vol. 55, no. 3

aclu news

NON-PROFIT

ORGANIZATION

U.S. POSTAGE

PAID

PERMIT NO. 4424

SAN FRANCISCO, CA

Major Campaign Starts for 1991

- Civil Rights Act

his Spring, as a Civil Rights Act _

comes before the Congress for the

second year in a row, civil rights

protections for American workers will

once again be the subject of debate in

Congress and the White House. President

Bush has already promised to veto the

1991 Civil Rights Act, which was retitled

Employment Act before it passed out of

the House Education and _ Labor

Committee on March 12th. Last year,

Bush's veto of the 1990 Civil Rights Act

missed being overturned in the Senate by

only one vote.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration is

energetically garnering support for its own

substitute legislation, also named the Civil

Rights Act, as an additional strategy for

defeat of House Resolution 1 (HR 1), the

Democrat-sponsored civil rights bill. The

Bush bill is substantially narrower in

scope than HR 1 and, ironically, includes

even fewer protections for workers than

the eleventh-hour White House proposal

that accompanied Bush's veto message

last October.

Board and Chapter leaders at the

ACLU-NC, recognizing the importance of

the civil rights battle now shaping up in

Washington, have established the Civil

Rights Act as the number one priority for

New Hearing

Ordered In

Harris Case

naa major victory for death penalty

I opponents, the U.S. Court of

Appeals has ruled that death row

inmate Robert Alton Harris may have

been convicted on the basis of illegal tes-

timony, and must have an evidentiary

hearing on that question.

Harris was only hours away from

being executed in March, 1990, when a

last-minute reprieve was issued by

Federal Judge John T. Noonan on the

grounds that inadequate psychiatric assis-

tance was given to him at the penalty

phase of his 1979 trial. That issue is still

pending.

In the latest ruling, Court of Appeal

judges Arthur Alarcon and Melvin

Brunetti stated that Harris' claim of hav-

ing been the victim of coached testimony

deserves consideration. Harris' attorneys

have stated that an informant, Joseph

Abshire, was illegally recruited and told

what to say at Harris' trial. They have

been trying to get a favorable ruling on

this issue for many years.

"We have been contending all along

that Harris was the victim of false testi-

mony," says ACLU-NC staff attorney

Michael Laurence, who is director of the

Death Penalty Project. "The court's deci-

sion now adds to the possibility that

Harris will not be executed."

The case now goes back to San Diego

for an evidentiary hearing on the infor-

mant testimony issue. The Court of

Appeals set a 60-day deadline for a deci-

sion.

Marc ing for civil rights, San Francisco, June 1990.

Anne Rushing

Americans have been fooled

into believing that they must

choose between support for

civil rights and their need to

support their families. But that

isn't the choice at all. By put-

ting the leadership of the

ACLU-NC and the commit-

ment of our members behind

the Civil Rights Act, we have

an excellent opportunity to re-

shape the debate."

The Civil Rights Act of 1991

As the 1980s drew to a

close, five major USS.

Supreme Court decisions

effectively put an end to many

of the remedies that had been

available to employees who

experienced discrimination on.

the job. The Civil Rights Act

of 1991 is specifically

designed both to overturn

those cases and to strengthen

existing civil rights laws. It

the ACLU-NC field department and for

member activists this year.

According to ACLU-NC Executive

Director Dorothy M. Ehrlich, "Over the

last several years, we've watched civil

rights protections for workers steadily

whittled away by the courts. Now we have

a chance not only to regain some of the

ground we have lost, but also to have a

significant impact on the public debate

about affirmative action and about the

rights of women, people of color, older

Americans, people with physical disabili-

ties, and others.

"Because of the way the issue has been

misrepresented by Bush and by other

would amend the Civil Rights

Act of 1866 (Section 1981) and the Civil

Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). Among

other things, the Civil Rights Act of 1991

would make legal remedies for intentional

sex discrimination as strong as those avail-

able to victims of race discrimination.

The major sticking points for oppo-

Continued on page 3

An Interview with John Crew

"Police Brutality Does Happen Here..."

ACLU-NC staff attorney John Crew

has been director of the ACLU's Police

Practices Project since 1985. When the

Rodney King incident became a headline

story worldwide, Crew was deluged with

inquiries from the news media. It was not

an unusual situation for him, since the pro-

ject which he heads is the only one of its

kind in the country. Crew began work on

police issues more than a decade ago, at

the Illinois ACLU, while an undergraduate

at Northwestern. He was an ACLU legal

intern under. police practices specialist

Amitai Schwartz, following his graduation

in 1982 from Hastings College of the Law.

The following interview was done by act-

ing ACLU News editor Larry Bensky.

What are the most common

@ questions you're being asked

@ about the Rodney King inci-

dent and the Los Angeles

police?

A: The intensity of inquiries from the

media and the public has been extraordi-

nary. A lot of media inquiries are pretty

broad, like "Tell me about police brutality,

what causes it, what happens next?" I

answer that I've got an office full of police

brutality documentation...

A lot of people want to know if - or

be assured that - this is an isolated

incident.

The "isolated" nature of this incident is

the number of police involved, the number

of times Rodney King was struck, and the

presence of that video camera. But police

brutality is certainly not an aberration - it

exists in every major city, and many small

towns as well. The victims are dispropor-

tionately minorities, partly because racial

minorities have more contact with the

criminal justice system, and therefore

there's more possibility for brutality. But

racism does have a role to play in this.

And it's more than just a particular officer

who may have racist attitudes. It's rein-

forced by the isolated status of many

police departments, the isolation between

the officers and the communities they

serve, which is reinforced by the lack of -

diversity in police departments - the

resistance to affirmative action that takes

place.

What, typically, happens to a citizen

who claims to have been a victim of

police brutality?

Well the first thing that happens,

before they have an opportunity to protest

their treatment, is that they're charged with

criminal activities by the officers who

have victimized them. There is a common

pattern that if you have been abused by the

police, you will be charged with assault on

an officer. You will be charged with inter-

fering with an officer, or resisting arrest.

So we are in a position of advising people

that if they believe they have been the vic-

tims of police brutality, they are vulnera-

ble. That certainly would have been the

case with Rodney King, had that videotape

not been made. So we advise people to lay

low, to dispose of the criminal charges

against them, and then make the com-

plaint. But then, a victim of brutality in

many cases has to go back to the very

department that brutalizes them to make

their complaint! In many cases the offi-

cer's supervisor is the one in charge of

handing the complaint. Talk about a con-

flict of interest, that is the most direct con-

flict there is! Those systems are simply not

very credible, and the ACLU believes

there should be independent civilian

review boards to handle complaints in a

credible, independent fashion. But even in

the case of civilian review boards, like in

San Francisco, because they are under-

funded and understaffed, a person's com-

plaint can go on a pile of more than 500

pending cases, and with the passage of

time investigations become more difficult:

memories fade, witnesses are harder to

find etc. If you are one of the lucky few,

your complaint will be sustained. But

unlike in a criminal case, where there is a

victim's bill of rights, people who are vic-

tims of police brutality sometimes don't

even find out what happened to their com-

plaint, much less receive any damages.

The San Rafael police department, for

example, doesn't even tell complainants

what the finding is in their own case. It's

very rare that a person gets a chance to

review the evidence, or to read the investi-

gative report. Or what disciplinary action

has been taken against an officer - you

may be left in the dark about that.

The police may now decide, in many

Continued on page 2

aclu news

april 1991

Crew Interview ...

Continued from page 1

cases, to try to stop citizens from using

home video cameras to record inci-

dents. Is that legal?

The police do not have the right to do

that, legally. But, again, legal rights on

the books and what takes place in the

Street are two different things. We had a

case in San Francisco in the eighties

when members of the news media were

taping police activities at a demonstra-

tion, and the police reacted by smashing

the lights on the TV cameras. People have

the right to videotape as long as they're

not interfering with an officer, but some

officers don't like witnesses. And, as

we've seen in the Rodney King case,

cameras make excellent witnesses.

One of the reactions we're hearing

now to the incident is that it reflects a

problem in the training of the L.A.

`police department.

This issue goes far beyond training.

Training can help, but there is no magic

training program that can prevent an inci-

dent like this from taking place. There are

really four levels to ths question. First,

there have to be laws that define appropri-

, ate conduct, but there can be a huge gap

between the laws and what happens on

the street. So, second, you have to look at

who the police are. Do they reflect the

diversity of the communities they serve,

in race, gender, and sexual orientation?

That doesn't solve everything, of course;

you can have - and do have - black

police officers beating up black people..

But diversity helps minimize the "us ver-

sus them" mentality in many police forces.

The third component is policies and train-

ing. Chief Tony Bouza, who was chief of

police in Minneapolis, talks about the

departments too often existing for the care

`and comfort of members of departments.

That's completely backward. Here in San

Francisco we have developed a fairly good

system of training, where new officers are

exposed to a very diverse panorama of

people from the community. But even the

best training isn't going to last long if you

don't have the fourth component, a system

of accountability for police, with the fund-

John Crew

ing and personnel to do the job.

What do you answer to people who

say, "It can't happen here?"

It does happen here, just about every

day! In San Francisco last year, there were

479 allegations of brutality. None of those

was as severe as the Los Angeles situa-

tion, in the number of officers participat-

ing, or the extent of the violence. But a lot

of people suffered a lot of physical and -

psychological damage at the hands of

Northern California Police departments.

The primary factor - and the one thing we

would most like to see changed, if we

could choose only one - is the enormous

amount of secrecy which shields nearly

everything about allegations of police mis-

conduct. Those 479 allegations of police

Anne Rushing

brutality are now secret. We can't go see

those records, find out the names of the

officers involved, or conduct an evaluation

of what the results are. Of course, police

officers have privacy rights about their pri-

vate lives. But when a police officer - a

public employee - is involved in some

activity which harms a member of the pub-

lic, and the public is paying this officer's

salary, the public ought to know exactly

how the case was investigated, what the

evidence was, what the conclusion was,

what the analysis was supporting that con-

clusion, and whether an officer was disci-

plined in an appropriate manner. I think

the reason we don't have this is that there

isn't public scrutiny of information - often

not even on the part of elected officials

who have to come up with damage settle-

ments in many cases.

Are there any models for ways this

problem could be dealt with differently?

There are a few, such as Berkeley's

Police Review Commission, where hear-

ings are open, and the public can have

access to records. Our ACLU legislative

director in Sacramento, Margaret Pefia, has

been beating back efforts for the last three

years running to make things even more

secret in this area. We're hoping that now

we can go from a defensive to an offensive

posture. But, politically, too many elected

officials who want to be perceived as law

and order attach the law and order label to

the entire agenda of every police lobbying

organization in the state. But the reality is

that more secrecy for police behavior is

anti-law and order, because of the behav-

ior which it allows to continue.

ACLU Asks Libel Case Dismissal

he Court of Appeal has temporar-

ily halted a libel trial scheduled for

March 18, so that the appellate

court may consider the ACLU's claims

that the letter that provoked the suit is con-

Stitutionally protected. (Kimura _ v.

Superior Court)

The libel suit arose from an emotional

letter written in 1988, during a controversy

at U.C. Santa Cruz following the cancella-

tion of a planned Filipino ethnic theme

night. Administrators at one of the Santa

Cruz colleges cancelled the ethnic theme

night scheduled for December 7, on the

grounds that a "celebration of Asian cul-

ture" was "inappropriately festive" on the

anniversary of Pearl Harbor Day. The can-

cellation sparked widespread campus pro-

tests.

U.C. budget director Victor Kimura

added his criticism of the cancellation in a

letter sent to Don Vandenberg, the college

provost who had approved the cancella-

tion. The letter accused Vandenberg of

racial insensitivity.

"The very notion that you would

attempt `to punish' our young Filipino stu-

dents for an unfortunate act of aggression

which occurred 47 years ago by the

Japanese government demonstrates not

only an incredible level of bigotry, but

also a total ignorance of two of the most

fundamental requirements of affirmative

action: the need to recognize ethnic differ-

ences and the ability not to discriminate

because of those differences," the letter

Sth Annual ACLU Political Comedy Show

The Realist

Doors open at 7:45 pm

legal guardian.

"In The Bush League"

with

Paul Krassner Scott Beach

and

Marga Gomez

Cabaret Gold Entertainer of the Year

Monday, May 6 at 9 PM

The Punchline - SF

444 Battery Street

(upstairs between Washington and Clay)

2-drink minimum; 18 years or older

unless accompanied by parent or

Parking information (415) 397-0644

A Benefit for the ACLU-NC Bill of Rights Campaign

The Committee et al

$8.00 advance/$10 at the door

For tickets call (415) 621-2493

Tickets also available at BASS

stated.

Kimura went on in his letter to

describe the suffering of his family from

Japanese-American internment and the

suffering of the Japanese people from the

bombing at Hiroshima. "We must learn to

forgive and to forget."

Vandenberg filed a libel suit against

Kimura and the University of California.

When the university refused to defend

Kimura, he turned to the ACLU. ACLU

cooperating attorneys Jack Londen, Judith

Schelly, Grant Kim and Michael Tigar of

Morrison and Foerster, and ACLU staff

attorneys Margaret Crosby and Edward

Chen are representing Kimura.

The ACLU argues that Kimura was

entitled to participate in an important cam-

pus debate about racism. The statements in

Kimura's letter were constitutionally pro-

tected because they were not factual asser-

tions but critical evaluations of an official

action. In addition, because Vandenberg is

a government official, he must bear a

heavy burden of proving that Kimura

deliberately lied or harbored suspicions

that his statements were untrue. The

ACLU claims that Kimura sincerely

believed in his criticisms.

After the Santa Cruz Superior Court

refused to dismiss the case without trial,

Kimura filed a petition asking the appel-

late court to stay the trial and review the

Statements. The petition argued that this

unusual procedure was justified because

libel cases inflict a toll on free speech and

should be dismissed at the earliest time.

On March 14, the appellate court

ordered the trial stayed and indicated that it

would receive additional briefs on the con-

Stitutionality of the statements in the letter.

"This libel case threatens robust debate

on campus," Crosby stated. "The univer-

sity should be an open forum for free

expression. Members of an academic com-

munity must be able to speak out on one of

the critical issues of the day-racism on

campus-without fear of a libel suit."

c caf aking

Liberties"

A monthly radio program

on civil liberties

KPFA 94.1 FM

and

KFCF 88.1 FM (Fresno)

Tune in

Wednesday,

April 24

7 pm

Elaine Elinson, just retumed from a

three month visit to the Philippines,

hosts "Taking Liberties" once a)

aclu news

8 issues a year, monthly except bi-monthly in January-February, June-July, August-

September and October/November.

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

H. Lee Halterman, Chairperson

Dorothy Ehrlich, Executive Director

Elaine Elinson, Editor (on leave)

Larry Bensky, Acting Editor

Marcia Gallo, Field Page

ZesTop Publishing, Design and Production

1663 Mission St., 4th Floor

San Francisco, California 94103

(415) 621-2488

Membership $20 and up, of which 50 cents is for a subscription to theaclu news and 50

cents is for the national ACLU bi-monthly publication, Civil Liberties.

aclu news

april 1991 3

S.F. Homeless Issues Still Unresolved

wo issues conceming homeless

| peoples' rights in San Francisco

remain unresolved, despite several

months of public hearings and commission

rulings.

In contrast to earlier indications (see

ACLU News, January/February, 1991),

the San Francisco Police Commission has

approved guidelines which would allow

police to roust people sleeping in public

places.

After pressure from business organiza-

tions, the order now allows police to order

to move on those who are sleeping on side-

walks or in vehicles "for more than a

momentary or brief stop ... with intent to

remain."

ACLU-NC staff attorney John Crew

says the new regulations are vague, and

give individual police officers "undue dis-

cretion that inevitably will be used in arbi-

trary enforcement decisions."

Crew adds that the regulations are

another misguided effort by city officials

to deal with the homeless problem in San

Francisco through the criminal justice sys-

| ong time ACLU member Rose S.

Bonhag passed away quietly at

her home in Berkeley on March 3.

A native of New York City, Ms.

Bonhag was a graduate of Long Island

University and Pennsylvania State

College. She moved to the Bay Area in

1955, and worked at the University of

California as a research assistant to Dr.

David Weiss. She co-published pioneer-

ing work in leukemia treatment with Dr.

Weiss, and continued work in cancer

research until her retirement in 1977.

A two-term president of the Earl

Warren Chapter of the ACLU, Ms.

Bonhag worked energetically for prison

reform and for public awareness of con-

stitutional rights.

In Berkeley, she was active in cam-

paigns for the Rumford Fair Housing Act

of 1962, and worked for the establish-

ment of integrated summer camps.

Ms. Bonhag is survived by her chil-

Rose S. Bonhag

dren, Phil and Robert Bonhag, and

Laura Collins, and a granddaughter,

Veronica Collins, all of Berkeley, as

well as her mother, Veron Siket.

The family asks that memorials be

made in the form of donations to the

ACLU of Northern California.

tem. "In the absence of comprehensive

programs dealing with homelessness,"

says Crew, "police are being put in the

position of dealing with a social issue, and

thereby potentially violating the rights of

citizens."

The ACLU was joined by the Coalition

on Homelessness, the San Francisco

Human Rights Commission, HomeBase,

and the National Center on Institutions and

Alternatives in protesting the regulations.

The San Francisco Recreation and Park

Commission quickly withdrew from con-

sideration in late February a proposal to

close Civic Center Plaza between the

hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.

Homeless activists said the measure

was designed to force homeless people and

others to leave an anti-war encampment in

Civic Center. The commission had also

discussed enforcing the closure hours in

several other neighborhood parks. That

closure was also tabled for future consider-

ation.

Crew said the closing of the parks, and

Civic Center, was a potential curtailment

of the public's right of free access and free

speech.

"Again, in the guise of dealing with the

serious issue of homelessness, we find the

city considering curtailment of a basic

right. If George Bush recognizes the right

of anti-war protestors to camp out across

the street from the White House in

Lafayette Park, why would San Francisco

want to shut down a peaceful vigil in a

park across the street from the mayor's

office?"

Both issues - sleeping in public, and

park closure - are certain to remain in dis-

cussion and negotiation in the near future.

Es

A Reminder -

Tickets Still Available

ACLU San Francisco Chapter

Annual Meeting

Featuring

A Special Appearance by

ACLU Executive Director

Ira Glasser

8

wm

~

=

S

and

bs

Monday, April 22

Social Hour: 6 pm

Ira Glasser Speech: 7 pm

First Unitarian Church

Franklin at Geary

= For Information: 979-6699 .

Civil Rights ...

Continued from page I

nents of the Civil Rights Act revolve

around the legal standards required for

proving intentional discrimination based

on sex, race, religion, or disability, and the (c)

kinds of money damages available to peo-

ple who win anti-discrimination lawsuits.

Specifically, they include:

The "Business Necessity" Test

Generally, a plaintiff in an anti-

discrimination lawsuit is required to show

that an employer's practices have a "dis-

parate impact" on a group of employees or

job applicants (e.g., salary-setting prac-

- tices that disadvantage women as a group).

Next, according to standards estab-

lished in recent Supreme Court cases, the

plaintiff is required to show in court that

those practices were not really necessary

to the employer's business. The Civil

- Rights Act of 1991 would shift that burden

of proof back to the employer. In other

words, once a discriminatory practice had

been shown to exist, it would then be up to

the employer to prove that dissimilar treat-

ment of Hispanics (or disabled people or

women, for example), was really neces-

sary for the continued functioning of a

business.

The Bush Administration's proposal,

on the other hand, applies a weaker stan-

dard, and requires an employer to show

only that employment goals are "signifi-

cantly served by (even if they do not

require) the challenged practice." In addi-

tion, the administration bill allows

- employers to use a cost-based defense

against a charge of discrimination - an

employer could simply say, for example,

that it is too expensive to stop discriminat-

ing, or to adopt an affirmative action plan.

Damages

The Administration bill puts a cap of

$150,000 on money damages available to

a plaintiff in an anti-discrimination law-

suit, and limits those damages only to

cases that involve sexual harassment. In

addition, the Administration proposal says

that judges alone, and not juries, may

award damages. It also lists six limiting

criteria that judges must follow in award-

ing damages to a plaintiff.

The Civil Rights Act provides unlim-

ited compensatory and punitive damages

in all cases involving intentional discrimi-

nation of all kinds against members of all

groups.

The Question of Quotas

A March 18 editorial in the Wall Street

Journal speculated that many Americans

now believe "civil rights has- become a

movement dedicated to obtaining prefe-

rential benefits based on race and gender

rather than its original goal of equal oppor-

tunity." In addition, as the recent cam-

paigns of David Duke and Jesse Helms -

amply demonstrated, the "quota question"

can successfully be manipulated to terrify

white workers into believing that unfair

race-based competition will edge them out

of an already tight job market.

Because "quota" has become an effec-

tive buzzword for opponents of the Civil

Rights Act, civil rights advocates will be

forced to respond to these issues again and

again. The Civil Rights Act of 1991, how-

ever, Clearly does not call for quotas, nor

would it lead to them in practice. In fact,

HR 1 contains clear and specific anti-

quota language.

Other Provisions

The Civil Rights Act of 1991 also

seeks to provide a fairer time limit within

which an employee may bring an anti-

discrimination lawsuit and puts limits on

the endless rounds of administrative proce-

dures an employee could be required to

follow before going to court. In addition, it

does away with the Administration's pro-

posal that employers be able to require

employees to sign away their right to sue

for discrimination. (Additional materials

about the Civil Rights Act are available

from the ACLU-NC office.)

Crucial Republican Votes

According to Gene Guerrero, ACLU's

national lobbyist in Washington, D.C.,

` important votes in the House could come

from California Republicans. In addition

to Tom Campbell, Guerrero has identified

Frank Riggs (District 1), Wally Herger

(District 2), and John T. Doolittle (District

14) as critical targets for Norther

California lobbying efforts. ACLU-NC

Chapter activists in these key districts are

already at work to coordinate visits with

targeted legislators from broad-based dele-

gations of their constituents.

Says Guerrero, "These representatives

may not be with us from the first vote, but

we need to keep the pressure on them

nonetheless. If the Republicans later find

that it is in their interest to propose a com-

promise of the Administration's bill, we

want them to understand that nothing less

than the strongest language will be accept-

able to people in their districts who care

What You Can Do

. Contact your elected representatives in Congress and urge them to support the

Civil Rights and Women's Equality in Employment Act of 1991. This is particu-

larly important if you live in one of the targeted districts. A letter is most effec-

tive, but phone calls are also helpful.

. Even if Congressional representatives in your district are all "on board," write

and thank them for their good work. It's important for our friends to know they

don't stand alone in their commitment to civil rights.

. Become a "media eagle." Watch and listen for stories about the Civil Rights Act

in your local media and respond with letters and phone calls. Don't let inaccurate

statements about the Civil Rights Act go unchallenged.

. Work within your local ACLU-NC Chapter to develop strategies for public edu-

cation and for influencing your elected officials.

. Sign up to receive "ACLU IN ACTION" alerts on civil rights issues, including

HR 1. (A handy form accompanies Marcia Gallo's article on this year's ACLU

field department priorities, page 4.)

about civil rights."

A single California Democrat, Calvin

Dooley, newly elected to District 17

(Fresno-Central Valley), is also the target

of ACLU-NC lobbying efforts, but for

slightly different reasons. Although

Dooley has indicated that he will support

HR 1, he has not yet made a commitment

to sign on as a co-sponsor. Dooley's spon-

sorship would provide important backing

for the Civil Rights Act.

Efforts are also underway, through the

Civil Rights Coalitions of Southern and

Northern California, to meet with newly

appointed Senator John Seymour, who

recently stirred controversy by encourag-

ing Asian-Americans to oppose the Civil

Rights Act. In a speech covered in Asian

Week and the Washington Post, Seymour

said that the Civil Rights Act would harm

Asians by establishing job quotas. Quotas,

Seymour said, would be particularly detri-

mental to "model minority" Asian-

Americans who are better qualified than

other groups to compete for jobs.

Seymour's blatant attempt to split

Asian-Americans from the broader coali-

tion of supporters of the Civil Rights Act

is being challenged by a number of Asian-

American groups, including the Japanese-

American Citizens League, the Asian Law

Caucus, Filipinos for Affirmative Action,

the Chinese-American Citizens Alliance,

and others who are launching a joint pub-

lic-education effort in the Bay Area's

Asian community.

ACLU Member Activists Critical

The involvement of ACLU members

will remain crucial this spring and summer

as the Civil Rights Bill continues to make

its way through Congress. Opponents of

the measure seem determined to tum

debate on the Civil Rights Act into a refe-

rendum on race and gender in America,

and coalition efforts will be particularly

important in the coming months.

As the Reverend Jesse Jackson

recently wrote in an open letter to George

Bush, "an authentic community of con-

science will fight for the civil rights bill of

1991. If Americans who have been histori-

cally locked out gain equal rights,

America will be the better for it."

Wendell Ricketts is Civil Rights Act

project coordinator for the ACLU-NC.

aclu news

april 1991

Gay Rights Bill

Supported by ACLU

ssembly member Terry Friedman

A (D-Sherman Oaks) has introduced

AB 101, which would outlaw

employment and housing discrimination

on the basis of sexual orientation. A simi-

lar bill, sponsored by Assembly member

Art Agnos, was passed by the legislature

in 1984, but was vetoed by Governor

George Deukmejian

The bill, which is strongly supported

by all three California ACLU affiliates,

was approved by the Assembly Labor

Committee, 6-3, on March 13. It goes now

to the Assembly Ways and Means

Committee, and from there to the

Assembly floor.

ACLU-NC staff attorney Matt Coles

argues that the bill fills a significant gap in

California civil rights law. "State and local

governments cannot discriminate on the

basis of sexual orientation now. Private

employers can not discriminate against

people who are openly gay. But private

employment discrimination against lesbi-

ans and gay men who are not open, and

against heterosexuals, is not now illegal.

This law would close that gap."

Coles noted that the bill would also

allow the Department of Fair Employment

and Housing to investigate claims of

employment discrimination based on sex-

ual orientation. The Department cannot

investigate any sexual orientation employ-

ment claims now. :

"All forms of housing discrimination

based on sexual orientation are illegal

now,' Coles said, "because the courts have

ruled that sexual orientation discrimination

violates California's Unruh Act. However

many people, including many lawyers,

don't know that sexual orientation discrim-

ination is illegal under Unruh, since the act

does not actually mention sexual orienta-

tion. Adding the words `sexual orientation'

into the Fair Employment and Housing Act

will let everyone know what the law is,"

Coles explained.

ACLU Legislative Director Margaret

Pena says that the law is thought to have a

good chance of passing. But she urges all

ACLU members to contact their state legis-

lators in support of AB 101. Those ACLU

members in the following districts should

make special efforts to contact their legis-

lators in support of the bill:

Assembly

Areias, Rusty 25th

Cannella, Sal 27th

Cortese, Dominic 24th

Hansen, Bev 8th

Quackenbush, Charles 22nd

Statham, Stan Ist

Senate

Maddy, Ken 14th

Vuich, Rose Ann 15th

Coles, along with Gay Rights Chapter

member Burton Weiss, helped the state-

wide Lesbian/Gay Rights and AIDS

Lobby, L.I.F.E. (Lobby for Individual

Freedom and Equality) write the bill.

Civil Rights, First Amendment

Top Field Priorities For 1991

CLU leaders from throughout

A northern California have voted to

give top priority this year to civil

rights and First Amendment issues, Field

Committee chairperson Dick Grosboll

announced on March 14.

These two priority areas will head up a

list of crucial issues for ACLU activism

which include ongoing support of repro-

ductive rights, work to abolish the death

penalty, and an active student outreach

program.

"Our chapter activists have selected

timely and vital issues for our membership

organizing efforts in 1991. We are now

getting the word out to our members that

there is a great deal of work to be done,"

Grosboll said. Two immediate campaigns _

will be the passage of HR 1, the Civil

Rights and Women's Equality in

Employment Act of 1991, in Congress;

and the approval of AB 101, the sexual

orientation anti-discrimination measure, in

the California legislature. (See stories,

page 1 and above.)

Grassroots lobbying priorities are

selected by the ACLU of Northern

California's Field Committee, which is

made up of all 17 chapter representatives

to the ACLU-NC Board of Directors, and

five at-large members. The Committee has

met each year since 1981 to select care-

fully a few key civil liberties issues for the

affiliates' membership organizing pro-

gram.

At the annual priority setting meeting

January 26, presentations from national

ACLU Field Director Gene Guerrero,

ACLU California Lobbyist Francisco

Lobaco, and ACLU-NC_ Executive

Director Dorothy Ehrlich helped frame

activists' consideration of issues at the

national and state level.

After evaluating past campaigns, and

following a sometimes intense debate on

current civil liberties crises, the five issue

areas were selected.

Naming an issue a "priority" means

that the resources of the affiliate's field

department will be. used to affect public

opinion and public policy on that issue.

"We devote our time and money to the

priority issues, developing strategies with

our legislative offices, producing materi-

als, and working with chapter leaders to

involve members in local campaigns,"

outgoing field representative Marcia Gallo

explained. "Our most successful cam-

paigns in the last ten years have centered

on federal and/or state legislation on an

issue," she added.

Chapters also regularly adopt local pri-

orities, like organizing against police mis-

conduct, in addition to the affiliate-wide

field priorities.

Members _ interested

involved in grassroots lobbying and edu-

cation on (1) Civil Rights; (2) Freedom of

speech and assembly; (3) Reproductive

Rights; (4) Abolition of the Death Penalty

and (5) Outreach to Students should return

the form, below, to the ACLU-NC Field

Department, 1663 Mission Street, #460,

San Francisco, CA 94103.

Sign Me Up!! For The ACLU Of Northern Calfornia Field Program:

Name:

Address:

Telephones: (Day)

(Evening)

Put me on your list for "ACLU In Action" Alerts.

I'm particularly interested in lobbying and education campaigns on the following Field

Priorities: (c) Civil Rights

(c) Reproductive Rights

1 Outreach to Students

(c) First Amendment: Freedom of Speech, Assembly

0 Abolition of the Death Penalty

Thank you. Please return to the ACLU of Northern California, attention: Field

Department; 1663 Mission Street, #460, San Francisco, CA 94103.

in becoming

Chapter Meetings

(Chapter meetings are open to all interested

members. Contact the chapter activist listed

for your area.)

B-A-R-K __ (Berkeley-Albany-Richmond-

Kensington) Chapter Meeting: (Usually

fourth Thursday) Meeting on Thursday,

April 25, 1991 in Berkeley. Contact Julie

Houk, 415/848-4752, for further informa-

tion.

Earl Warren (Oakland/Alameda County)

Chapter Meeting: (Usually second

Wednesday). Focus on Police Practices. For

time and address of meetings, please call Irv

Kermish, 415/836-4036 or Abe Feinberg,

415/451-1122.

Fresno Chapter Meeting: (Usually third

Monday) Meeting on Monday, April 15,

1991 at San Joaquin Law School at 6:00

PM. New members always welcome! For

address of meetings, please call the Chapter

Hotline 209/225-7380 or contact A.J. Kruth

at 209/453-7145 (day).

Gay Rights Chapter Meeting: (Usually

first Thursday) Meet Thursday, April 4,

1991. Meeting at the ACLU Office, 1663

Mission, #460, San Francisco at 7:00 PM.

For more information, contact Terese

Friend, 415/272-9700.

Marin County Chapter Meeting: (Third

Monday) Meet Monday, April 15, 1991 at

7:30 PM, Westamerica Bank, Community

Room, Strawberry Shopping Center, Mill

Valley. There will be a speaker from the

Marin County Sheriff's Department. For

more information, contact Bernie Moss,

415/332-3153.

Mid-Peninsula (Palo Alto area) Chapter

Meeting: (Usually first Thursday) Meet on

Thursday, April 4, 1991 7:30 PM at Security

Pacific Bank, El Camino Real, Menlo Park.

New members welcome! For more informa-

tion, contact Harry Anisgard, 415/856-9186.

Monterey County Chapter Meeting:

(Usually first Tuesday) The Monterey

County Chapter will meet on Tuesday, April

2, 1991 at 7:30 PM at the Monterey Library,

Community Room, Pacific and Madison

Streets, Monterey. For more information,

contact Richard Criley, 408/624-7562.

Mt. Diablo (Contra Costa County)

Chapter Meeting: (Usually fourth

Thursday) Mt. Diablo Chapter will meet on,

Thursday, April 25th, 1991. For more infor-

mation, contact Mildred Starkie, 415/934-

0557. Calling all teachers: are you inter-

ested in working with the chapter on a civil

liberties essay contest for students? If so,

contact Mildred Starkie, number above.

North Peninsula (San Mateo area)

Chapter Meeting: (Usually third Monday)

Meeting on April 15, 1991. For more infor-

mation, contact Emily Skolnick, 340-9834.

Note: The North Pen Chapter has a new

Hotline number: 579-1789. The Chapter

Annual Meeting will be on Sunday, May 5,

1991, 2:30 PM. at the Beresford Center,

2720 Alameda De Las Pulgas. A light buffet

will be offered. The featured speakers will

be ACLU-NC Executive Director Dorothy

Ehrlich and Larry Bensky, National Affairs

Field Program Monthly

Meetings

(Usually first Tuesday) Meet April 2, 1991

- for further information.

Corrospondent for Pacifica Radio. The win-

ners of the High School Essay Contest will

be presented.

North Valley (Shasta, Siskiyou, Tehema,

and Trinity Counties) Chapter Meeting:

(Usually fourth Wednesday) Meet on April

24, 1991 at 7:00 pm at Harry's Resturant,

Cypress and Hilltop in Redding. For more

information contact Frank Treadway, 916/

365-4336 or 916/241-7725.

Sacramento Valley Chapter Meeting:

(Usually second Wednesday) Meeting on

April 9, 1991, 7:00 pm at the Sacramento

County Offices, 700 H Street, Hearing

Room 1. For information, contact Ruth

Ordas, 916/488-9956

San Francisco Chapter Meeting: (Usually

third Monday) The Annual Meeting of the

San Francisco Chapter will be held on

Monday, April 22, at the First Unitarian

Church in San Francisco at 6:00 PM.

Featured speaker will be Ira Glasser of the

National Office. For more information call

Leon Seville, 415/681-4747.

Santa Clara Valley Chapter Meeting:

7:00 PM. at Commerce Bank Building, 111

West St. John Street, 2nd Floor Conference

Room, San Jose. Contact John Holly, 408/

554-9478, for further information.

Santa Cruz County Chapter Meeting:

(Usually second Wednesday) Meet

Wednesday, April 10, 1991 at 7:15 PM.

Focus will be on working with the Media.

Chapter will continue to work on combating

hate crimes. Look for program on homeless

issues in May. Contact Keith Lesar, 408/

688-1666, for further information. For legal

matters call Bob Taren at 408/429-9880.

Sonoma County Chapter Meeting: (Third

Thursday of the month) Meet Thursday,

April 25, 1991 7:30 PM, 821 Mendocino

Ave, Santa Rosa. All members welcome.

Contact Leonard Bronstein 707/527-9018,

Stockton Chapter Meeting: For informa-

tion contact Beverly Ford 209/948-6759.

Yolo County Chapter Meeting: (Third

Thursday of the month) For more informa-

tion, contact Doug Powers, 916/756-8274.

Field Committee

Meetings

(All meetings except those noted will be

held at the ACLU-NC Office, 1663 Mission

Street, Suite 460, San Francisco. To RSVP,

or for more information, contact Marcia

Gallo or Michele Hurtado at the ACLU-NC

415/621-2493.)

Student Outreach Committee: (Usually

third Saturday) Contact Marcia Gallo, num-

ber above, for more information.

Pro-Choice Action Campaign: Contact

Marcia Gallo, number above, for more

information.

Death Penalty Action Campaign: Contact

Marcia Gallo, number above, for more

information.

Lesbian Parents Rights Denied

`n March 21, the state Court of

QO Appeal in San Francisco decided

_that a woman who was not biolog-

ically related to a child for whom she had

acted as a parent has no right to prove that

it would be in the child's best interest for

her to have either custody or visitation.

The case, Nancy S. v. Michele G., arose

out of the fifteen year relationship of two

East Bay women. In 1979, Nancy S. had a

daughter, Kate, by artificial insemination.

Michele G. was listed as a parent on the

birth certificate, and the child was given

Michele's family name. For the first few

years of the child's life, Michele served as

the primary caretaker.

In 1985, the women separated. Kate

went to live with Michele G. and Seth, a

second child, lived with Nancy S. Both

children visited with the other parent two

nights a week. Michele G. provided all of

Kate's financial support. -

Three and a half years later, Nancy

decided she wanted to alter the custody

arrangement, so that each child would

spend half time with each parent. Michele

disagreed. When attempts to mediate the

dispute failed, Nancy obtained a court

order that she was the only parent of both

children, and that neither child could stay

with or visit Michele without Nancy's per-

mission.

The court said that since she was not

biologically related to the children,

Michele could not offer any evidence that

she was a parent to the children, or that it

would be in the children's best interest to

maintain a relationship with her.

Although it found the - situation

"tragic," and agreed that under the circum-

stances, Michele might be able to show

that she functioned as a parent, the Court

of Appeal upheld the Superior court order.

The court said that the "complex and

socially significant issue" raised by the

case could only be resolved by the legisla-

ture.

ACLU-NC staff counsel Matt Coles

wrote a friend of the court brief in support

of Michele.