set of


policies, rules and procedures to govern


police conduct in S.F., and that the


Commission plans to consider such


rules and procedures with little or no


participation by the public or interested


citizen's group, the Board of Directors |


of the S.F. Chapter of ACLU passed a


resolution at its last meeting which


urged the Commission to provide


advance copies of the policies before the


Police Commission adopts and ap-


proves such policies, rules and


procedures. That the police Com-


mission ask for public response and


comments and hold special hearings to


receive such comments before the


policies, rules and procedures are


adopted; and that sufficient advance


public notice be provided to all in-


terested persons and groups before the


Commission takes any action relating to


this subject in order to allow them to


prepare comments. Individual letters


were sent to the Police Commissioners


and members of the Board of Super-


visors by the Chapter's Board of


Directors.


Thomas M. O'Connor, City Attorney


subsequently wrote to the President of


the San Francisco Police Commission


stating ``...the Commission is


required to provide a copy of the


manual to any person requesting a


copy. While I am not aware of any state


law or local code provision requiring


public hearings on the adoption of said


manuals; the public has a right to be


present at any hearings held by the


Commission to consider the adoption of


said manuals. However, the Ralph M.


Brown Act, found in Government Code


Sections 54950 et seq., and _ the


provisions of section 3.500 (f) of the


Charter require that all deliberations of


the Police Commission, with certain


exceptions not relevant here, be held in


public."


Membership renewals were up in


December. Telephone squads spent


several evenings at the office


telephoning and reminding members to


renew; Personal contact does make a


difference. The Chapter's membership


committee is planning an all out new


membership enrollment campaign.


Plans for neighborhood meetings are


being made to be held early in the new


year.


The Board of Directors announced


- support


that starting in February, Board


meetings will be open to those members


who wish to attend. Please call Esther


Faingold at the Chapter office, 433-


2750, if you plan to attend.


As money (the lack of it, that is) is


always a problem, and the chapter is


feeling the economic pinch, fund


raising events are being planned in


addition to the membership recruit-


ment and renewal efforts. Send your


ideas and suggestions to the chapter.


Chapter President Ruth Jacobs is in


Cuba. She is doing a study on com-


parisons in Family Law. When she


returns whe will share some a her


experiences with us.


DELANCEY STREET FORUM, a


new radio show moderated by George


Allen, taped a program with Ruth


Jacobs and Jeff C. Bradley, Deputy


Public Defender of Contra Costa


County, which was aired over KFRC-


AM and FM on January 12 at midnight.


The discussion centered around the


. work of the ACLU with special em-


phasis on the programs of the S.F.


Chapter.


Santa Cruz


The "`Right to Privacy" will be one of


the central concerns of the Santa Cruz


Chapter in 1975. Areas being examined


include credit reporting practices and a


proposed computerized police data


bank/communications center.


In cooperation with the Santa Cruz


Community Switch Board (426-LIFE)


the Chapter has commenced a training


program for those who wish to receive


phone calls for the ACLU. The goal of


this program is to enable volunteers to


screen calls for civil liberty issues that


should be responded to.


At the same time, volunteers will


receive training on how to refer persons


to other agencies when ACLU cannot


help them. |


Millie Carlson has resigned as the


Chapter's Secretary/Treasurer.


Members are asked to assist the


Chapter in filling this vital position. -


Sonoma


The Sonoma County Chapter, with


new officers and board members,


quickly moved into the thick of the


battle on victimless crimes at its.


December meeting.


The board reaffirmed its position


supporting legislation to decriminalize


marijuana. It also unanimously voted to


`State Senator George


Moscone's bill introduced in December


which would ease penalties for


marijuana possession.


At the same time, the Sonoma


County group moved to _- seek


resolutions of support for Moscone-type


legislation from numerous city councils


in the county. The action will be


centered around a resolution passed by


the San Anselmo City Council which


called for the state legislature to


decriminalize drug abuse.


An ACLU spokesman said the aim is


partly educational, "since we hope to


set up debates involving both pro and


con arguments before the city coun-


cils."


Letters were sent to numerous state


and federal legislators by ACLU in


December urging that they move on


marijuana legislation. At press time,


State Senator John Dunlap had


responded, indicating his Support for


the Moscone proposal.


Newe


New officers are chairman Lynn


Young; vice-chairman Sam _ Raskin;


treasurer Peter Rosenwald and


secretary June Swan. Chris Andrian


and A.J. DiMauro will be co-legal


representatives and George Jackson will


head the criminal justice committee.


Committees were set up to explore


two matters. One involved the proposed


use of a State Department of Health


questionaire on mental health patients.


Board members were concerned about


the "`vagueness"' of the questionaire and


the possible use of patients' names for


improper reasons. Many people in the


mental


complained about the sweeping nature


of the questionnaire.


A committee also will continue to


explore ACLU ramifications of a


"curfew crackdown" on young people


on Fourth Street in Santa Rosa.


There was also discussion of ACLU


stating its position on criminal justice


- problems to the Sonoma County Grand


Jury in January and setting up a


meeting of organizations in the county


interested in alternatives to jails.


In the latter regard, Virginia Phelps (c)


of GO Project at Cal State College,


Sonoma, said the recently formed


organization is helping ex-convicts


move back into school programs. She


said the organization attempts to


provide "financial and emotional


support."'


Next meeting of the ACLU Board is


Thursday, January 16 at Bank of


Sonoma County, tentatively at 7:30


"p.m,


Berkeley-Albany


New officers for the Berkeley-Albany


Chapter were elected at the November


Board Meeting.


They are: chairman, Michael Devito;


vice-chairman, Deene Solomon;


secretary, Marjorie Gelb; and treasurer,


Rose Ann Packard.


Dr. DeVito is a founding member of


the B-A Chapter and a member of the


National Board of ACLU, a member of


the organization for 23 years. He is


Professor of Constitutional Law at


Golden Gate U's School of Law. The


new vice-chairman, a member for 15


years, was with the ACLU-NC legal


staff in the Bank Secrecy Act case


which went to the U.S. Supreme


Court, and is currently working with the


Women's Rights Project.


Ms. Gelb, an attorney, and Packard,


a nurse and nursing instructor, are of


`more recent membership, both have


involved themselves actively in com-


munity and civil rights affairs.


health field have already


_ begin


Volunteer for


court watching


The Oakland Chapter would like


to set up an ACLU court watching


program in Alameda County.


Anyone interested in participating or


even heading up the project should


contact Louise Riemer at 547-1267.


Mt Disblo


The Mt. Diablo Chapter will present


a Civil Rights Day program on


Saturday, February 22 from 9:15 a.m.


to 1:00 p.m. The program will be held


at College Park High School i in Pleasant


Hill.


The day of workshops, speeches and


films about various civil rights issues


will feature Margo St. James, Chair-


madam of COYOTE, and Ken


Alexander, political cartoonist for the


San Francisco Examiner. Various


ACLU-NC staff members will speak on


other topics also.


Mark your calendar now and plan to


attend.


Oakland


The Oakland Chapter is off to a


strong start in 1975. The jail issue being


of prime concern. The Alameda County


Board of Supervisors will finally be


looking at facility requirements this


month at the January 21st afternoon


session. Anyone concerned about the


jail facility issue should attend that


public hearing at 1221 Oak Street,


Oakland, Sth floor, Board of Super-


visors Chambers. The Chapter is


looking for new active participants in


Chapter activities. If you are interested


in grassroots civil liberties issues come


to the meeting held the third Wed-


nesday of each month. Write P.O. Box


1865, Oakland or call Riemers' 547-


1267.


In January the Chapter will hear


from Ellen Lake of the Women's Rights


project of the ACLU at their monthly (c)


meeting beginning at 7:30 at the


Sumitomo Bank, 20th at Franklin in.


downtown Oakland on January 15th.


Last month the Chapter heard from


Network Against Psychiatric Assault.


The February meeting will be on the


19th.


Sacramento


The Chapter Board had decided to


embark on three major projects in the


coming year. A committee has been


formed to study the proposal for a new


criminal information computer system


being sought by the County Sheriff. The


Chapter hopes to inform the Board of


Supervisors of the civil liberties


problems and potential abuses inherent


in this system.


In addition, the Board has decided to


implementation of a_ legal


complaint and referral service operated


byChapter volunteers. The Board is also


undertaking a police practices wat-


chdog project which is being organized


by Tim Loree. The first objective will be


to investigate cases of alleged police


violation of civil liberties in order to


establish the level and pattern of such


violations. When the documentation is


gathered, several forms of action will be


taken by the project. The board


currently receives numerous complaints


from persons claiming to have suffered


deprivation of their rights at the hands


of the police but has had no mechanism


for checking them out and therefore has


been unable to take appropriate action.


ACLU members who can help on any


of these projects are invited to attend


the next meeting of the Board.


Meetings are held on the fourth


Wednesday of each month at the


County Administration Building, 827


Seventh St., Sacramento. at 7:30 p.m.


Page: of 8
Clip Image

In collections

Details
Title

vol. 40, no. 1 (January, 1975)

Creator

American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Date

1975 January

Identifier

ACLUN_0451

Genre

newspapers

Physical description

40.5 x 28 cm

Publisher

San Francisco (Calif.): American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Preferred citation

ACLU of Northern California News vol. 40, no. 1, 1975 January; PER ACLUN; California Historical Society.

Rights statement

In Copyright

Publication rights

Copyright (or related rights to publicity and privacy) for materials in this collection, created by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, was not transferred to the California Historical Society (CHS). Permission for reproduction or publication of materials in this collection beyond that allowed by fair use must be secured from the copyright holder.

Topical subject(s)

Searches and seizures
Privacy, Right of
Freedom of expression
Criminal justice
Capital punishment
Affirmative action
Police practices
Japanese Americans--Incarceration, 1942-1945

Named subject(s)

Halvonik, Paul
Marson, Charles
Moscone, George
Mosk, Stanley
Patel, Marilyn Hall
Reagan, Ronald
Riemer, Louise Rothman
Rosenbaum, Mark
Schwartz, Amitai
Warren, Earl
Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
United Farm Workers

Geographical subject(s)

Sacramento (Calif.)
San Quentin (Calif.)
Santa Rosa (Calif.)
Oakland (Calif.)
Berkeley (Calif.)

Collection identifier

PER ACLUN