vol. 31, no. 9

American

Civil Liberties

Union

Volume XXXII

"The Beard"

"The Beard" is a

SAN FRANCISCO, SEPTEMBER, 1966

90-minute play by San Francisco poet

- Michael McClure. It was presented for the first time at the

Encore Theatre under the auspices of the Actors' Workshop

where it was directed by Marc Estrin and starred Billie Dixon

and Richard Bright as Billy the Kid and Jean Harlow. The

play was later presented at the

Fillmore Auditorium, and twice

at The Committee, a San Fran-

cisco night club. At the last of

these performances it was no-

_ticed that suspicious-looking per-

sons appeared to be taping the

dialogue. The play was scheduled

for two performances at the Com-

mittee at 9:00 and 11:00 p.m. on

August 8. The late performance

"never took place because after

the first performance police and

inspectors from the Juvenile Bu-

reau arrested Miss Dixon and Mr.

Bright and took them to the po-

lice station to be charged with

"obscenity."

Charges Changed

When Miss Dixon and Mr.

Bright arrived at the Hall of Jus-

tice they found themselves

charged not with the misdemea-

nor of "obscenity" (which was the

erime for which they were ar-

rested), but with a "suspicion"

that they had committed a felony.

`This felony was "conspiracy."

Conspiracy to do what was never

stated. The change in booking

from a misdemeanor to a suspi-

cion of a felony meant that Miss

Dixon and Mr. Bright could not

be bailed out without a setting of

bail by order of court. By this

time it was after 1:00 am. but

ACLU attorney Marshall Krause,

who had attended the play, got a

judge out of bed and he ordered

the pair released without bail.

Thus began the newest venture

of the San Francisco Police De-

partment into the field of censor-

ship, in which they have spectacu-

larly failed in the past. They

failed to pin a charge of obscenity

on Allen Ginsberg's poem

"Howl"; they failed in their effort

to convince a jury that Lennie

Bruce had put on an "obscene"

show in a San Francisco night-

club; they failed in their efforts

to convince a jury that Muldoon

Elder of the Vorpal Gallery had

violated the obscenity laws by

showing the erotic sculpture of

Ron /Boise. We trust that the

same fate awaits them in this

case, but wonder when the Police

Department will learn what free-

dom of expression means.

Natural Treatment of Sex

Michael McClure is a poet and

has written several other short

plays which have been produced

here and in New York. The idea

for "The Beard" came to him in

contemplating how two such

popularly admired Americans,

Billy the Kid and Jean Harlow,

might be behaving in the here-

after, There is a good deal of

Sharp sexual dialogue in the play

including the four-letter words

which could be expected from

those individuals. The climax,

which evidently shocks the Police

Department, involves a scene in

which Billy kisses Jean in a way

which, as The Chronicle writer

Michael Grieg wrote, is usually

described only in Latin. Jean re-

acts with much pleasure, the

lights dim and the play is over.

Certainly this is a frankly sexual

scene, but is is sex depicted in

a natural, healthy and beautiful

manner. With the superabund-

ance of sexual stimulation in its

barest and most crass form in

many locations in San Francisco's

North Beach, it is puzzling and

quite instructive that a "crack-

down" should come against a play

like "The Beard." `

Booking Changed Again

When the two defendants ap-

peared in court, the charge was

again changed, this time to a

violation of Penal Code sec.

647(a) forbidding "lewd or disso-

lute conduct" in public. ACLUNC

will move to dismiss this charge

on the basis that the defendants

were engaged in a theatrical per-

formance and cannot have an iso-

lated portion of their perform-

ance singled out and charged as

a violation of the penal laws. The.

First Amendment requires that

artistic expression be judged as

a whole and not in its parts, and

that factors such as community

standards and redeeming social

importance be taken into consid-

eration in any censorship case.

Under the 647(a) charge it is not

possible to bring in these factors

as the only question at issue is

whether or not a `lewd or disso-

lute" act was committed. The Dis-

trict Attorney is attempting to

get around these constitutional

protections by charging under

Section 647(a) instead of under

the obscenity laws,

"The Beard" received favorable

reviews from two San Francisco

Chronicle critics, Michael Grieg

and John Wasserman, and there

is a long list of persons, expert

in theater and other literary ex-

pression who have volunteered to

testify as to the merit and artistic

sensibility of McClure's play. It is

hoped that the judge will agree

with ACLUNC's position and

throw the case out before there

is the necessity to bring it to

trial, It should be noted that the

very institution of this kind of

prosecution has a dampening ef-

fect on creative, experimental

arts in this area. If legal pro-

ceedings drag out, it may be

months or years. before persons

are again able to see a production

of "The Beard."

ACLU Analysis of

"CLEAN" Initiative

Available

An il-page comprehensive

analysis of Proposition 16

(the so-called "CLEAN" initi-

ative), prepared by Marshall

Krause, ACLUNC Staff Coun-

sel, which was highly praised

in an editorial in the San

Francisco Chronicle, August

11, 1966; is available free. For

copies, write or telephone the

Office.

Press coverage of the analy-

sis has resulted in great de-

mand for it and the assistance

of volunteers to type and col-

late additional copies is ur-

gently needed. Please call the

Office if you can help the cam-

paign to defeat Proposition 16

in this most practical way.

Number 9

forms are obtainable from

U.C. Courses on Bill of

Rights; Legal Control

of Sexual Activity

Two Fall evening courses at

-U.C. Extension, San Francis-

co, will deal with:

1. "The People, the Courts,

and the Bill of Rights." Rob-

ert M, O'Neil, U.C. Berkeley

law professor, will cover re-

cent court decisions respect-

ing free speech, freedom of

worship, private property,

equal opportunity, and crimi-

nal justice. Starting on Oc-

tober 4, classes will meet suc-

cessive _ Tuesday evenings.

Tuition is $49,

Information and enrollment

U.C. Extension offices in San

Francisco and Berkeley.

2. "Legal Control of Sexual

Activity." The instructors will

be attorneys Ephraim Margo-

lin (ACLUNC Branch Board

member) and Evander Smith.

They will survey current prac-

tices respecting marriage,

divorce, adultery, incest, con-

traception, abortion, sex of-

fenses, and pornography.

Measures taken by courts,

legislatures, and religious in-

stitutions will be considered.

Recent rulings bearing on pri-

vacy, the time, place and man-

ner test, illegal arrest, and

search and seizure will be dis-

eussed. Representatives of

various organizations will par-

ticipate. Starting October 6,

the classes will meet succes-

sive Thursday evenings. Tui-

tion is $40.

Beard Case

James Forstner's beard has achieved the distinction of

being the only such adornment discussed in an appellate case

in the United States. ACLU of Northern California has repre-

sented Mr. Forstner ever since the chief probation officer

at the Youth Guidance Center in San Francisco ordered him

to shave or resign as a probation

officer for the Juvenile Court.

Forstner' refused and he was

fired. Some nine months later

Judge Joseph Karesh of the San

Francisco Superior Court, after

reviewing the record of the hear-

ing where Forstner was fired,

issued a writ reinstating him and

requiring the City to pay him his

lost salary..The City appealed,

- Mr. Forstner went back to work,

and the City was unsuccessful in

three writ proceedings in higher

courts to keep him off the job

while the appeal was pending.

Criteria of Relatedness

The District Court of Appeal

has affirmed Judge Karesh's de-

cision, and held that Mr. Forstner

was indeed wrongfully fired and

he is indeed entitled to his salary

for the nine months he was off

~ the job. The unanimous opinion,

written by Justice Devine, and

concurred in by Justices Draper

and Salsman, is precedent-shatter-

ing not only because of its par-

ticular facts but because it

`strengthens the ability of govern-

ment employees with civil service

protection to resist unreasonable

demands for conformity and un-

reasonable demands in other

areas. It is not that the boss is

always wrong, but too often that

petty and tyrannical orders by

superiors are allowed to under-

mine the independence of the

civil service system on the

alleged basis that disobedience to

Teaching Credential

Granted to Lily Kowalski

The Committee on Credentials of the Board of Education

granted Lily Kowalski a Junior College teaching credential

on July 19, 1966, after an amicable meeting lasting thirty

minutes. The Board of Education has asked this committee

to look into cases such as

vidual basis. The special treat-

ment of Miss Kowalskj arose be-

cause of her arrest and convic-

tion in the Cadillac Agency dem-

onstration on April 11, 1964.

That conviction is presently

pending on appeal. At the meet-

ing Miss Kowalski was repre-

sented by Reed H. Bement, a

volunteer attorney for ACLUNC.

Miss Kowalski read a statement

explaining her involvement in

the Cadillac demonstration; a

few quesions from the members

of the Credentials Committee fol-

lowed, and after short delibera-

tion, a credential was granted.

Hopeful Precedent Set

The opening statement by Dr.

Lawrence, Chairman of the Com-

mittee, set a hopeful precedent.

He stated that the Committee's

only concern was whether the

applicant would be a good teach-

er and that its role was not that

of a judge. During the meeting

Dr. Klotz, another member of

the Committee, asked whether

Cadillac or any other employer

had a right to refuse to deal with

unofficial groups such as the

civil rights group involved in the

Auto Row demonstrations. Dr.

Lawrence ruled the question im-

proper since it would have ex-

plored the applicant's general at-

titudes and beliefs and had no

bearing on her conduct,

Miss Kowalski's clear and con-

cise statement at the meeting re-

lated that she was born in Po-

land of Jewish parents. She and

her family remained in hiding

until the end of the Nazi occupa-

tion. Thereafter the family spent

some years in both France and

Australia before they were able

to obtain an American visa; they

came to San Francisco in 1951,

and Miss Kowalski was natural-

Miss Kowalski's on an indi-

ized in 1956. Her participation in

the Auto Row demonstrations

against discriminatory hiring

practices arose from a deep per-

sonal conviction, based on her

own experience, that "treating

one group of people as less equal

than another is but one step to-

ward making them a little less

human than another and that

the progression from this to

treating such groups as non-hu-

mans is possible."

. Committee Jogged

The change of heart in the

Kowalski case was undoubtedly

due to a scolding given the Com-

mittee of Credentials by the

State Board of Education after

the State Board granted creden-

tials to two other teachers who

had been denied credentials by

the Committee because of their

arrests and convictions at Sproul

Hall. These teachers, Barbara

Bozman and Diane Kepner, were

represented by ACLU volunteer

_attorney Neil Horton. Horton

also wrote to the State Board

of Education asking it to instruct

the Committee not to deny any

credentials because of civil rights

arrests. The Board appointed two

of its members to draft a policy

on this question, but did instruct

the Committee not to ask appli-

eants for credentials questions

concerning their political beliefs

or attitudes.

Daniel Keig Denied

`Meanwhile, the Committee of

Credentials has not altogther

given up its stand. It has refused

a junior college credential to

Daniel Keig on the ground that

~he was arrested and convicted in

the Sproul Hall sit-in case at

Berkeley. The Committee claims

that Keig's case is different from

such orders constitutes "insubor-

dination." The District Court of

Appeal holds that dismissal can

only be predicated on an order

which a superior officer is en-

titled to give, and entitled to have

obeyed, but that "unquestionably,

such an order must be reasonably

related to the duties of the subor-

dinate officer or employee." Since

the District Court of Appeal

agreed with the Superior Court

that there was no evidence that

Mr, Forstner's beard in any way

interfered with his duties, it held .

that the order to remove it was

not supported by evidence that

it was related to Mr. Forstner's

duties, and therefore the order

was unreasonable and would not

be enforced,

The Court pointed out that. Mr.

Forstner had presented the testi-

mony of bearded professionals

including a lawyer, a psychiatrist,

an architect, a psychiatric social

worker, and a teacher, who ftesti-

fied that their beards did not de-

tract from, but increased, their |

effectiveness. The court also

pointed out that several other

people had worn beards at the

Youth Guidance Center (although

not in the position of probation

officer) without adverse effect,

Detriment Not Shown

The court went on to say: "In

the course of his work, a public

officer or employee must yield

some of the privileges which are

enjoyed by the citizenry at large,

but the subordination of common

personal privileges is

only in reference to official duty."

It then pointed out that the City

based its decision on mere opin-

ion that a bearded probation offi-

cer could not do as well on the

job as a clean-shaven officer, but

did not have any real evidence

for this position. The court stat-

ed: "It would seem that if per-

sons coming into contact with

the probation officer had experi-

enced unfavorable results by

reason of the beard, evidence

thereof could have been gathered

and produced." It added: "The -

beard is a very personal embel-

lishment. Unlike items of dress,

it cannot be donned and doffed.

An intelligent wearer of a beard

no doubt regards it as enhancing

his appearance ... The subject of

neatness enters here. An un-

kempt beard, like uncut hair,

would offend against the neatness

which is expected of public offi-

cers. The evidence is that re-

~spondent's beard has always been

well trimmed ... For more than

two years since the judgment in

the Superior Court, respondent,

bearded, has been working as a

probation officer. Surely, in this

time, if his work has suffered or

his effectiveness has been dimin-

ished because of the beard, evi-

dence and not mere hypotheses

would be available."

The City can ask the California

Supreme Court to hear the case

and probably will make such a

request in view of its record of

persistence in this case,

Miss Bozman's and Mrs. Kep-

ner's. In a memorandum to the

State Board of Education, State

Superintendent of Schools Max

Rafferty claimed that "Keig ex-

pressed a greater disrespect for

the law than did Miss Bozman

or Mrs. Kepner." ACLUNC will

handle the Keig case because it

is no different from the three

other cases mentioned above, The

denial of a professional license

in these cases would be an arbi-

trary punishment, the main pur-

pose of which would be to deter

others from participation in civil

rights activities,

GVACTCQ 2 =

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION NEWS

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Second Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, California

ERNEST BESIG .. . Editor

503 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105, EXbrook 2-4692

Subscription Rates -- Two Dollars a Year

Twenty Cents Per Copy

Vietnam War

Target of Pool Bill

Congressman Joe Pool (D-Texas),

Gee" 151

issent

acting chairman of

HUAC's August Washington hearings, is author of a bill

(H. R. 12047) intended to amend the Internal Security Act

of 1950 by adding a new title concerning "the obstruction of

Armed Forees." Pool's bill is short but sweeping. It aims to

limit the free speech and associa-

tion of groups dissenting against

the war in Vietnam and does it

in unconstitutionally vague lan--

guage. However, its broad pro-

hibitions would reach far beyond

these groups, and the shadow of

McCarthyism looms large.

As we go to press: the bill

begins with "findings of fact"

presumably designed to justify

its restrictions by indicating a

elear and present danger to

internal security. These "find-

ings" allege that: (1) the "world

Communist movement" intends

the destruction of free govern-

ments including that of the U.S.;

(2) this movement operates

through declared and undeclared

armed "hostilities," and; (3) cer-

tain unspecified groups in the

U.S., both Communist and non-

Communist, seek to aid this

movement and thereby threaten

America's internal security.

Assisting Hostile Forces

The bill prescribes heavy pen-

alties ($20,000 fine and/or 20

years imprisonment) for the as-

sistance, or advocacy of assist-

ance, to any group or person

"acting in hostile opposition" to

the U.S. while U.S. Armed

Forces are "engaged in hostili-

ties abroad." The term "hostili-

ties" (not even confined to

"armed" hostilities) widens the

ground covered considerably be--

yond declared wars. Apparently,

so long as the U.S. maintains any -

forces abroad, sends any recon-

naissance flights over foreign

-eountries, keeps any military

pases outside its own territories,

or considers any foreign powers

"hostile," the bill's prohibitions

would be in effect.

"Assistance to hostile forces"

is defined as giving money, prop-

erty, or any `thing,' or counsel-

ing the collection of such com-

modities for any "hostile for-

eign power, or agency or national

thereof" or for any person or

groups "acting in hostile oppo-

sition" to the U.S. Armed Forces,

with the intention that such

items be used to interfere with

the operation of American Armed

Forces, or prejudice the United

States, or help the foreign power.

Notably, the crime would be not

the act of opposition to the U.S.

government, but merely the col-

lection of any number of com-

modities for a hostile govern-

ment. The bill is so vague as to

raise numerous questions, such

as:

1. What is a "hostile foreign

power'? The United States con-

siders hostile many countries not

jn armed conflict nor even in di-

rect confrontation with it.

2. When is a group or individ-

ual "acting in hostile opposition

to the U.S. Armed Forces"?

Advocating the donation oz blood

for Nerth Vietnamese victims of

American bombings, counseling

conscientious objectors, passing

out leaflets to soldiers concern-

ing Nuremberg principles, and

buying a ticket for a concert

sponsored by the Vietnam Day

Committee could be proscribed.

3. Is it a crime to give money

or property to a relative who is

a national of a foreign country?

Apparently no American could

either give, will, or donate money

or property to a Cuban relative,

regardless of his or the recip-

ient's political beliefs. Nor could

an American donate to a group

such as the North Vietnamese

ACLU NEWS

SEPTEMBER, 1966

Paqe 2

Red Cross. Even scientific com-

munication would be penalized.

American scientists could not

Zive any scientific material to

colleagues in potentially hostile

foreign countries presumably be-

cause such material might ad-

vance scientific research in those

countries.

Obstructing Military Personnel

or Transportation

The bill also prescribes the

same penalties for obstruction

of, interference with, or advo-

cacy of interference with, the

movement of any member of the

U.S. Armed Forces while on

duty, or the operation of any

military base or military trans-

portation activity.

At one end of the scale, it

would punish the attempt to stop

or slow troop trains, the halting

of napalm trucks, and related

demonstrations. At the other end

of the scale, it would penalize

strikes delaying military ship-

ments, whether or not the U.S.

is in a state of war. Even the un-

intentional delay by a relative of

aman reporting for military duty

could be criminal.

Challenge

Miscegenation

Law in. Va.

On behalf of a couple, appro-

priately named Loving, ACLU.

has urged the U.S. Supreme

Court to review the constitution-

ality of Virginia's state laws

making racial intermarriage a

- criminal act, on the grounds that

miscegnation laws violate the

equal protection and due process

clauses of the Fourteenth

Amendment, the right to pri-

vacy, and civil rights provisions

of the U.S. Code. It pointed out.

that such statutes are living and

pernicious relics of slavery.

Conviction and Banishment

ACLU's jurisdictional _ state-

ment was submitted to the High

Court on behalf of Richard Lov-

ing, a white-construction worker,

and his part-Indian, part-Negro

wife, Mildred. Five weeks after

their marriage in Washington,

D.C., the Lovings were arrested

in Virginia, July 11, 1958, where

they were living. They were

charged with attempting to evade

the state ban on interracial mar-

riages. Their one-year prison

term was suspended on condition

that they leave Virginia "at once

and not return together or at the

same time... for a period of 25

years." They left as ordered, but

in 1963 decided to fight the con-

viction and the sentence of ban-

ishment from their home state.

Three years later the Virginia

Supreme Court of Appeals up-

held the state's miscegnation

laws. ACLU's statement filed

with the U.S. Supreme Court is

an appeal from that decision.

ACLU asserts that "it is the

color of their skin which makes

(the Lovings') marriage ...a

criminal offense', that such a

statute is a gross abuse of equal

protection. It points out that the

freedom to marry according to

individual choice "cannot be in-

fringed by the State setting

standards which unreasonably

and arbitrarily apply race cri-

teria." The brief also states that

Mrs. Loving's right to "make and

enforce contracts" in the same

manner as a white citizen has

been. denied.

Ominous

Anti-Klan Bill

A bill entitled "Organizational

Conspiracies Act of 1966" (H.R.

15678), purportedly aimed at the

K.K.K., has been authored by

HUAC's chairman, Edwin E. Wil-

lis. Intended to amend the In-

ternal Security Act, 1950, the

bill has raised alarm among civil

rights organizations - against

whom it could just as easily be

turned - and earned scathing

ACLU testimony in opposition. (c)

- Constitutional Defects

The bill is so broadly drafted

and so dangerously vague that it

paves the way for the harass-

ment of many perfectly legiti-

mate organizations across the

whole political spectrum. Willis'

bill runs roughshod over the

First Amendment rights of free

speech, freedom of association,

and over Fifth and Fourteenth

Amendment due process guaran-

tees. Even if amended to elimi-

nate its grossest constitutional

defects it would still pose a dan-

gerous threat and should be

strongly opposed. It is so ambig-

uous that two Washington news-

papers gave opposing accounts

of Attorney General Katzen-

bach's equivocal testimony.

Ambiguous Definitions

The bill's definition of "clan-

destine organizations" is so

broad that the following groups,

or any association with them,

could be considered clandestine:

Democratic Study Group of

House of Representatives; col-

lege fraternities; Masons; John

Birch Society; labor unions;

NAACP; Knights of Pythias;

C.1.A., Office of Naval Intelli-

gence; and the National Defense

Agency. Furthermore, there is

absolutely no requirement of il-

legal purpose for an organization

to fall within the bill's defini-

tion.

`Concerning certain acts of vio-

lence, the bill merely requires

that the

of or in relation to any purpose,

objecitve or plan of such organ-

ization, thus discarding the stand-

ard legal requirement of specif-

ic, or even general intent.

Threat to Unions

The bill could strangle labor

unions. It provides against the

obstruction or impeding of "the

free movement of people in in-

terstate commerce." Strikes

often impede interstate traffic.

Prohibitions against `intimida-

tions" or "threats" are not lim-

ited to physical acts.or threats

of force or violence. Economic

boycotts of all kinds could be

made illegal.

Self-Incrimination Protections

Lifted

By barring the use of radio or

telephone by a member of a

"clandestine organization" to

commit or conceal any offense

against the state, and by prohib-

iting oaths or pledges to conceal -

such offense, the bill directly

theatens the `attorney- client con-

fidential relationship in addition

to jeopardizing the privilege

`against self-incrimination.

`Sweeping Injunctive Powers

The bill empowers the Attor-

ney General to seek an injunc-

tion against any "criminal con-

spiracy" when he believes it in-

volves an ulawful act or the com-

mission of any "violence, intimi-

Wide Variety of Sanctions

The rights and benfits con-

tingent upon marriage that have

been abridged by Virginia's mis-

cegnation laws include: the es-

tablishing of a family abode and

raising of children in places

where they and their family have

often been long established and

where blood relatives reside. In

addition, ACLU argues that chil-

dren born of such illegal mar-

riages live under the stigma of

bastardy and that the victims of

such laws are prejudiced in their

rights to certain tax, insurance,

social security, workman's com-

pensation benefits, and to be-

- queath or inherit property.

"clandestine organiza-.

- tions" be acting in furtherance

ACLU Battles HUAC's Mandate --

Will Continue Court Challenges

The day before HUAC's hearings on the oan Bill, aimed

at anti-Vietnam war protests, were to open, ACLU Attorneys

led by National Executive Director, John Pemberton, ob-

tained an unprecendented order from federal Judge H. F.

Coreoran (1) stopping the hearings; and (2) calling for a three-

Judge court to consider the con

stitutionality of HUAC's man-

date.

~ The Department of Justice, act-

ing for HUAC, immediately

sought a reversal of the order

from the special court. The next

morning the three-judge court set

aside the order restraining the

hearing on the ground that there

was insufficient showing of "ir-

reparable injury" to the plaintiffs

if the hearings went on. How-

ever, the panel did agree to hold

judicial hearings on the question

of the legality of HUAC's man-.

date. .

HUAC's Defiance

The judiciary's willingness to

consider the constitutional issue.

engendered a sharp clash on the

question of separation of powers.

Congressman Pool announced

HUAC's intention of proceeding

with the hearings in defiance of

the court injunction, which intro-

duced the possibility that HUAC

members would be in contempt

of court. As Mr. Pemberton point-

ed out, those Congressmen would

be practicing the very defiance of

law which they charge against

anti-Vietnam war protestors,

HUAC's Weak Position

The events surrounding

HUAC's hearings were of unprec-

edented importance; their ramifi-

cations are still to be settled.

Clearly, however, while ACLU

was unsuccessful in cancelling

the hearings the fact that Judge

Corcoran made his extraordinary

order exposes the legal weakness

of the Committee's position.

The Mandate Issue

In 1945 Congressman Rankin

(D. Miss) introduced a resolution

in Congress to transform the Dies

special investigating .committee

into a permanent, independent,

standing Committee primarily to

dation or harassment that in-

jures, oppresses, or punishes any

citizen in the free exercise of

any Constitutional or legal right."

Since "criminal conspiracy" is

not limited to "clandestine or-

ganizations,' he could sweep

down on groups merely advocat- .

ing acts of non-violent intimida-

tion or harassment such as

strikes, boycotts, and demonstra-

tions, Such injunctions virtually

eliminate due process by doing

away with grand jury indict-

ments, preliminary hearings,

trial by jury, presumption of in-

nocence, and lifting the burden

of proof requirement from the

government.

Coupled with the other bill be-

fore HUAC sponsored by. Con-

gressman Pool (and _ reported

elsewhere in the NEWS), the

Willis bill poses a highly dan-

gerous threat to free expression

and the right to dissent.

Censcientious

Objector

Last month's News reported

the attempt to gain a hearing for

Richard William Carey on his

claim to be a conscientious ob-

jector and arbitrary denial of this

- claim by the United States Navy.

We are happy to report that

Carey's' case is now being con-

tinued by the ACLU of Southern

California through volunteer at-

torneys in San Diego. Carey is

being retained at the San Diego

Navy Base while a third applica-

tion for administrative discharge

is processed. If this -application

fails, afiother federal court test

will be `sought.

"investigate the extent, character

and objective of. Un-American

propaganda activities in the U.S."

He proposed that it have (1) in-

dependent powers of subpoena

and (2) the privilege to sit, hold

hearings, and conduct investiga-

tions regardless of whether or not

Congress was in session.

Rankin's resolution was voted

-down by voice vote. The present

Speaker, John McCormack, ob-

- jected to the proposal's unprece-

dented scope, pointing out that

never before had the House pro-

vided by rule for a permanent in-

vestigating committee; and to do

so would require amending the

House rules. However, in 1946

the proposal became law. HUAC

thus became the only standing

committee in the history of the

House with permanent power to

investigate non-governmental ac-

tivities. The very terms of its

investigative mandate necessarily

focus its activities on areas -of

individual expression such as

speech, writings, petitions, mem-

bership in organizations. espous-

ing political and social ideas, and

such freedom of assembly. activi-

ties as peaceful picketing and

lawful demonstrations. These.

rights and activities are specifi-

cally protected by the Bill of

Rights. The phrase "Un-American

propaganda" is so vague and ill-

defined that no one can know at

any given moment what is meant

by it and what it may mean at

any time in the future.

If "propaganda" can ever be

curbed, it is only at a time of

"clear and present" danger when

the national security is so im-

perilled that there is no time for

the regular agencies to cope with

the emergency. Patently such has

not been the case during the 20-

year period of HUAC's existence. |

Rutgers Professor, Arthur Ki-

noy, acting as a volunteer ACLU

attorney for one of the Commit-

tee's subpoenaed witnesses, was

rudely throttled by Committee

guards in the midst of a legal ob-

jection after Congressman Pool

claims Kinoy was ordered to sit

down. Kinoy was asking the Com-

mittee to change its unfair rule

that when a "friendly". witness"

slanders someone that person or

his counsel have no right to ask

the witness questions testing the

fairness of the accusation. Mere

mention in a derogatory context

in front of the Committee is

enough fo smear persons for

years and deprive them of their

livelihoods. There should be a

method of checking the accuracy

of such smears at the time they

are made,

In these latest hearings one

fact was obvious: The Committee

was not after information but

sought to "expose" certain un-

popular views and to garner head-

lines. The persons subpoenaed by

the Committee and summoned to

Washington at government ex-

pense were the wildest, most un-

cooperative group of witnesses

which could have been assembled.

Perhaps there is good reason for

the attitudes of those witnesses,

but there is no proper legislative

purpose in forcing them to air

their political points of view.

Anti-HUAC Pamphlet

Available :

The Office has a large stock

of the ACLU pamphlet en-

titled "The Case Against the

House Un-American Activities

"Committee," 36 pp. Issued in

December, 1964, it documents

and illustrates by cases AC-

LU's opposition to HUAC.

Price is 35 cents.

In requesting the pamphlet,

the inclusion of a nickel or a

5 cent stamp to cover postage

would be greatly appreciated.

-. public

School Prayer

Dirksen Amendnient

Senator Dirksen's proposed

amendment to the Constitution

to allow "voluntary" prayers in

public schools has drawn fire

from the quarters which might

have been expected to offer him

some support. It has, of course,

met with total opposition from.

ACLU.

Clerical Opposition

A Christian Science

poll of clergymen (reported July

29) showed that only two Protes-

tants and one Roman Catholic

- favored the Dirksen Amend-

ment. Opposed to it were il

Protestant and one Jewish

spokesmen, all of whom firmly

support the separation of church

and state exactly as provided by

the First Amendment, Further,

they believe that individual

prayer at any time or place is

already protected, and that a pro-

vision for "voluntary" prayer in

schools would imply either overt

or covert compulsion on the part

of the school or teacher in-

volved.

The Supreme Court decision of

1963 provided for teaching

"about" the Bible or religion in

_ public schools, but not as a part

of devotional exercises.

Senator Dirksen, striking back

at the Supreme Court for its

`school prayer decisions and for

its refusal to hear the case of

Stein v. Oshinsky (in which par-

ents of various faiths sued to en-

join New York school officials

from preventing so-called "volun-

tary" recital of prayers by their

children) proposes to amend the

Constitution as follows:

"Nothing contained in this

Constitution shall prohibit the

authority administering any...

educational institution or other

building supported in

whole or in part through the ex-

' penditure of public funds from

providing for or permitting the

voluntary participation by stu-_

dents or others in prayer. Noth-

ing contained in this article shall

authorize any such authority to

prescribe the form or content of

`any prayer."

How a school or teacher can

"provide for" a prayer without

prescribing its form or content is

unclear. Even "providing for"

meditation entails the prescrip-

_tion,of form. :

ACLU's Objections

At hearings before the Senate

Subcommittee on Constitutional

Amendments ACLU testified:

That the Dirksen Amendment

would dilute the establishment

clause and the concept of church-

state separation with the result

`that the question of religion

would become a matter of legis-

lative debate, subject to the cus-

tomary pressures of the political

process.

That in our multi-religious,

multi-varied, culturally plural

society, the public school is the

chief instrumentality for forging

and preserving unity. Parents

who wish their children to have

a religiously-oriented education

are free to send them to reli-

gious schools in lieu of the free

public schools provided for all,

and, indeed the free exercise

clause protects their right to do

so. But in the public school, any

attempt at introducing prayer

immediately brings forth the re-

ligious differences among the

student body. Children and their

parents pray in different ways

and regard different texts and

declarations of faith as sacred. ~

Even the most bland and lowest-

common - denominator composi-

tion will probably be offensive

to some, if for no other reason,

precisely because it is so mean-

ingless.

That the element of voluntar-

ism could not overcome the over-

riding elements of influence by

the school and the imitative and

conformist tendencies character-

istic of children.

Ambiguity

ACLU particularly objected to

Monitor

f

Widely Opposed

the lack of clarity of Dirksen's

intentions. While he insists that

his Amendment would not au-

thorize anyone to write or direct

`recitation of a specific prayer, it

would definitely provide consti-

tutional sanction for any prayer

that a majority, or perhaps a

minority, in any community

could persuade or pressure local

school administrators to yield to.

In dismissing the Senator's

argument that the

Court decisions bar a President

or court from invoking the

Deity, ACLU quoted the Engel

case in which Justice Black said:

"Such patriotic or ceremonial oc-

casions bear no true resemblance

to the unquestioned religious ex-

ercise that the State of New

York has sponsored in this in-

_ stance.'

As to the Senator's argument

that facilitating school prayer

will promote public morality,

ACLU pointed out whether more

prayer' or less prayer will have

an effect, is at best a specula-

tion; that the Dirksen Amend-

ment is by no means a panacea

for the moral and ethical prob-

lems facing young people. It also

recalled that at one time in our

history, efforts were made to

outlaw religious parochial

schools, on the grounds that they

encouraged juvenile delinquency.

In concluding its testimony

ACLU urged complete govern-

mental neutrality respecting re-

ligion, stating that the govern-

ment can do nothing, directly or

indirectly, either to favor it or to

interfere with it.

Due Process Violation

Police as Facu

Pupil Surveillance

The Arizona~ Civil Liberties

Union has sharply protested the

civil liberties threats of a gov-

-ernment-financed program plac-

ing police officers in Tucson,

Arizona, schools as quasi-faculty

"members. The School Resource

Officer program, operated by the

Tucson Police. Department, has

applied for a federal grant under

the 1965 Law Enforcement As-

sistance Act, and approval is

under active consideration.

No Notice to Parents

The three-year-old SRO pro-

gram, a joint activity of the Po-

lice Department and the Tucson

scheols, stations a pliainclothes-

man in every high school and

junior high school for the al-

leged purpose of early detection

and prevention of juvenile de-

linquency. .The officers operate

from private offices within the

schools, can interview students

at will, and subject only to the

varying limitations imposed by

individual school principals or'

superintendents, may interrogate

anyone they wish at any time in

private with neither previous

consent or notice nor subsequent

notification of the parents.

In one case, a school official

was threatened with arrest when

he tried to prevent the question-

ing of a student. The school's

lawyer asserted the right of the

policeman to conduct the inter-

rogation.

Privacy Invaded

As pointed out by the Arizona

ACLU, this is obviously a way to

_ gain evidence that is sharply in

violation of due process and that

may also violate the rights of

privacy of the parents and neigh-

bors of the juveniles, as well as

of the children themselves. It

also notes that Arizona law re-

quires that juvenile delinquency

be handled by trained probation

officers-not by the police-and

that "even assuming a child to

have no constitutional rights, he

is being deprived of his rights

under law." ACLU has ealled for

closed hearings at which school

Supreme .

Cases Before

State High Court

Scheduled for hearing by the

State Supreme Court during its

term opening August 29, are four

civil liberties cases with which

the ACLU is associated. The first

is Sokol vs. The Public Utilities

Commission, concerning the re-:

moval of telephones without no-

tice or hearing because of alleged

illegal use of the phone, and re-

fusal to allow a suit for damages

when the charge proves false.

This case will be argued by

ACLUNC staff counsel Beal

W. Krause.

Two cases, Ba ied US. `Wash:

ington Township Hospital Dis-

trict and Rosenfield vs. Malcolm,

involve the question of whether

a government employee without

civil service status or other pro-

tection has the right to sue to

regain his job if the only reason

for termination of services was

the exercise of a constitutional

right. In the Bagley case, in

`which the ACLU appears amicus

curiae, a nurse was fired upon

refusing to resign from a group

urging the recall of the directors

of the Hospital District for which

she worked. In the Rosenfield

ease, a doctor. was fired after he

refused to resign his membership

in the Ad Hoc Committee to End

Discrimination, ACLUNC is rep-

resenting Dr. Rosenfield and the

case will be argued by volunteer

attorney James McCall and Staff

Counsel. Marshall Krause.

The last case is In re Hallinan,

which

of Terrence Hallinan to. be ad-

mitted to the State Bar. In this

case the ACLU of Northern and

Southern California appear amici

curiae, as discussed in adjoining

columns on this page.

ity Permits:

personnel could speak out freely.

Possible Other Programs

A federal grant to the Minne-

apolis Police Department for a

similar program is also pending.

However, the. Minneapolis police

have a regulation that when they

find it necessary to question a

student on school property a

teacher must be present. The

-Washington office of ACLU has

urged the Department of Justice

to make grants for such programs

only on condition that question-

ing of pupils take place in the

presence of their parents.

Religious

Xmas Stamps

Protested

The National ACLU has urged

the U.S. Post Office to reverse:

its decision to issue a 1966 Christ-

mas stamp representing a reli-

gious--scene, pointing out that

such governmental support of re-

ligion is a violation of the First

Amendment.

The stamp would depict Hans

Memling's "Madonna and Child

with Angels." ACLU declared the

government "has no mandate or

authority to indoctrinate minori-

ties in the religion of the ma-

jority, or to lend its instrumen- (c)

talities and vast prestige to the

celebration of the religious holi-

days of the majority.' ACLU's

Jetter was prompted by the Post

Office's rejection of a protest

against the issuance of the stamp

from the American Jewish Con-

gress, The Post Office's explana-

tion to the AJC was that the

purchase of Christmas stamps is

not mandatory and that the stamp

in question is "a portion of a

work of art." According to ACLU,

issuance by the Post Office of

stamps commemorating the re-

ligious holidays of any religious

group would violate the First

Amendment's prohibition on any

form of government assistance to

religion.

involves the application'

Last month a joint brief amici curiae was filed in the

California Supreme Court by the American Civil Liberties

Union of Northern and Southern California concerning the

right of Terrence Hallinan, son of the well-known attorney _

Vincent Hallinan, to be admitted to the State Bar. Young

Hallinan passed the bar exam

and completed all other require-

ments but the Committee of

Bar Examiners of the State Bar,

after an extensive evidenciary

hearing, found that he did not

meet the bar requirement of

"good moral character."

The Charges

The charges against Hallinan

can be put into two categories:

First that as a youth he was in-

volved in numerous fracases,

some of which resulted in crimi-

nal charges, and that he was not

"candid" in discussing them with

the Committee of Bar Examiners,

second, that his arrests and con-

victions during the Sheraton-

Palace and auto row civil rights

demonstrations in San Francisco

showed a disrespect and defiance

for the law. It is only as to the

latter issue that ACLU has filed

its brief before the Supreme

Court.

The brief, signed by ACLU at-

torneys Marshall W. Krause, A. L,

Wirin, Fred Okrand, and Laur-

ence R. Sperber,

points: (1) That arrests in con-

nection with civil rights demon-

strations are not reasonably

related to Mr. Hallinan's ability

to practice law; (2) That denial

of admission to Hallinan will in-

hibit other applicants to exercise

their rights of free speech and

assembly (protected under the

First and Fourteenth Amend-

ments); and (3) That the issue

of cruel and unusual punishment

is raised by the threatened dis-

qualification of Hallinan.

The brief points out that ar-

rests and even convictions in con-

nection with civil rights demon-

strations are not proof of unfit-

ness to practice law. The brief

Draft System

Attacked

By Negro

A lawsuit against the U.S.

Army and the Selective Service

System has been filed in U.S.

District Court in Mississippi seek-

ing to enjoin the induction into

the Armed Forces of a Negro

who alleges he was unfairly se-

lected by an all-white local draft

board. Attorneys of the ACLU

and of the Lawyers Constitutional

Defense Committee (LCDC), rep-

resenting Ulysses Z. Nunnally, 20,

of Holly Springs, Miss., charge in

the suit filed in July in Oxford,

Miss., that the Universal Military

Training and Service Act has

been unconstitutionally applied

against Mr. Nunnally in that no

Negro has ever served on a local

draft board in Mississippi.

About 44 percent of the state's -

population is Negro. The all-white

draft board which ordered Mr.

Nunnally's induction (scheduled

for July 12th) operates in Marsh-

all County, Miss., where the popu-

lation is 24,503, of which 70 per-

cent is Negro. As of July 11, the

complaint was still pending, but

Mr. Nunnally's LCDC lawyer an-

nounced at that time that he

would proceed to have his client

released from military service by

a habeas corpus action if the

Federal Court did not prevent

his imminent induction. :

The complaint filed by ACLU

"and LCDC charges that the Se-

lective Service Act and regula-

tions discriminate against non-

whites specifically and the unedu-

cated generally and that Mr. Nun-

nally, who has been active in

civil rights work, was "inducted

out of the regular order, while

members of the Caucasian race

of similar age, background, and

eligibility have been passed

over."

makes three

ment conduct. . .

states: "It must be shown that

the person's actions are indica-.

tive of a trait or personality in-

consistent with the. expected fit-

ness or capacity of an attorney ~

at law. That showing is com-

pletely lacking on this record.

[The Committee of Bar Exami-

ners] has said . . . concerning

petitioner's civil rights arrests

and convictions that `The inten-

tional and deliberate nature of

their commission is not changed

by the ends sought to be accom-

plished.' Such unthinking rigidity

runs counter to the long and

painful history in Great Britain

and the United States which,

after many trials, led to the high

place our modern society accords

to individual conscience.' The

brief then discusses examples of

disobedience to valid laws for

reasons of conscience, such as

John Lilburne and his refusal to

give evidence against himself in

violation of British law, the

dumping of British tea into Bos-

ton Harbor, the defiance to writs

of assistance, the sheltering of

fugitive slaves, and the refusal to

obey the Japanese exclusion

orders.

ACLU's Position

ACLU's brief does not take the

position that a person may violate

valid laws with impunity, but

only that a person violating a

valid law for the sake of con-

science is not per se acting "im-

morally." "There is no evidence

that he would advise others to

disobey the law, that he would

use his position as an attorney

to interfere with the process of

justice or violate his ethical obli-

gations as an attorney. Should

such events occur, there will be

time enough for the processes of _

professional discipline to take

their course." -

On the deterrence of free

speech and assembly rights of

others, ACLU points out that the

legality or non-legality of demon-

strations is a very complicated

legal question which-often is not

resolved until a case has been

decided by a divided United

States Supreme Court. In most

cases, one cannot know before he

participates in such demonstra-

tion whether or not his conduct

will be found legal. "It can be

said, therefore, that some civil

rights demonstrations are and

some are not protected under the

First. and Fourteenth Amend-

ments. If persons involved in

demonstrations are also candi-

dates for future admission to the

bar there are two equally unde-

sirable results from a rule which

finds them unqualified for reason

of their conviction of such crimes

from such involvement: First,

there will be strong inhibition of

political and social protest for

fear that there might be some-

thing illegal involved. The ex-

treme severity of the sanction

will serve as a drastic deterrent

against engagement in what may

well be protected First Amend-

. Second, a can-

didate for professional license

will lose his entire future profes-

sional] career as the price of what

he believed was legal conduct but

which the judgment in his case

has found to be illegal. Then

only those not willing to take

risks, only those not deeply com-

mitted in matters of conscience

will be able to become profes-

sionals. We believe strength. of

purpose in matters of conscience

is an attribute to be encouraged,

not discouraged, and weuld grieve

te see the latter state of affairs

ensue."

ACLU NEWS

SEPTEMBER, 1966

Page 3

WS

Initiative

Below is a summary of the arguments against Proposi-

tion 16, the anti- -obscenity proposal which has qualified for

the general election in November. Mislabelled "CLEAN," the

initiative constitutes a dangerous threat to the freedom of

artists, teachers, readers, and the culturally sophisticated

public.

It proposes drastic ne tightening California's al-

ready strict obscenity code. The adult cultural public would

be restricted to reading and viewing matter suitable only for

children. Specifically, Proposition 16:

1. Removes the "redeeming social importance" test from

the definition of obscenity, thus threatening extinction in

California of literary and art classics. This violates the First

Amendment and conflicts with U.S. Supreme Court rulings.

2. It replaces objectivity with subjectivity in obscenity

tests by replacing national ``average person" standards with

a confusing variety of standards according to the "special

susceptibility of audiences." This will require the jury to

place itself in the position of any number of variable audi-

ences-children, men, women, heterosexuals, homosexuals,

ad infinitum. Also, it replaces national standards with local

community standards. Every nationally-distributed magazine

or book will have to cater to the most provincial tastes. A

publication accepted in one community could be banned in

another.

3. A distributor can be guilty of disseminating obscene

material if the receiving merchant "reasonably believes" the

material to be obscene. In the words of the Los Angeles

County District Attorney, "This section would appear to

predicate the criminal liability of a distributor upon the un-

communicated thoughts of the distributee rather than on the

intentional act of the distributor. Such a basis for criminal

responsibility has never been countenanced under our system |

of law."

4. It removes the power of the Court to dismiss an ob-

scenity proceeding either before or during the trial on the'

ground that the material is not obscene. The jury becomes

"exclusive judge" of the "common conscience of the com-

munity." This violates (a) the separation of powers doctrine;

and (b) conflicts with the oes of a fair trial and due

process of law.

Dd. It allows police search and seizure of all copies of con-

tested materials before a trial date has even been set.

6. Any individual, however misguided or misinformed,

ean bring civil action `against a prosecuting attorney for fail-

ing to prosecute against any material that particular individ-

ual deems obscene.

7. Scientific studies would be stringently limited. The

-over-all vagueness of the initiative's wording is particularly

pernicious here; it could be construed to mean that individ-

-uals or groups engaged in scientific, educational or compar-

able "bona fide" studies would be unable to use or distribute

obscene materials.

8. The existing punishment of fine or jail, or both is

broadened to provide that the fine fixed by the jury cannot

be reduced by the judge, unless he states his reasons for the

court record. In addition, it makes the felony conspiracy rule

applicable if more than one person is involved.

9. It undermines the autonomy, authority, and efficiency

of local governments and legal codes by making it legal for -

any individual to apply his own standards and preferences.

In summary: Sweeping censorship tends to enhance the

appeal of pornography. Even if Proposition 16 is adopted it

will be a temporary catering to the irresponsible minority of

self-appointed censors. ACLU holds that Propositoin 16 is

patently unconstitutional, will test it, and is confident that it .

will be so proved. Therefore, for it to be even placed on the

ballot is an inexcusable waste of the public' s time and money.

Mime Troupe

Performances To Be Allowed

Problems between the San

Francisco Mime Troupe and the

San Francisco Park and Recrea-

tion Commission have evidently

cooled down for a while as the

Troupe has received permission

to proceed with its remaining

performances in San Francisco

this summer.

As reported in last -month's

News, the Troupe had been hav-

ing trouble getting permits be-

eause of the alleged "objection-

able" nature of its performances.

However, after a court suit and

many appearances before the

Commission, ACLU volunteer at-

torney Steven Adams persuaded

the Commission to let the Troupe

go ahead with its performances

reserving to the general manager

of the Park Department only the

right of review as to the exact

area of a particular park which

the Troupe desires to use. If this

power is exercised reasonably, as

we trust it will be, no further

ACLU NEWS

SEPTEMBER, 1966

Page and

problems should be created for

the Troupe. The Commission re-

jected the idea of setting special

requirements such as security

guards, insurance protection, and

so forth, when it appeared that'

such requirements would have to

apply to all park activities,

On the related matter of the

- conviction of Troupe director

R. G. Davis for performing in

the parks without a permit, the

conviction is on appeal before

the Appellate Department of the

Superior Court of San Francisco.

The case is being handled by

ACLU volunteer attorney Nathan

Smith and will be = this

month,

Gross to Head

ACLU of Oregon

Harold Gross, attorney and

active member of the Mid-Penin-

sula Chapter, and former chair-

man of the chapter board, will

assume the duties of Executive

Director of the ACLU of Oregon,

(headquartered in Portland) in

September.

Senate Would

Test Educ. and

Welfare Laws

- Mounting concern and contro-

versy respecting violation of the

church-state separation principle

of the First Amendment in recent

education and welfare laws, espe-

cially those providing for admin-

istration of programs by church-

related institutions, came to a

hopeful but not successful head

with the passage in the Senate of

a bill which would allow an indi-

vidual to challenge those acts of

Congress which he believes vio-

late the church-state separation

clause,

Many different groups, includ-

ing ACLU, have voiced concern

over the handling of federal pro-

grams by church-related institu-

tions and have sought to test the

(pee ony of several new

laws.

Recently the Senate approved

a bill which allows nine specifi-

cally named laws, including the

Economie Opportunity Act of

1964 and the Higher Education

Act, 1965, to be tested for their

constitutionality.

Differing Motives for Challenge

The initial effort to provide for

such challenge was made by Sen-

ator Sam J. Ervin (Democrat,

North Carolina), who offered an

amendment to the Elementary

and Secondary Education Act,

1965, to provide for judicial re-

view. Senator Wayne Morse

(Democrat, Oregon), a strong

supporter of the administration's

"educational and welfare package,

was instrumental in defeating

the Ervin amendment. However,

fully convinced of the constitu-

tionality of the laws in question

and eager to remove delays in

the programs, Senator Morse

pledged to introduce a separate

bill to allow judicial review.

Early in 1966 Morse introduced

his bill and was joined as co-

sponsor by Senator Ervin and

several other senators. Ervin

supported the measure on the

grounds that the legislation in

question is unconstitutional and

_will be so proved in court,

The successful passage of the

bill is only a symbolic victory

because, to date, the House has

not entertained any such pro-

posal, If it should do so in the

next session, in all likelihood the

Senate would have to repeat the

entire procedure,

0.E.0. Bows To

Pressures

In a series of letters to Sargent

Shriver, the National ACLU has

criticized the Office of Economic

Opportunity for bowing to local

community pressures and placing

restrictions on the use of poverty

program funds for family plan-

ning programs.

Equality of Treatment Violated

The OEO guidelines ACLU

criticized prohibit allocation of

funds to projects providing for:

(1) contraceptive devices or

drugs to unmarried women and

women separated from their hus-

bands; (2) use of the mass media

to announce the availability of

birth control programs; and (3)

voluntary sterilization. ACLU

stated that the guidelines violate

the principle of equal treatment

because they deny services to the

poor to which others in society

have access,

Fear of Local Resentment

Shriver replied, "Unrestricted

family planning aid might defeat

its own purpose by arousing

local. resentment which would

lead to termination of all such

aid." ACLU acknowledged local

sensitivity about family planning

programs, but stated this is no

excuse for bowing to such pres-

sures when vital constitutional

rights are at stake. It pointed out

that such reasoning could lead to

the cancellation of government

programs to eliminate racial dis-

crimination in the South, on the

ground that they offend majority

sentiment within local commu-

nities,

Cradle to Grave Federal

The creation of a federal data

center that would "bring 1984 to

our doorstep" and threaten the -

fragile but allimportant right to

privacy was recenitly attacked by -

the National ACLU. The Special

Subcommittee on Invasion of

Privacy of the House of Repre-

sentatives is currently consider-

ing several proposals for creating

data centers, The proposals call

for the collection and central-

ization of all data possessed by

the government regarding each

citizen.

Warning of the present dan-

gerous trend toward the suppres-

sion of dissent, ACLU said: "The

implications of such proposals

shock the sensibilities of think-

ing Americans, In our modern

age, with all of its intrusive im-

pact on the individual, traditional

concepts of a man's right of pri-

vacy are already being increas-

ingly undermined, These propos-

als would alarmingly accelerate

this trend." ACLU concentrated

its attack on two of the proposed

centers, the National Data Center

and the FBI National Crime In-

formation Center.

National Data Center

The National Data Center

would centralize all the informa-

tion obtained about each indi-

vidual by all government agen-

cies. Some of the information

uncovered in the myriad inves-

tigations made on all individuals

in modern society is relevant to

the particular investigation's pur-

poses, ACLU said, but some of

it is not. If the data were cen-

trally banked, "information rele-

vant for one purpose (could) be

disclosed in the course of a

wholly different inquiry to which

it (was) both irrelevant and

prejudicial." For example, medi-

eal and psychiatric histories of

applicants for veteran's benefits

could be misused politically.

ACLU reminded Congress that,

"During the 1950's we learned

the tragic lesson that the confi-

dentiality of government files is

already too difficult to maintain

and that there are unscrupulous

persons who will utilize their

access to file information for ul-

terior purposes." Further, that

in an aggravation of an already

acute problem, there would be

no protection against the -unre-

liability of information gathered

by private investigative agencies

or misinformed public officials.

The FBI National Crime

Information Center

In its concern as to the storing

of criminal information by the

proposed FBI National Crime

Information Center, ACLU re-

vealed: "In our correspondence

over the past few years with the

FBI about the arrest record prob-

lem it has been clearly estab-

lished that too frequently local

law enforcement officials report

ossiers Proposed for

arrests to the FBI but fail to re-

port later disposition of the case.

Countless persons against whom

charges have been dropped or

who have been acquitted must

still suffer the harsh conse-

quences of a wrongful taint of

criminality when seeking em-

ployment or other privileges.

These problems are even more -

grievous (for) those arrested in

th valid exercise of constitution-

ality protected rights, such as -

peaceful participation in civil

rights or peace marches." Such

arrests are not reliably distin-

guished from normal criminal ar-

rests in FBI records.

Freedom of Dissent Issue

Not only will the pooling of

data compound the injustice by

making data available to still

greater numbers of police offi-

cials and unauthorized persons,

but the crime information center -

would harbor information "not

at all relevant to the prevention

and detection of crime." It seems

other federal investigative agen-

cies, doubtless including HUAC,

will be invited to feed whatever

information they choose into the

vast reservoir. If political beliefs

and associations are included in

this data bank and such informa-

tion falls into the wrong hands,

the rights of dissent, free speech

and asociation will fall before ir-

responsible reprisals subjecting

persons to social stigma and loss

of jobs.

As it is today, the human

process of learning by trial and

error and the gradual process of

change that makes up life escape

machines which can only cate-

gorize static sets of information. .

Existing dossiers on each of us.

already present a troublesome -

question about the right to pri-

vacy. The right to privacy is not

merely a defensive protection

against harassment of the indi-

vidual; it is a positive assertion

of the right to learn and of the

_ continuing value of individual

_ thought and conscience in an in-

reasingly conformist world. A

national data pool would go dan-

gerously far toward drowning the

individual freedom which lies at

the heart of democracy,

Church-State Relations |

Essay Contest

The relation of church and

state is the subject of the 1966

Samuel Pool Weaver Consti-

tutional Law Essay Competi-

tion. The award this year in

the American Bar Foundation

competition will be increased

from $1,000 to $2,500. The

title of the topic is "Constitu-

tional Boundaries of Church-

State Relations." -

The contest is open to all

members of the American Bar

Association. For details write:

Samuel Pool Weaver Consti-.

tutional Law Essay Program,

American Bar Foundation,

1155 East 60th St., Chicago,

Illinois.

The first right of a citizen

Is the right i

To be responsible

JOIN TODAY

ego 151

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

Patron Membership

Sustaiaing Membership 9:5... 2.2.25. os 55 se es os

Business and Professional Membership .....e2++e000.8

Panty MWembership .. 2. s,s oes ss es oe cs se,

Associate Membership -. . soe co eect ae os ne nee ee

Shea oes fee eee ee G00

50

25

14

10

PeOINe a! MMCMDCrSIO 6 og oo cs 7

Student Membership... 2... 6 s50 5s 6ssc che eens 2

ACLU News Subscription Ses cee a cc eo oo oe 2 00

UNANE rey OO e E

ADDRESS.

TELEPHONE NUMBER.

$22 SFSTSTHHTHEHHTHHFHHFTHHEFHCHOHHAHOESTHHHFTHHHHHHHHHHHRHD BH

w aociee so ose one sR AM Is EEO TED es cete:

503 Market Street

San Francisco, 94105