vol. 38, no. 3

Volume XXXVIII

San Francisco, March 1973

ACLU charges segregation in Richmond

Since the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Brown v.

Board of Education of Topeka (1954) that segregation in

public schools is unconstitutional, countless legal battles

' have been necessary to implement the decision. The first

Major target was de jure segregation in Southern States,

or, segregation imposed by state legal action. During the

"60's, the courts were forced to face the realities of de

facto segregation in the Northern States where races were

kept separate by housing patterns, socio-economic class

and apathy among the majority.

In a case which the ACLU decided to enter last month,

a state court has found the Richmond Unified School

District to be quilty of de jure segration and has ordered

that the District produce a plan for integration in Verde

School, an elementary school in Richmond, immediately.

Actually, there are two companion cases, Johnson v.

Richmond Unified School District in state court and

Melvin v. Richmond Unified School District in federal

court. Both cases were originally filed by Contra Costa

County Legal Services on behalf of black parents and

children in the District.

The Johnson case commenced in 1968 when students

at Verde School complained that though blacks comprised

25 percent of the pupils in the District, nine schools

contained 78 percent of the blacks. All of the elementary

schools built since. 1960 in the district serve only .5

percent blacks. Verde School is 99 percent black while the

three adjacent schools had negligible numbers of blacks,

namely, Broadway, none, Dover, 2.2 percent, and

Belding 4.7 percent.

Plaintiffs in the case also charged that segregation in

housing supported by State and Federai action along with

the school district's `"`neighborhood school policy''

denied students at Verde equal opportunity for education.

They claimed that the staff at Verde contained a

disproportionate number of probationary teachers, that

salaries were lower, that the property was poorly

maintained and that test scores revealed the inferior

educational offering.

In November, 1968, the Court ordered the District to

adopt a plan for integration but limited it to the four

schools named in the complaint. The Board of Trustees

responded with a ``Freedom of Choice'' plan.

After this decision, the Me/vin case was filed in Federal

District Court before Judge Sweigert to involve the entire

district in the desegregation suit. Sweigert delayed action

on the case to await the outcome of the state action. Now,

Judge Sherwin has ruled in favor of the students at Verde (c)

and Contra Costa Legal Services wants to revive the

federal case to seek district-wide relief. They hope that

since the evidence presented in the Johnson case applied

to the entire district, Judge Sweigert will rule that it has

already been proven in the state court and that the Board

of Trustees may not now again challenge the same facts.

Otherwise, a lengthy trial on the same issues will

probably be inevitable. ACLU will participate as a "`friend

of the court'' in the Federal case.

Judge Sherwin's finding of de jure segregation in the

case of Verde school is being appealed to the State Court

of Appeal by the District. ihe ACLU wili participate as

co-counsel on the appeal for the purpose of defending

Judge Sherwin's ruling. That decision held that it is

undeniable, and the District didn't even attempt to prove

otherwise, that there are gross racial imbalances at Verde

and the surrounding schools.

Judge Sherwin's decision that these imbalances were

the result of de jure segregation arose from the Court's

finding that the School Board intentionally placed schools

where they would encompass only sharply divided racial

zones in the surrounding area. In other words, rather

than building the school on a boundary between a White

and Black neighborhood so as to achieve some mix in the

enrollment, the schools were placed in the middle of

segregated zones. This, along with the Federal and State

involvement in licensing real estate brokers and in-

stituting housing codes which had the net effect of

segregating blacks, combined to exhibit the interference

of the government in the integration of the schools. Thus,

de jure segregation.

To make matters worse, on the grounds that they did

not want to bus students or destroy neighborhood

proximity in schools, the Board of Trustees even

rescinded their integration plan instituted in 1969. Judge

Sherwin found that plan to be wholly inadequate anyway,

and it even involved the busing of some white students to

get them out of Black districts. This placed pupil

assignment in essentially the same situation it had been

before the 1954 Brown decision.

Having found clear-cut evidence of segregation,

created and perpetuated by state action, Judge Sherwin

ruled the Black students are being denied euqal-

educational opportunities and that affirmative relief to end

racial imbalance is required of the School District. He

stated that ``the burden of the School Board today is to

come forward with a plan that promises realistically to

work, and promises realistically to work now.'' He or-

dered the District to develop a reassignment plan which

would accomplish integration to the satisfaction of the

court. He said that ``the overwhelming weight of the -

evidence is that a feasible plan is available to the Rich-

mond Schooi District to bring about racial balance at

Verde Elementary School: and that such a plan was even

offered by witnesses testifying in the trial.''

Nevertheless, while the Superior Court ruling is ap-

pealed and while the Federal suit is argued, Richmond

schools go on "`separate and unequal'' only in a slightly

better state than they were in 1954 when the Supreme

Court ruled that even `"separate but equal'' education

was unconstitutional.

U.S. Supreme Court asked to hear

appeal on Bank Secrecy Act provisions

Appeals were filed by the Government,

the California. Bankers Association and

the ACLU Foundation in` the U`S.

Supreme Court last month in the case of

Stark, et al. v. Shultz, et al, the Bank

Secrecy Case. :

Passed by Congress in 1970, the Bank

Secrecy Act forces banks, financial in-

stitutions and some private citizens to

record and report many large financial

_transactions because the reports ``have a

| high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax,

or regulatory investigations or

proceedings.'' It also empowered the

Secretary of the Treasury to establish

regulations for enforcement of the Act and

he ordered that all domestic cash trans-

foreign transactions over $5, 000 must be

reported.

ALMOST EVERY CHECK COPIED

In addition, the Act requires financial

every aspect of citizens'

transactions from "`identification of all

customers by social security or taxpayer

number and retention of credit

documents, down to and including copies

of both sides of almost every check drawn

actions involving $10,000 or more be |

reported to the Treasury Department. All -

institutions to keep records on nearly .

monetary |

on a bank."'

In accordance with the Act. the

Secretary of the Treasury has offered the

information gathered by his Department

on individuals' financial dealings to every

federal department or agency that requests

the information.

Last June, the ACLU filed suit in U. S

District Court to halt enforcement of the

Act. The Court granted a Temporary

Restraining Order against the reporting,

but not the record keeping, provisions of

the Act. After hearing arguments by the

"ACLU and the California Bankers

Association, who joined the suit, the

three-judge federal court ordered an end to

the reporting of domestic transactions, but

upheld the portions of the Act concerning

foreign transactions and the record

keeping requirements.

Both the ACLU and the Bankers ee

appealing to have those remaining por-

tions. of the Act = struck. as um:

"constituttional also. The government is

appealing to have the order against

the reporting of domestic transactions

overturned. In the appeal filed last month,

the ACLU brief asserts that the reporting

requirements of the Act constitute

unprecedented mass seizure in violation

of the Fourth Amendment and a wholesale

compulsion of potentially incriminatory

evidence in violation of the Fifth

Amendment.''

Quoting the late Mr. Justice Holmes,

the ACLU statement contends that ``it is

contrary to the first principles of justice to

allow a search of ....all records, relevant or

irrelevant, in the hope that something will

turn up.'' The brief argues that Fourth

Amendment seizure restrictions on the

government should apply to foreign

transactions just as much as to domestic

ones.

SURVEILLANCE CORPS

According to Legal Director Charles

Marson, the record keeping portions of

the Act induct banks into the ``sur-

veillance corps of the government....

requiring them to keep watch on millions

in order to satisfy future governmental

curiosity concerning a few.'' He points

out that the requirements that certain

individuals report to the government their

transactions'' amounts to asking them to

keep diaries on themselves in order to

simplify enforcement of criminal laws in

clear violation of the Fifth Amendment

right not to incriminate oneself."'

Unless the courts are willing to

establish limits, Marson explained, ad-

vanced technologies capable of copying

and recording unlimited information on

individuals and corporations **will rapidly

- make the Fourth and Fifth Amendments

a:

obsolete.

Federal courts have increasingly

recognized a constitutional right of

privacy in a series of decisions, and bank

accounts have traditionally been con-

sidered private.

Finally, the ACLU argues that since the

records of any controversial group or

organization, such as the ACLU, would

be accessible to the government, mem-

bership and financial support would

decline. First Amendment rights to

freedom of association would be jeopar-

dized if the government can easily. learn

the identity of members of an organization

who may want anonymity.

For those reasons, the ACLU urges

the Supreme Court to hear the appeal and

expand the decision of the District Court

by finding all portions of the Bank Secrecy

Act unconstitutional and thereby affirm

the indivual's right to privacy in financial

transactions, release the banks from the

onus of serving as a governmental agency,

and preserve freedom of association for

members of controversial organizations.

`March

aclu NEWS

LEGAL

Board ponders Affirmative Action proposal

Though the issue was discussed for

more than an hour at the February Board

_ meeting, Directors still differed on what

the ACLU's policy on Affirmative Action

' programs should be. National ACLU has

asked all Affiliates to develop recom-

mendations to the National Board before

they establish a policy. Also, the staff of

_ the Affiliate wants some directive on

criteria they should follow in reviewing

complaints about discrimination in

employment and education as these apply

to affirmative action programs.

At a general meeting held in San

Francisco in January, Board members

heard panelists representing a wide range

of viewpoints urge different positions on

the ACLU. Most of that discussion

centered on whether or not employers or

ANTHONY AMSTERDAM urged

Board support of affirmative action as

a `necessary tool.'

News media seek access to

California prison inmates

educational institutions can be trusted to

improve under-representation without any

threatened sanctions whatsoever. At least

one position held that the best we could do

is hope that this occurs. Others felt that

history makes it clear that such

cooperation will not be volunteered and

that some measure, in the form of goals, is

necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of

the affirmative action program. If, after

such evaluation there is no evidence of

""good faith'' cooperation, then some feel

that sanctions must be enforced to im-

prove the situation.

NATIONAL COMMITTEES DIFFER

In addition to the positions offered at the

January meeting, the Board has been

_asked to consider the recommendations of

two National ACLU committees whose

reports differ on the issue. The Academic

Freedom Committee has generally

rejected ``target goals' with the view that

their enforcement could seriously

jeopardize academic freedom. On the

other hand, the Equal Opportunity

Committee has found some minimal use of

required numbers necessary in areas

where equal employment efforts _have

consistently failed.

When the Board finally opened

discussion on the matter at their February

meeting, they faced the task of reconciling

the contradictions in the various positions

presented to them and to agree on one

statement that satisfied the greatest

number of contingencies.

Most of the discussion centered on a

statement prepared by Board Member and

Stanford Law Professor Anthony Am-

sterdam. He began by affirming that

""invidious discrimination,'' which he

' defined as the denial of a chance to hold a

job or receive an education on the basis of

any personal characteristic, ``offends basic

civil liberties, and the ACLU."'

He cautions, however, that where a

long history of discrimination has been

demonstrated, the adoption of neutral,

"color blind'' standards for selection will

not eliminate the discrimination. This, he

feels, is due to the fact that history has left

racial minorities and women handicapped

and thus needy of affirmative action.

In Amsterdam's view, affirmative

action would include several aspects.

Recruitment efforts must be expanded to

find a greater number of qualified

members of under-represented groups.

Also, standards and qualifications which

are unreliable, or un-objective, or which

work discrimination in themselves must

be abandoned. In addition, in-service job

training or compensatory education as

well as elevation of under-represented

groups to policy-making positions is

necessary, he believes. Finally, he ad-

-vocates the use of ``target ratios and

timetables as goals'' to assess the success

of the program and lay responsibility for

failure where it should lie.

SOSNICK OPPOSES POLICY

Amsterdam's proposed policy would

- approve of fixed quotas only where it is

clear `"`that the persons responsible for

selecting among applicants are unwilling

or unable to avoid discrimination'' or,

where selection procedures and standards

unobjectively establish unreasonably high

requirements for employment or

education.

Stephen Sosnick, Vice-Chairperson of

`the Davis Chapter, was the leading

spokesman opposing the Anseicahn

proposal. His chief criticism was that the

proposal abandoned the ACLU's, and he

believes the "`proper,'' position that equal

opportunity should be applied to in-

dividuals, and not groups. He emphasized -

that equal opportunity for a group entails

discrimination against any but the favored

group.

"PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT

DEMEANING'

He added that this concern for any

ascribed group overlooks the equally, or

possibly more, disadvantaged in other

groups who have discrimination against

them multiplied. Sosnick also believes that

groups will find it demeaning and self-

defeating to receive preferential treatment.

They will inevitably end up confronting a

_ backlash from the majority and their own

self-esteem deteriorates as they doubt their

intrinsic qualifications, he suggested.

"`Publicizing openings and eliminating

irrelevant criteria of eligibility'? should be

the functions of an affirmative action

program ; and, he adds, it would be wrong

for the ACLU to go beyond that and

approve discrimination through the

establishment of preferences for groups.

The Board came to no decision on

affirmative action at the February

meeting. Instead, they passed a motion by

Warren Saltzman to hold the Amsterdam

proposal over for the March meeting to

allow Board members to submit written

changes for consideration by the Board at

their March meeting and possibly agree on

a final draft on affirmative action policy at

that time. If that is the case, next month's

ACLU News will print the final form of

the statement.

Settlement reached

in high school

Charging that the public i iS being denied the right to

know what is going on in their prisons, the ACLU has

filed an amicus brief in a suit against the California

Department of Corrections on behalf of six members of

the press.

A similar case , filed last October by the ACLU on

behalf of 26 news people seeking access to Ruchell Magee

is under submission in the California Court of Appeal. In

that `case, a lower court declared Section 415.171 of the

Administrative Manual of the Department, which bans

all press interviews with consenting inmates, un-

constitutional as applied to Magee. The Department has

appealed that ruling.

In the case filed last month in the U. S. District Court,

a number of representatives of the press urged the Court

to declare the section unconstitutional. These individuals

are Nicholas Von Hoffman, a columnist for the

Washington Post; Ben William's a reporter for KPIX-

TV, San Francisco; Sonny Buxton, a reporter for KGO-

TV, San Francisco; Stan Moreillon, a reporter for the

San Jose Mercury News; Dr. Carlton Goodlett, editor of

the Sun Reporter; and, Marshall Krause, legal reporter.

for KQED-TV, San Francisco.

Associate Staff Counsel Peter Sheehan, who wrote the

brief for the ACLU, called the absolute prohibition on

press interviews ``an exceedingly dangerous infringement

of the First Amendment.'' He argues that the right of a

reporter to interview consenting prison inmates is based

on two complimentary constitutional rights - the right

of the people to be informed and the right of the press to

gather the news.

Quoting from a recent, similar case in Washington, D.

C. involving the Washington Post, Sheehan notes that

``the right of the public to know depends to a very large

degree upon the right of the press to gather information

and to have access to news sources.''

Recently, prisons have become an issue of concern to

many citizens and Sheehan ponts out that to a large

degree, the press provides the only avenue of information

on how these public institutions are being run. In the

Washington Post case, Judge Gessel stated that until

recently, ``the press has shown little interest in our

prisons and the public has shown almost a callous

disregard for the urgent needs of these imperfect in-

stitutions... Much wider press interest and more general

public concern should be encouraged.''

Sheehan noted thatthe prohibition on prison interviews

violates the stated purpose of freedom of the press, as

defined by the Supreme Court in New York Times v.

Sullivan, to insure "`that debate (on public issues) should

be uninhibited, robust and wide open.'' He says the press

ban constitutes prior restraint on the news gathering and

dissemination functions of the press.

The case was argued in late February before a three-

judge panel in Federal Court. U.S. District Judge Spencer

Williams had earlier ruled that the prison ban on in-

terviews violated the inmates' rights to freedom of speech

but had rejected the ACLU's contention that the ban also

violated the right of the press to gather the news. Judge

William's earlier ruling was vacated however and the

constitutionality of the ban is to be decided aby the three-

judge court.

Sheriffs refuse to

return fingerprints

Two thirteen-year old boys and a twelve-year old girl

were returning from school one day in Oakley, a small

town in Contra Costa County. Sheriffs deputies pulled up

in a squad car and offered to drive the children home and

they accepted. The deputies did not take them straight

home, however, but instead stopped off at the sheriff's

office where the three were fingerprinted.

Volunteer attorney John Coker of Pittsburg filed suit

on behalf of the children and their guardians to retrieve

the fingerprints from police files and to recall the copies

sent to the FBI. No reason was given for fingerprinting

the children in the first place. Superior Judge William

Channell ordered the sheriff to return all copies of the

prints or to appear in court and explain why he will not do

so. That hearing has been set for March 9.

censorship case

Volunteer Attorney Michael Sorgen has negotiated a

settlement in the Viking Press suit he filed in January on

behalf of the student editors at Mills High School in

Millbrae. The suit charged that Leonard Froomin, a

faculty advisor, and Dwight Moser, the principal at

Mills, acted unconstitutionally by confiscating one issue

of the Viking Press and restraining the publication of

another. They allegedly did this because a column in the

paper inferred that a high proportion of students at Mills

used psychedelics.

Subsequent to filing of the case in U. S. District Court,

the student government at Mills tried to join the suit on

the side of the student editors but the school ad-

ministration forbade them to vote on the action.

Nevertheless, four of the five student officers requested

that they be added as plaintiffs in the case.

In addition, the San Mateo School District Board voted

to remove the Viking Press from school grounds and force

them to operate independently. Following this action,

Sorgen amended the complaint to include the School

Board as defendants charging that they were imposing

restrictive sanctions on the students for exercising their

First Amendment rights to expression.

Argument was heard by Judge Robert Peckham on

January 16 and shortly thereafter, the agreement was

reached and only needs to be approved by Judge Peckham

to become final. Terms of the agreement stipulate that the

editorial content of the Viking Press willbe up to the sole

discretion of the students and the faculty advisor may only

serve in a ``recommending capacity.' An appropriate

disclaimer will be included in each issue of the paper.

School facilities will still be available for production of the

paper and all financial support will be supplied by the

Associated Students.

The editors will no longer receive academic credit

however, and the paper is still subject to review by the

principal to insure that it is in eomplian: with lawful

district `rules.

COMMENTARY

Religious

Freedom

Dear Editor:

This is in relation to the letters

you published in the February

issue of the News under the

captions ``Genesis'' and ``More

Genesis.'' The allegation is made

that in the interpretation of the

constitutional freedom of the

religion clause, the second part,

words "`or.

defined by the

denying the free exercise

thereof'' is being ignored. This,

one of the writers contends,

denies the right to ``certain

religious teachings concerning

the origin of life in the world."'

Having been associated with the

organization for a long time, |

consider the protection of the

right of free exercise a well

established policy of the ACLU. I

am. sure the organization's files

will substantiate this fact. I am

also sure that no one would think

of prohibiting, in the proper

place in the curriculum, the

objective study of the hundreds of

religions which have been

practiced in the world during its

historical and social develop-

ment.

The free exercise of religion,

however, does not include the

right to use the means supported

by everybody 's money in order to

carry on that exercise. That is

why the first part of the clause is

there. By implication, that

healthy prohibition means also

Letters to the Editor:

Multiple Mailings

Dear Editor:

Since ['m already a member

believing strongly in the work

ACLU is doing, I don't need the

membership application in-

formation. Sometimes I can pass

_ the information on to a friend,

Dear Mr. McCann:

but not THREE copies sent to

me recently under the following

three address plates. I feel your ,

_ time and money would be better

spent in legal action...

Robert E. McCann

Member for 23 years

Let me explain, first of all, that we don't spend any of your mem-

bership dues on promotional mailings. Rather, we borrow your money

for a short period of time; we not only double your dollars, we're also

very successful in increasing our membership and therefore our clout in

the Legislature, the courts; and our communities.

To be specific, the $4,306 we have spent on promotional mailings

since January 1, 1973 have so far produced. 720 new N. Cal. members at

$10,038.50. You can see for yourself that we've made a healthy profit

"which will enable us to do more civil liberties work and that we have -

brought a large number of concerned Americans into the ACLU family.

We are extremely uncomfortable about the multiple recruitment

letters received by ACLU members with a high degree of social con-

sciousness who are therefore likely to be on several of the lists we use for

promotional mailings. There is a way to cut out these duplications,

which we would dearly love to use.

enormously expensive,

Unfortunately, it involves an

complicated and sophisticated computer

operation which is way beyond our means and possibilities.

I hope that this information will make you feel a little less unhappy

about the awful annoyance of receiving so many

`

` oe tp

requests to join

when you are already a member. Don't you agree that with the present

civil liberties climate in America, it is very important to strengthen the

ACLU financially and through numbers of members so we can be more

effective and vigorous in our defense of the Bill of Rights ?

Thank you for your 23 years of ACLU support, and for giving us a

chance to explain. Please rest assured that we are enormously careful

with your money - it has to stretch a long way to enable us to fight the

anti-civil libertarian forces (which always seem to be so much better

funded than we!)

freedom-from religion. The state -

must not teach or help to teach

any religious doctrine. The

notion that the universe and man -

were created by a god is GLa

doctrine.

In the Everson decision, the

United States Supreme Court

spelled out unequivocally the

constitutional prohibitions

against state involvement in

religious matters. I most cer-

tainly expect the ACLU to take

action against the intrusion of

fundamentalist doctrine in the

science textbooks to be used

within the public education

system.

Dom Sallitto entire annual dues. We are Anton Nelson |

: @

7 feiffer

A REPORTER HAS HIS SOURCES ite STORY eo A DIURY (Qa a OURY

L VE HIM A ) THE EXROSORE CF IS FORMED _TO ORDERS THE RE-

Wea Z STORY. OxRRUPTION IN Aes ee IVESTICATE.

euro REPORTER RE-

ues AUD (S SENT

7 VAL.

Laura Monroe

Associate Director

February NEWS

Dear Editor,

Since I joined ACLU-NC nearly

AO years ago your February 1973

issue of the NEWS is about the

finest illustration of what. civil

liberties and American ideals in

action are all about.

The February NEWS is about as

good a membership solicitation

as I have seen, by itself worth our

therefore upping our mem-

bership category.

Also we include a gift mem-

bership for our youngest son on

his 18th birthday, and initiation

into the involvements of

citizenship and adulthood. Please

start Ben's membership so that

he will not fail to start out

reading the February NEWS.

March

aclu NEWS

Drew,

ministration and its programs.'

today.

Help save uncensored

Public Broadcasting

UPI reported last week that the Corporation for Public

Broadcasting has ``dropped several public affairs programs that are

in disfavor with the Nixon administration.' Among the programs

not scheduled for next season are:

Review,' ``Bill Moyers' Journal,'' ``30 Minutes with Elizabeth

'? and William F. Buckley's `Firing. Line.'

UPI, ``White House officials have criticized several of these for

what they considered biased | commentary against the ad-

These programs can be saved through vigorous lobbying and

your support. The ACLU is working hardin Washington, D. C. to

get Congress to salvage them. You can help by writing and

phoning the PBS television station in your area. Tell them you do

not want these educational programs cancelled on the public

airways. Also, ask that the stations provide a wider spectrum of

community opinion, which Nixon claims he favors. Demand that

the stations allow concerned citizens to express their views on

these program cuts and be able to confront Directors of the Cor-

poration for Public Broadcasting on the reasons behind their

censorship of controversy. Please show your support, write them

""Washington Week in

According to

Knee-jerk reactions

Dear Editor:

The February 1973 ACLU

News carried two items on whigh

I'dlike to comment. One of these

was titled ""Dick Tracy and the

Bill of Rights,' by Howard

Jewel, chairman of the ACLU-

NC board. Inspired by the comic

strip, Mr. Jewel has conjured up

a frightening vision involving a

traffic camera gone astray,

police-state methods, and

flouting of the law by our

government. Unfortunately for

Mr. Jewel's argument, police-

state methods have indeed made

the streets of Moscow and

Madrid safe. Would that he had

made a stronger case for civil

liberties!

Finally Mr. Jewel tenders the

suggestion that theft be made

legally defensible if the thief

could not get a suitable job nor

aid' from. relatives or the

government. But he fails to

include among his criteria any

consideration for the plight of

Renew

the victim, who may, in fact,

have less to spare than the thief.

`*Camera

o} o)

In the apticle

Surveillance Threatens Rights,

ACLU-NC's general counsel

Paul Halvonik is quoted as

saying, `"`I'm unalterably op-

posed to these camersas; it's

another example of the state

invading our privacy."

,

He, too, seems to have a knee-

jerk unalterable response that

leaves no room for rational

`analysis and persuasion.

`The ACLU-NC seems to be

in the hands of- men who

sometimes appear more in-

terested in emotional catharsis

than in the constructive, well

reasoned, and successful defense

of our civil liberties. The police

have a necessary, dangerous, and

difficult job to do; let us have no

more knee-jerk reactions to their

attempt to do it more efficiently

and effectively.

NELSON M. BLACHMAN

Message on Cameras

The ACLU has requested time on three

Bay Area Television Stations to present a

Free Speech Message on the use of sur-

veillance cameras by the San Francisco

WE MCRE CORRUPTION

IN EH PLACES Te .

ee ea

Fh

EUPTION

R

IN HIGH

PLACES.

ONE WISHES TO BUT ITS ELTHER THAT

RAGE COR- A

OR

(c)472 1B Ok

Police Department. It is expected that the

messages will appear in early March and

yet,

FREE PRESS.

will be delivered by Executive Director Jay

Miller. The messages are to appear on

KPIXeTV, Channel 5, KGO TV.

Channel 4 and KTVU-TV, channel 2.

The text follows:

Californians voted overwhelmingly last

November to add privacy as an inalienable

right to the California Constitution. And

recently, we learn that "the San

Francisco Police Department has installed

a surveillance camera downtown, at a cost

of nearly $40,000 of taxpayers' money,

without so much as a public hearing or

the approval of any elected official.

Up to 30 more cameras are planned and

`hey can be equipped with listening, light-

magnitication, and videotape capabilities.

All of this without any public scrutiny of

these police practices which threaten our

rights. The ACLU urges you to express

your opposition to the San Francisco

Board of Supervisors and ask that they

convene public hearings immediately at

which the people's sentiments on ``Big

Brother''

police surveillance may be aired.

March

aclu NEWS

New York Times correspondent Earl Caldwell, who

has been at the center. of much of the newspersons'

privilege controversy will be the guest speaker at a Public

Forum to be sponsored by the chapter on Sunday, April

1D at 3 pm.

Caldwell's sources on a Series of stories he wrote about

the Black Panthers were subpoenaed by the government

and he refused to reveal them. The ACLU defended him

in his attempt to protect his confidential news sources. He

will speak on ``Freedom of. the Press and the First

Amendment.'' 5;

The meeting will be held at the home of Ruth

Lederman, 16 Tree Top Way, Kentfield. A shuttle-bus

from Lola Hanzel's home at 100 Goodhill Road in

Kentfield will be provided. The chapter requests a $1

donation from those attending the public forum. 0x00B0

Monterey

Next month, the chapter will sponsor a public meeting

in Salinas on April 2nd to discuss the banning of books in:

Salinas schools. A panel discussion will include a member

of the School Board, a teacher representative and a

spokesman from the Church of God which has Std

the Board to ban ``Down These Main Streets'' and

`"Manchild in the Promised Land'' from school library

shelves. The meeting is slated to be held in the

Washington High Multi-Purpose Room.

At the request of striking farm workers, the Chapter

will be supplying neutral observers at their picket lines in

an effort to forestall possible violence. Lettuce growers

have acquired a court injunction limiting the United

Farm Workers to only 6 pickets at each site. The in-

junction is being challenged as an unconstitutional

restraint on free speech.

The Chapter has pledged Sunpont to a Salinas'

newspaperman whose job is being threatened because he

moved to Pacific Grove. Also, Chairperson Pearl Carey is

looking into the possibility of suing the Board of

Supervisors in an effort to keep them from wasting the

remaining community services money at their disposal.

Mt. Diablo

A slide show on the Stanford Jail Experiment will be

presented to the public Friday, March 23, at 8 p.m. at the

Mt. Diablo Unitarian Church, 55 Eckley Lane, Walnut

Creek. This simulated prison study is of particular

relevance in Contra Costa County due to the current

review of the proposed county prison facility. Donations

are requested to help buy the slides for the ACLU and a

discussion of the project will follow the presentation . All

those interested in prison reform are urged to attend.

The regular meeting of the Chapter Board will be held

at Rose Bonhag's home on April 4 at 8 p.m. All members

are invited to attend.

Berkeley-Albany

April 5th, the Chapter will sponsor a public meeting and

panel discussion on Freedom of the Press. The panel will'

be modereated by ACLU-NC Board member Marshall

Krause, who is also the legal reporter for KQED-TV.

Panelists include Larry Bensky of KPFA radio; Jim

Dunbar of KGO radio' and TV; Tim Findley of the San

Francisco Chronicle; Joseph Lyford, a professor in the

University of California School of Journalism; and Peggy

Stinnett of the Monclarion.

The meeting will be at 8:00 pm in Le Conte School,

Russell and Ellsworth in Berkeley.

Court to hear election law challenge

The U. S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear two cases

appealed by the ACLU of Northern California which

challenge California's election laws. The suits were filed

on behalf of would-be congressional candidate Thomas

Storer and Communist Party members Gus Hall and

Jarvis Tyner, who wanted to be placed on the 1972 ballot

as presidential and vice-presidential candidates.

Independent candidates, under current state law, must

collect signatures equal to 5 percent of the vote cast in the

previous election to qualify for the ballot. Anyone who

voted in the previous party primary is not eligible to sign

the petitions. All of this must be done in a 24-day period

in August and September when residents are most likely

to be away on vacations.

Regular party candidates have

much simpler

Contempt dismissed in Calaveras

requirements to comply with to qualify. A congressional

candidate from an established party need only gather 40

signatures. Major party presidential candidates need only

18,000.

Staff Counsel Joseph Remcho and General Counsel

Paul Halvonik argued that ``it is virtually impossible for

an independent or minor party candidate to get on the

ballot, in fact, no one has ever qualified for a federal office

who was not backed by a major party. These statutes work

an impermissible and unconstitutional limitation on the

public's freedom of choice and deny equal protection of

`the laws to all but Democrats and Republicans."'

A three-judge District Court had rejected the challenge

on the grounds that the laws prevent.a ``laundry list

ballot.' Argument on the cases will be set for next Fall.

Women win

credential

Associate Staff Counsel Larry Sleizer

won a case last month in the California

Court of Appeal that reinstated Earnest

Gambrell's teaching credential after it was

revoked by the State Board of Education.

The revocation occurred after an incident

at San Jose State University when Gam-.

brell, a 28-year old black in the company

of a friend, was asked by a female

receptionist, "`What do you boys want.''

Following a brief verbal exchange, the

receptionist said, `"Don't talk to me like |

that, I am a lady,'' to which Gambrell

responded that he thought ladies ``were

only good for fucking."? When his

credential was revoked, this statement was

the given cause and no evidence that

Gambrell was unfit to teach was

presented.

In an amicus brief, Sleizer argued that

Gambrell's speech was constitutionally

protected by the First Amendment and

that his statement did not make him unfit

as a teacher. The opinion clouded the First

Amendment issue "however by holding

that "`if Gambrell really did harbor such a

base opinion of womankind....the subject

would present a problem,'' leaving open

the issue of whether confirmed male

chauvinists can be teachers!

A contempt of court charge against

newspaper publisher Oscar Mellin was

tossed out of court last month in Calaveras

County Superior Court.

torney Coleman Blease represented Mellin

who was cited for contempt when he wrote

that San Andreas Justice Howard Blewett

ran a ``kangaroo court.'' Blewett had sat

in judgement of a case in which he also

served as the complaining witness.. Then

he found Mellin in contempt for critizing

him in his newspaper.

Superior Court Judge Ralph McGee,

when dismissing the contempt charge,

commented, ``In looking at the facts at

issue here, and this case has some

ludicrous aspects to it, I can't for the life

of me find that the editorial iS a clear and

Volunteer at- -

_ tromp on it,'

present danger to the Justice Court of this

county."'

According to the Publishers Auxiliary

in Washington, D. C., Mellin's is the first

known case of an American publisher

facing a contempt of court prosecution for

an editorial. Blease said he was confidant

that the contempt action would be

blocked.

"IT suppose it's always good to revitalize |

the protection of the First Amendment.

The Constitution is a living document.

Unfortunately, the only time you're

reminded of it is when someone tries to

he said.

Freedom of the Press is once again

secured in the Mark Twain's Jumping

Frog country.

in men's debates

aclu NEWS

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

and November-December

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Second Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, California

Howard Jewel, Chairman of the Board -

Mike Callahan , Editor and Public Information Director

Jay Miller, Executive Director

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

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

| behalf of women participants who would

right to compete

Until this month, most community

college debate tournaments in California

were divided into Men's and Women's |

categories. The rules and events were the

same for both sexes but they competed

only against members of their own sex.

The ACLU received complaints from

some women who felt this sexual

segregation denied them equal op-

portunity. Some tournaments which they

had attended had combined the men

and women. They were informed,

however, that the Statewide Community

College Conference to be held in Orange

County would segregate the sexes in

competition.

Volunteer attorney Terry Calvani, an

instructor at Stanford Law School,

threatened the Conference with a suit on

like to compete on the same level as the

men. It was announced last month that the

Conference had conceded the point and

that the statewide competition would not

keep men and women separate.