vol. 39, no. 3

AMERICA LIBERTIES UNIUN-NEWS

Volume XXXIX

quarantine scheme

March-April 1974, San Francisco

halted by S.F. judge

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Ira Brown issued an injunction last month against San Francisco police and health ’ officials to halt their practice of- holding persons suspected of prostitution in the county jail for VD quarantine.

- The ACLU-NC Victimless. Project filed a taxpayer’s suit last January to stop the city’s efforts to harass prostitutes through the VD quarantine program which was supposed to be a ‘health measure designed to control the spread of venereal disease. Under the plan, persons arrested for “performing or soliciting an act of vaginal or rectal intercourse’’ were recommended for quarantine by the arresting officer ‘‘where a pattern of such behavior can be established such as previous arrests,’ by. order of the San Francisco Police Chief Donald Scott. If any persons were recommended for quarantine, they were compelled to submit to vaginal and rectal searches and seizure of tissue scraped from these orifices and of blood.

No warrant is ever obtained‘ and no magistrate ever reviews the legality of the program in any individual case. Following the examination the person is injected with antibiotics without any diagnosis or indication of medical necessity. If the examination or. the treatment were refused, the person was held in the jail for — three days and denied the right to bail.

City Health Department officials conceded last year that there was no medical necessity for the 3-day jailing or the drug injections: prior to a medical diagnosis that the individual had VD. Nevertheless, police officials insisted on continuation of the program. When the case went before the judge, the city at- torney found the practice so indefensible that the only excuse offered to Judge Brown was. that the quarantine program only continues because of ‘ ‘administrative difficulties’? which have impeded the discontinuation of the program.

In oral argument before Judge Brown, Victimless Crimes Project Director Deborah Hinkel pointed out that the incidence of venereal disease in those persons who are held for quarantine is no greater than that found in the general population between the ages of 20 and 24. She added that the quarantine scheme is a gross violation of rights to privacy, equal protection, bail, freedom from unreasonable searches, and from cruel and unusual punishment.’’ —

President,

No. 3

Plaintiff Ruth Hicobs, ‘Vicunies Crimes Project Director Deborah Hinkel and General Counsel Paul Halvonik describe the police quarantine scheme to the press.

Hinkel also charged that ‘‘the duty of governmental officials is to uphold the constitutional rights of citizens and not to find ‘administrative difficulties’ as an excuse for illegal invasions of those rights.”’

The suit was filed on 1 behalf of Ruth

the San Francisco Chapter and Austin Griggs, a San Francisco Chapter Board member, who contended that it was an illegal waste of taxpayer ’s money for the police to engage inunconstitutional activity when their

Jacobs,

highest priority should be control of real, violent crimes rather than so-called crimes which have no victims.

At the initial court hearing, Judge Brown issued a preliminary injunction directly from the bench following the oral arguments. It is not yet known whether the city will oppose the issuance of a permanent injunction but at least for the time being, no persons are being quarantined in the San Francisco County Jail.

Long-imprisoned inmate freed after hearing After nine years of imprisonment for second degree burglary, Albert Mitchell has been released on parole due to a petition for a writ of habeus corpus filed-on his behalf by the ACLU-NC Prison Rights Project. Board member Alice Daniel, who is also chairperson of the ACLU Prison Rights "Advisory Committee, represented Mitchell in the action.

The parole release came about early last month after the government abandoned its appeal of the ruling of Solano County Superior Court Judge Raymond Sherwin. He had ordered ‘the California Adult Authority to

Board Nominations

- Nominations are now open for members-at-large to the Board of Directors of ACLU-NC. Members of the ACLU can suggest names for consideration to the nominating committee between now and April 8. Furthermore, any fifteen or more members of the Union may themselves submit a nomination directly to the Board by submitting a written petition not later than May Ist to be considered along with the nominations from the nominating com- mittee. No member may sign more than once such petition and each nomination must be accompanied by a summary of qualifications and the written consent of the nominee. Pettitions must be received by May 1.

Please send your suggestions or nominations to ACLU, | 593 Market Street, Suite 227, San Francisco, California 94105.

provide Mitchell a new parole hearing in which his complete file would be available to him and his attorney. Following Sherwin’s order, the government sought a stay on the new parole hearing. Judge Sherwin denied the stay and ordered the Adult Authority to proceed. At that point, the government abandoned its appeal, the hearing was held, and Mitchell was paroled.

Mitchell had been convicted of second degree burglary © in 1964 and was sentenced to 6 months to 15 years imprisonment. His only offense was that he entered a Sacramento dress shop after it had closed and committed sexual acts with some of the garments. He was unarmed, he took no money and no one was harmed.

Though the average term for second degree burglary is 23 months, Mitchell served over nine years. All through these years, the Adult Authority has consistently denied him parole without ever telling him why.

Daniel argued that Mitchell was being denied parole, not because of his character or level of rehabilitation, but rather because he refused to participate in group therapy sessions in the institution, where he would have had to discuss his crime with other inmates. She presented evidence that the therapy sessions could be both physically and psychologically dangerous to Mitchell and that denying parole for this reason constitutes arbitrary ‘treatment of him.

Furthermore, she alleged that the extreme length of his sentence amounted to cruel and unusual punishment and that since the Adult Authority never advised Mitchell of the evidence relied upon to deny him parole or provided him with a statement of reasons, he was denied due process, of law.

Judge Sherwin concluded that the purpose of the parole system is-to encourage reformation of an offender through the incentive of an early release. ‘‘However’’ the Judge stated, ‘‘the defects of the proceedings as disclosed to this court are that they have led to petitioner’ s (Mitchell) being placed in a hopeless status which is the very an-: tithesis of the objectives of the whole system of in- determinate sentences and paroles. Though he has behaved himself, he has not been considered seriously for parole for reasons never disclosed to him by any findings of the Adult Authority.’’

For these reasons, Judge Sherwin ordered a new parole hearing with the proviso that Mitchell and Daniel have access to all the materials in the possession of the Adult Authority bearing on the issue of parole prior to the hearing and, if the parole is denied, must be supplied a — written statement of the reasons and the evidence relied upon in the denial.

The government immediately appealed fidie Sher- win’s order and requested that he postpone the parole hearing while the appeal was being pursued. The Judge determined that further irreparable harm would be done to Mitchell if the parole hearing was further delayed so he denied the government’s stay request. At that point, the government abandoned the appeal rather than chance an adverse ruling in a higher court.

The parole hearing was set, Mitchell and Daniel were provided the complete file, and the Adult Authority paroled him, being unable to find an appropriate reason not to. So, though Judge Sherwin’s ruling will probably have minimal effect on other inmates who are equally denied their rights, Mitchell, at least, is free today.

2 Mar.— Apr. | aclu news

LEGAL

Police Practices Project plans to study Bay law agencies

A Northern. California Police Practices Project recevied its initial funding last month and is beginning to firm up plans for dealing with police abuses in the Bay. Area. The Project, which is a joint effort of the ACLU Foundation, the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, received a grant of $20,000 from the Laras Fund last month. Another $20,000 is now being sought in matching funds from other foundations.

For the past three months, the Project has been supported by seed money from the three sponsoring organizations. Amitai Schwartz, an attorney and graduate of Boalt Hall Law School in Berkeley, was appointed Director of the Project last Fall.

Schwartz received his bachelor degree in Economics from Brandeis University in Massachusetts. While in law school, he served as a law clerk at Contra Costa Legal Services, Alameda Legal Aid Society and San Francico Neighborhood Legal Assistance. Since receiving his law degree, he has worked for the Berkeley Rent Control Board and the Grand Jury Defense Office in San Fran- cisco.

The Project was launched last August when ACLU- NC Board Member and Stanford Law Professor Anthony Amsterdam brought the three organizations together to discuss some of the strategies and analyses he had developed for the control of abusive police practices. The three organizations agreed with Amsterdam that further study of such practices was desirable and that some remedies could be found.

Citizen concern over police practices in recent years has obviously become more prevalent, but at the same time, the police have effectively resisted all efforts at civilian review of internal police matters. As a result, ” very little is known about police practices but the frustration with them in many parts of society is great.

Breaking down some of the autonomy of police departments will be among the chief goals of the Project. To realize this goal, the Project will attempt to bring various police regulations before the courts to review their constitutionality. These regulations deal with such

High Court decides two cases on COs

The U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision this - month in one of the three ACLU-NC cases pending before it. Their ruling, unfortunately, in Hernandez, v. Veterans Administration c can only be termed a technical victory.

The casé, which was argued by volunteer attorney Jack Petranker last Fall, was an equal protection challenge to Veterans Administration regulations which bar the ‘granting of veteran benefits to conscientious objectors who have completed alternative service. In the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, the court refused to rule on the case on the grounds that it did not have jurisdiction over Veterans Administration regulations.

In the Supreme Court, Hernandez was combined with a similar case from Connecticut. That case was appealed on the actual merits of the equal protection issue. Therefore, both the merits and the jurisdiction were argued.

On March 4, the High Can remanded the Hernandez case to the Ninth Circuit ruling favorably on the ACLU- NC’s contention that the Circuit Court should hear the merits of the case. At the same time however, the Supreme Court Justices voted 8-1 on the merits of the Connecticut case holding that the Veterans Ad- ministration is not bound by the constitution to grant benefits to CO’s.

The Court did leave open the possibility that Congress may choose to legislate benefits to CO’s. Nevertheless, the Hernandez case will now go back to the Ninth Circuit but of course that court will be bound by the Supreme Court’s precedent setting decision on the other case. It is therefore very unlikely that the relief sought on behalf of CO’s will be granted by the Court of Appeal.

matters as street encounters, interrogation, entering on private premises, arrests and charges, crowd control, use of firearms, political surveillance, citizen complaints and personnel policies.

In addition, the Project will seek to inform various police officials of ‘‘good’’ policies that have been suc- cessful elsewhere, as Well as. negotiating with them to discard bad regulations.

Finally, the Project will attempt to investigate and work with communities on particular instances of police abuse and to isolate the ‘‘bad apple’’ policeman who regularly engages in imporper and/or brutal acts.

Schwartz has been talking with community groups and leaders throughout the Bay Area for the past few months, trying to identify the problem areas and to establish — priorities for his effots. He has tentatively decided to priorities for his efforts. He has tentatively decided to the unique circumstances in each — San Francisco, Rich- mond, and Vallejo. He believes each of these cities presents different but representative problems which will require different strategies.

Schwartz is also convinced that:the subjectve areas to concentrate on are police policies and police initiated enforcement. He hopes to. help make police policies, regulations and decisions more visible and accessible to the community. He believes the other category of police abuse problems where initial progress can be made is

Police Practices Project Director eos SCHWARTZ

where the police initiate activity on their own as through vice enforcement, political surveillance or ‘aggressive © patrol.”’

These general strategies have led Schwartz to some more specific starting points. At least in the early stages of the Project, he will be particularly concerned with the mistreating of arrestees, stop and search practices, the use of deadly force, and police internal con doles machinery.

The effort is novel and the strategies untried but mere frustration over police abuses has not caused many changes. Hopefully, the Police Practices Project will discover the handle for effective review of police practices and procedures and provide a model for similar efforts across the country.

Two actions challenge law allowing assessments for public defenders —

Public defenders were otigintally estublistied to cas legal counsel for indigent criminal defendents. This meant that since all persons enjoy the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, all persons must be provided counsel regardless of their inability to pay. Nevertheless, California Penal Code Section 987.8 provides that counties may ask the trial court to assess the defendant for all or part of the cost of the public defender. The Section also provides for a special civil-type proceeding to take place in the criminal trial court.

ACLU-NC recently became involved in two actions which challenge the constitutionality of Section 987.8. In People v. Amor, Legal Director Charles Marson and Staff Counsel Toby Sherwood filed an amicus curiae brief this month in the California Sureme Court.

Joan Amor pleaded guilty to a criminal vehicle code violation. Sentence was suspended and she was granted - summary probation provided she paid a $125 fine. A month and a half later, the trial court entered an order that she pay one-half of the value of the public defender who represented her in the case. The court ruled that she had the abilty to pay that amount.

The California Court of Appeal reversed that order holding that Section 987.8 is unconstitutional because it does not notify the defendant of his or her liability or provide a hearing. Also, the defendant is not informed that the court may issue a civil-type judgement against her.

In their amicus brief, Marson and Sherwood argue that Section 987.8 interferes with the right to counsel since it deters the exercise of that fundamental right. They point out that the courts have agreed that counsel is essential to a fair trial and in the case of indigent defendants, counsel must be provided.

They describe the dilemma for the defendant thus: ~ (he) knows he may be assessed costs...but he has no idea how much these costs may be, and there is no way to warn him. He has no idea how much work is involved, how much that work would or could be worth, or how good that work might be.’’ Marson and Sherwood conclude that the application of the Section is ‘‘plainly an enormous deterrent to the exercise of the right to counsel for any purpose other than a quick and inexpensive plea.’’

Finally, the ACLU brief contends that Section 987.8 Ce sede of property ithoht due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Marson and Sherwood allege that no procedural safeguards in the form of prior notice and hearing are provided by the Section. They say also that due process is denied by the imposition of fees for services unsolicited and uncontrolled by the © defendant.

The other case challenging the same statute is County of Contra Costa v. Orland and Esther Davis. The Davis’ are both in their sixties and live on Social Security. Their chief asset is a house valued at $24,000 which they owned jointly.

In July, 1972. Orland Davis stopped at a bar in Pinole after returning from target-shooting. He became very drunk and rowdy and began waving a gun. Police officers were called and when they attempted to subdue him he shot and killed one of them. At the preliminary hearing in Contra Costa County Superior Court, question was raised whether Davis was eligible for assistance from a Public Defender.

Around that time, Esther Davis homesteaded the house and had deed of it transferred to her. Her husband’s trial proceeded and he entered a plea of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. In the first phase, he was found guilty of second-degree murder. In the sanity trial, the same jury found him not guilty by reason of insanity. This verdict was reached largely due to the discovery that Davis had hemotoma on his brain at the time of the murder. Davis was then sent to Atascadero State Hospital.

After that, the county counsel filed a civil action against the Davis’ pursuant to Section 987.8 to recover $18,268.56 for the cost of the public defender and to set aside the transfer of the property to Esther Davis.

ACLU Legal Director Charles Marson has taken over Orland Davis’ defense against this assessment and filed a demurrer to the county counsel’s complaint last month which has already been overruled. Now a hearing will be set in the Superior Court to determine whether the Davis’ are liable for the proposed amount.

One way or another , the California Supreme Court will ultimately have to determine whether it is constitutional to make indigent persons pay for the exercise of their constitutional rights.

- ORGANIZATION

A Report to the Members

By JAY A. MILLER, ACLU-NC Executive Director

In 1973 we were involved in fighting . many critical civil liberties battles — including three major cases in the U.S. Supreme Court and the beginning of the National effort to impeach Richard Nixon.

On another level, the past year also marked the completion of much of the reorganization and expansion of the ACLU of Northern California begun in late 1971. In many ways, 1973 was for us the year of the “‘Great Leap Forward.”’ Because of the critical importance of this -reorganization to our future substantive - work, I have chosen to concentrate on that in this report, only touching on sub- stantive efforts.

The plans for reorganization and ex- pansion were designed to meet at least six needs : : : e Our legal program could barely keep up with the civil liberties cases that just “‘came in the door’’. It was always in a position of reacting, rarely having time to -plan affirmative action to correct widespread abuses of civil liberties in a particular area.

e While our legislative program in Sacramento operates effectively in cooperation with the Southern California Affiliate in blocking most oppressive legislation, much -planning is necessary to be ready to take advantage of the possible opportunity, given the 1974 elections, to propose and get through the legislature, bills designed to correct present abuses of civil liberties as well as extend protections needed to meet new and increasingly complex government - encroachments.

e Education on civil liberties outside of our membership was almost non-existent. ePriority planning was extremely difficult since all our resources were taken ~ up in reacting. “ Chapters needed to be supported and strengthened, enabling them to perform an essential watch-dog function in their local communities, conduct public education and build support for state and national legislation.

eBecause Northern California has perhaps the most civil libertarian population in the country, one of the most sophisticated State Legislatures and the best (re: civil liberties) State Supreme Court, we perceived a special respon- sibility for establishing precedents for the rest of the country for the protection and extension of civil liberties.

RESOURCES AND DEVELOP- MENT

Our first problem was resources. In 1971 we raised, almost entirely from our use membership contributions $150,000 and spent approximately $165,000. At the same time, our per member contribution was considerably lower than the national average, lower in fact than any other ACLU affiliate except Mississippi.

By 1973, however, the average con- tribution had gone up 40 percent and is now only 8 percent less than the National average. In 1971, we had 11,000 members and were recruiting about 800 new members a year, mainly through referals from our own members. In 1972,. when we began to use outside mailing lists extensively, we recruited 1,500 new members, and in 1973, 3,000 new members. In those same years, National .

ACLU also recruited 1,600 and 2,500 new members in Northern California — respectively. This resulted in a net membership of 16,000 in 1973 and an income of almost $200,000 after sharing 40. percent of the renewal monies with National ACLU.

On the Foundation side, we began an extefisive program of seeking large contributions from those supporters who were able to make substantial gifts. This resulted in contributions of almost $50,000 in 1973 to the Foundation, earmarked for the legal program. In ad- dition we received $30,000 from bequests last year. In late 1971 we began to establish priorities for the first time and to. seek private foundation support for special projects to carry out those priorities. Our first substantial grants were received last year to subsidize two special projects. .

With the pro rata share of these grants, our total income for the Affiliate and its Foundation more than doubled between 1971 and 1973. We cam hardly expect equally rapid growth in the next few years, but we should be able to anticipate a growth rate of 25 percent a year. |

~LEGAL PROGRAM

Establishing a volunteer bureau to handle incoming civil liberties complaints (see NEWS December, 1971); increasing of volunteer attorneys; strengthening and expanding the legal committee; establishing an office law library; revamping the filing system; increasing the use of law students as interns ; and annually publishing the legal docket, all contributed to our ability to handle 40 percent more legislation.

For 1974 we have two full-time staff attorneys working on general litigation, as well as the special project attorneys. As a result of our decision to hire an additional full-time attorney for the Sacramento Leglislative office, our staff counsel has been freed from the task of spending one- half to two-thirds of his time doing leglislative work (see NEWS January 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 Clase Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, California Richard DeLancie , Chsirman of the Boerd :

Mike Callahan , Editor end Public Informetion Director 593 Market Sereet, San Francisco, California 94105—433-2750 Membership $15 and up of which $2.50 is the annual subscription fee for aclu News.

Jay Miller, Executive Director

Expansion and planning for the Union 1974). We can expect therefore to see an increase in the number of cases we can handle. More importantly however, we should begin to see more of the kind of affirmative litigation which calls for ex- tensive fact gathering and evidenciary hearings to demonstrate to the courts ongoing patterns of abuse. It is often with this kind of planned litigation that major barriers to civil liberties are broken. Having an attorney in Sacramento giving two-thirds of her time to legislation leaves the other third to recruit volunteer attorneys and carry out litigation in the San Joaquin Valley, a highly important, but often neglected area, with extensive civil liberties problems. Heretofore, our legal staff has had the capability of han- dling only the most gregious and dramatic civil liberties problems in the Valley.

LEGLISLATION

While the addition of a full-time at- torney in the Sacramento Office will obviously result in some increase in ur effectiveness in the legislature, that in- crease probably will not be as dramatic as in the legal program. Travel time and the elimination of responsibilities are the only real net gains.

However, looking toward 1975, it is likely that a more civil liberties-minded governor will be in the State House along ~ with a far more responsive legislature given the post- Watergate political climate. In that event, we should be ready with an extensive legislative package that would correct old abuses and extend protections for citizens from future. government abuses of power in all pertinent areas. We must be prepared though to back those proposals with extensive community education and local lobbying.

In addition, National ACLU has in- creasingly sought our assistance in lob- bying for federal legislation. National membership lists have now been broken down into congressional districts and our ~membership will increasingly be called upon to influence their representatives on critical votes. We must be prepared to respond to those calls with a well organized structure ready to assist.

CHAPTER PROGRAMS

Our fifteen chapters of course provide the natural structure for such State and Federal legislative activity. The Chapter should also serve as our major conduit for community education.

However, chapters face innumerable problems. They are completely volunteer in nature and therefore often lack the woman or manpower needed to carry out planned programs or to respond to Af- filiate requests. Chapter leadership often changes rapidly so that organizational sophistication is difficult to develop or sustain. In spite of this, and while there is very uneven development, most chapters serve at least a watch-dog function against the worst civil liberties abuses in their community. Some chapters are somehow able to do a great deal more, even with their meager resources.

For instance, the Mt. Diablo chapter has so far successfully fought the building of a new, greater capacity jail in Contra Costa County; the Oakland chapter has contributed much ‘to setting up privacy competing major Mar.— Apr. , aclu news : 2

JAY A. MILLER

guidelines for. the county wide computer system, CORPUS, and has managed to get citizens placed on the governing committee; the Fresno chapter has been involved in three pieces of major litigation in recent years; the San Francisco chapter has developed. an excellent one-on-one program with the Board of Supervisors; Santa Clara has more working committees than does the Affiliate; and, several chapters have put forward good speakers bureaus.

In the past two years the Affiliate has attempted to give the chapters increased staff attention, as well as resources. In 1972 and 1973 I tried to attend every other monthly chapter meeting. Now, with the help of our Associate and Public Information Directors, staff should be covering almost every chapter meeting. | Two years ago we transformed the one day chapter conference into a weekend Af-. filiate Board — Chapter conference. This was done to provide more extensive _ leadership training, exchange of in- - formation on programs, as well as in- creasing sensitivity and communication between chapter leadership, staff and Affiliate Board members.

In 1972 we also revamped an un- successful revenue sharing program and provided the chapters the opportunity to get 100 percent of the first year’s contribution from all new members that the chapter itself recruited. The results of that program have been disappinting so far, but beginning this year the chapters will receive a dollar for each member renewed by the Affiliate in their area. This with the proviso that they raise, through benefits and recruitment of new members, approximately fifty cents per member and submit a budget.

Hopefully this plan, unique in ACLU to the Northern California Affiliate, will result in substantial increases in chapter resources. Based on funds already raised and matching funds due from the Af- filiate, the San Francisco Chapter, our largest, plans to hire a part-time coor- dinator. This will be an experiment that may become a future pattern for at least the larger chapters.

EDUCATION

While we began a public information department in late 1971, it did not really take off until 1973. Our most important tool, the ACLU NEWS, has been revamped twice since 1971 — the goal, greater readability and comprehension of the increasingly complex civil liberties issues with which we have been forced to deal. We have attempted to do this by Continued on page 4.

Mar.— Apr. aclu news

Editor’s note: The Gellower article was written by Ira Glasser, the Executive Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. In it he-describes a successful effort to turn a conservative Congressman around on impeachment. His account shows that it is possible to make significant gains for impeachment through the basic techniques of grass-root cam- paigning — techniques available to us all.

ACLU should be lobbying for im- peachment — in hostile areas and with little membership strength.

It is relatively easy to lobby in Ed Koch’s district in Manhattan. We probably have 6-7,000 members in his district, which is more than the margin of most electoral victories, especially in primaries. Applying pressure to him is no difficult feat.

Few Congressional districts around the country, however, are as generally liberal as Koch’s and even fewer contain as high a concentration of ACLU members.

Richmond (Staten Island) is as con- servative a country as there is in New York, and probably more conservative - than many in the ACLU. Its elected of- ficials are very right-wing. In 1972, Richard Nixon received approximately 75 percent of the vote; even today, a Staten Island newspaper shows over 60 percent still supporting him. Our membership in the entire county is 261, or 0.1 pricent of | the population.

Back in October, Norman Siegel wrote ‘Congressman John Murphy, a Democrat - who also enjoyed the Conservative Party nomination, as a constituent (a small portion of Murphy’s district extends into Manhattan) and received no reply for awhile. When he did reply, he was unresponsive to Norman’s request to meet with him on the subject of im- peachment. This was not surprising; Murphy is notably inaccessible and in- visible. Norman persisted. We did a mailing to all our members in his district, and to all those not our members who answered our ads, and invited them all to a meeting on impeachment. Approximately 150 attended, and decided to organize a letter-writing campaign to Murphy, and to press for a meeting with him. He was expectedly difficult to reach; his staff was - uncooperative; requests for a meeting were initially resisted.

Our members persisted with letters and calls. Finally, Murphy agreed to attend a meeting at our offices in Manhattan on December 28, 1973. Approximately 100 people came. At a lengthy and sometimes stormy meeting, the members pressed Murphy very hard on impeachment. He was Clearly reluctant, but the fact that he had come to the NYCLU office and met with us was already significant: he had never done such a thing before, and I doubt whether. he had ever before been confronted with as many constituents, and certainly never with so many NYCLU members. He could not know what our strength was in Staten Island, but he did know that we were making a good deal more noise, generating a good many more letters, showing a lot more stamina and turning out a lot more people than anyone else in his district. Right there, during the meeting, the changes in his position first became visible. By the end of the meeting, with what appeared to us to be reluctance and a certain amount of discomfort, he quietly — and to our knowledge for the first time — came out for impeachment.

He didn’t elaborate; he didn’t sound very convinced; he didn’t catalogue Nixon’s impeachable offenses. It was a far cry from his first letter to Norman. Our members who were at that meeting might have been satisfied. They weren’t.

They told him it wasn’t enough to come out quietly for impeachment. They wanted to know what he was going to do about it. They — somewhat brazenly, I thought, but that’s the advantage of a ‘grassroots campaign — pressed him to appear and speak at ACLU public Meetings on impeachment. Incredibly, he agreed. They told him they hadn’t much luck in establishing contact with his office, and demanded that he give them the names of some of his staff they could contact. He named two. By the end of the evening, a good deal had changed.

During the next few weeks, our ‘members made frequent contact. with Murphy’s staff, and now had no trouble. They began, ambitiously, to plan a major - ACLU impeachment meeting on Staten Island. As you know, most New York >

IMPEACHMENT

Grass roots campaigning the key to success liberals think of Staten Island as a political leper colony; the idea of an ACLU rally there on any subject is almost un- thinkable. Nonetheless, one was planned. On Saturday, February 2, 1974, in a freezing hailstorm, that meeting was held. Approximately three hundred showed up. Murphy shared the platform with Norman Siegel and Saralee Evans of our staff. This time he gave a carefully prepared speech calling for impeachment, and he received a standing ovation. The Staten Island Advance, the principal newspaper there, covered the rally and the story made page one in the Sunday edition. For Murphy to have come this far, and appeared publicly at an ACLU rally, and for this kind of a story to have appeared in the Advance, is almost inconceivable. Neither I nor Norman would have thought it posible when we began. I think there is a great lesson for the entire ACLU in this story. This was not - an obvious or easy lobbying effort taking place in a predictably libertarian district or a liberal stronghold. The politics of Staten Island and the relatively tiny numbers of ACLU members there could not be too much worse than many Congressional districts where the ACLU is not strong. Of greater significance is that a few ACLU members were able to - convert a strongly conservative politician in a conservative district to their point of view by the classic application of traditional lobbying techniques that require no professional expertise: meetings, letters, phone calls and per- sistence.

The New York Times ran a series of atticles a few weeks ago that surveyed several U.S. Representatives from around the country and asked them about the sentiment for impeachment in their districts. Most of them were no more conservative than John Murphy, and most of their districts were no more hostile to the ACLU. Virtually all of them reported no great tumult in their districts for impeachment. ‘‘No one is jumping up and down,’ was one Congressman’s com- ment. I can tell you that John Murphy was - not able to say that.

Intransigent minorities — and not majorities — are what usually make the greatest impact on legislators, and that’s what we are.

Miller’s

Continued from Page 3 We need to improve our efforts in that

membership report

Racial Equality. In the succeeding months

giving more historical background on the precedents of a case we are involved in; spelling out in greater detail the likely civil liberties implications of a victory or a loss; and using legal terms only when they are part of the general language. Further, when an issue is likely to be controversial we try to give a fair representation of both sides. The response has been generally good, but since this is our main form of communication to the members, we would like to hear more, including suggestions.

Last year, we issued 51 press releases and held 11 press conferences mostly to announce and explain to the public law suits we had filed. We also served as a. consultant to two local T.V. documen- taries on civil liberties issues and appeared on several, though not nearly enough, radio and TV talk and public affairs shows.

direction as well as arranging for more in depth newspaper and magazine backgrounder articles to give better understanding to the general public of our issues.

For the first time last year, we developed and mailed a speakers brochure to a variety of organizations, schools, church groups, and trade unions. This resulted in over 150 speaking engagements throughout Northern California — a figure we should be able to double this year.

PRIORITIES

At the Affiliate Board Chapter Con- ~ ference in the Spring of 1972 we adopted four substantive priorities: (see NEWS March, 1972) Victimless Crimes, Prisoner Rights, Women’s Rights and we drew up project proposals for each priority and sought funding from private foundations.

In the Spring of 1973, we were suc- cessful in getting two of the projects funded — Victimless Crimes and Prisoner Rights. Those projects now each employ a full-time attorney backed by secretarial assistance, who is able to concentrate fully on his or her priority area. The Victimless Crimes Project seeks to litigate and educate toward the goal of decriminalization of such activities as sexual conduct between consenting adults, including prostitution and homosexuality; drug use; gambling and ‘alcoholism (for details see NEWS January 1974).

The Prison Project is concerned with

Continued on page 12

By NANCY McDERMID,

Member of ACLU-NC Board and Chairperson of Women’s

Rights Committee

The ACLU Women’s Rights Com- mittee has been meeting for over a year. The early meetings were designed to find out from fifty or more individuals and members of various groups and organizations working in the area of sex discrimination just what kind of services the ACLU could meaningfully perform in the area of women’s rights. Feminist attorney, law school professors, and members of such groups as Women’s Legal Center, Women’s Job Rights, Women’s Equity Action League, Women’s History Library, Youth Law Center, San Francisco Women Against | Rape, National Women’s Political Caucus, National Organization for Women, Employment Law Center, United States Department of Labor— Women’s Bureau, Prison Law Collective, Women’s Center at University of California, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and San Francisco and Alameda County Legal Assistance Foundations met with the Women’s Rights Committee in ten or twelve brainstorming sessions.

The result of these many sessions was - the proposal for an ACLU Women’s Rights Project. The proposal listed the following most immediate requirements for future effective work in the legal at- _tacks on sexually discriminatory laws and practices:

Financial support of litigation ; Support of full-time litigators;

- Centralized clearinghouse for com- plaints, up-to-date docket of all pending sex discrimination cases, in- tercommunication among attorneys litigating in this area; and Education in the form of conferences, public meetings, workshops, clinics for law school students, and shared_in- formation with other organizations working in the area of women’s rights.

This Women’s needed. A sampling of complaints received by ACLU-NC during the writing of the proposal and in recent weeks will give some idea of the range of problems:

e Poor mothers receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) are continually pressured by welfare authorities to undergo sterilization in order to cut state costs; a few even ‘volunteer’ after being expressly threatened with termination of aid.

.e Poor mothers seeking prosecutorial assistance in enforcing child -support orders against absent fathers are forced to complete lengthy, intimate, degrading, and irrelevant questionnaires concerning every aspect of ou current and past sex lives.

e Divorced women too poor to retain private lawyers are threatened and beaten by hostile ex-husbands in violation of protective court orders that police refuse to enforce. e A woman has been reticed a job as an ‘animal controller’’ despite her high score (no. 2) on the civil service exam, simply because of her sex.

companies — reason given:

Rights Project is

‘is not employed and ‘

aclu’ news Women’s Rights

e An elderly woman who lives in a house trailer was denied space at a trailer park because widows tend to be promiscuous and not very neat.

e Two thirty-ish, steadily employed women who have roomed together for seven years were denied a loan to buy a condominium — they were first told to come up with 5 per cent down payment, then 10 per cent, then asked to get a co- signer because ‘‘the company does not make loans to single women.’

e A woman who has pes her husband through four years of law school is unable to lease a car because the bank which handles lease financings refuses to consider her work record and says her husband’s three months work record as an attorney is too short.

e A woman accepted by the National Maritime Academy is refused campus living quarters, thus losing the $600 grant — which males receive for living on campus.

e A female nurse, wishing to buy property, was told by a bank that the interest rate on a mortgage loan would be 7% per cent; the figure was changed to 81% per cent when she told the bank she was a single woman.

e A woman has refused been automobile insurance because she is living ~ with a man to whom she is not married.

e A second-year nursing student who works part-time as a licensed ambulance driver and attendant in Walnut Creek applied for the same job with a San Francisco company and was told they do not hire women for those jobs.

_@ A female interviewer for a personnel . agency complained that she is forced to discriminate against women by funneling them into non-managerial positions even - when they are qualified for management jobs.

e A woman has been refused a homeowner’s insurance policy by two **Companies discriminate against people who are not married but living together.’’

e A legally separated woman who receives $900 a month from her husband was refused a bank credit card because she “spousal support”’ is not considered income.

The Women’s Project is now partially funded. ‘The articles in this special insert have all been written by members of the Women’s Rights Committee, ACLU staff counsel and other supporters of the project _ who want to help find a source for the funds. Women’s rights was designated as a priority area for litigation and education by the Chapter Conference and by the Board of Directors almost two years ago. This insert on Women’s Rights is an effort to remind all ACLU members that this project is a necessary step in making our commitment to women’s rights, not only a “‘designated priority,’’ but a reality. The death knell of sex discrimination has not been sounded by the Supreme Court in spite of a few often cited ‘‘vic- - tories’? since 1971: Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71, in which the Court ruled favorably to a female litigant, finding no ““rational relationship’’ between sex and

Continued on page 8

Life,

A special report compiled by the ACLU-NC Women’s Rights Committee and the ACLU Anti-abortion forces

By MARILYN PATEL Member, ACLU-NC Board of Directors and Women’s Rights Committee

They are civil rights activists and John Birchers, non-practicing Catholics and Thursday prayer-meeting- fundamentalists, they include con- servative Senator James Buckley and liberal Democratic Senator Harold Hughes. Who are They? They are the supporters of the. so-called ‘‘human rights’’ or ‘‘mandatory life’’ amendments to the Constitution. And, they are well or ganized.

Hardly had the decision of the Supreme Court been handed down on January 22, 1973 when the abortion opponents began their all-out assault. It is emotional and — often deceptive. But, it is well funded and well directed. Under the name of Right to Birthright and similar nomen- clatures, the abortion opponents lobby heavily. They have hit the lecture circuit _with grim color photos of war victims (some from the Vietnam War which many of them supported) and aborted fetuses in glass bottles. They admit their visual displays are for shock value. What is more, it works.

While feminists and other pro- abortionists caught their breath after their arduous campaign in the legal and public arena, the Right-to-Lifers have been organizing and fund raising as if to be ready for the Supreme Court’s fateful decision. That decision was based on the right to privacy and the limit to a state’s legitimate interest in protecting a pregnant woman’s health and potential human life. It also held that the ‘‘word ‘person’ as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the un- born.’’ (Roe v. Wade, 93 S.Ct. 705, 1973) ~ would nullify and, in threaten previous victories

It is this phrase that the amendments the process, establish abortion limitations far more restrictive than were in existence before Roe v. Wade. The amendment chiefly supported by the right-to-life groups is that introduced by Senators James Buckley (C-NY) and Mark Hatfield (R- Ore.). It provides:

Neither the United States, nor any State, shall deprive any human being (from the moment of) conception of-life without due process of law; nor deny to any human being, from the moment of conception, within its jurisdiction, the equal protection of the law.

Neither the United States, nor any State, shall deprive any human being of life on account of illness, age or in- capacity.

The amendment, if passed and given the interpretation of its advocates, would give the mother in a pregnancy where the life of the mother or fetus is at stake no greater legal ground for protection of her life than the fetus. Similarly, use of inter- uterine devices would be unlawful since they generally abort the embryo after the moment of conception. The result would be the most severe abortion laws in the history of the United States.

Most shocking is the likelihood of passage of the amendment uziess those who fought so hard for the gains of Roe immediately organize and carry on a counter-attack. The amendment has already received the support of liberal and conservative Congresspersons, including our own Senator John Tunney. (Senator Alan Cranston has taken no official position.) Such diverse Presidential hopefuls as Senators Mondale and — Kennedy and Governor George Wallace have indicated their support. The issue

Continued on page 8

WOMEN’S RIGHTS |

Sex role stereotyping pervasive in school texts

By Nancy McDermid Member, ACLU-NC Boardand Chairperson, Women’s Rights Committee

Carol Nagy Jacklin, member of the ACLU-NC Board of Directors as the member from the Santa Clara Chapter, has just co-authored a book with Eleanor Emmons Maccoby, on The Psychology of Sex Differences, Dr.

Jacklin is a Research Associate, Department of Psychology, Stanford University. The description of her most recent publication by the Stanford University Press is indeed laudatory: :

‘‘This monumental work is probably the most com- plete report to be found anywhere concerning what is known and what is not known about sex differences. In what ways and to what extent do boys and girls, men and women differ in social behavior, intellectual’. abilities, and motivations. The book answers the question in two ways: in a systematic analysis and interpretation of all reported research findings in such areas as perception, cognition, self-concept, activity level, sociability , aggression, competition, dominance, modeling and socialization, and genetic factors; and in an exhaustive annotated bibliography of some 1,400 research studies...””

Dr. Jacklin has already contributed her expertise to the ACLU by her summary of intellectual sex differences which was included in the brief submitted by Charles Marson, in the case, Berkelman v. San Francisco Unified School District. This case involves as one issue the validity of the admissions policy of Lowell High School requiring higher entrance standards of female applicants. than it does of male applicants.

Another one of Dr. Jacklin’s important studies was on sex-role stereotyping in early readers (‘‘Sex Role Stereotyping in the Public Schools,’’ Saario, Jacklin and. Tittle, Harvard Educational Review, vol. 43, pp. 386- 416). This study reported the content analysis of 270 stories from four elementary reading textbook series — designed for kindergarten to third grade. Some of her conclusions in this 1973 study were these:

Affirmative action

‘*Sex role stereotyping is pervasive in elementary readers. Girls and women appear less frequently than boys and men. Females are rarely main characters in the stories: they seldom solve porblems or do interesting things. Girls are depicted as fantasizing and talking about _themselves. Women are shown as conforming and talking a great deal, although not about themselves. Men, on the other hand, construct and produce things, solve problems, and engage in various kinds of hard work and play...Women are indoors — primarily at home and sometimes at school. All of the cafeteria workers in the schools are adult females in the stories sampled, while the adult males at school include every School Principal shown. Men are in businesses or outdoors. Boys ex- perience more positive consequences as a result of their own efforts, while for girls positive consequences come from the situation.’’

The study of these readers concludes with these disturbing statments:

‘*Thus, it appears that these texts cannot be mirroring the reality experienced by large groups of children: urban children, ghetto children, children with working mothers, children of divorced parents. Because of our rapidly changing culture perhaps we can never depict for children in the early grades what their lives will be. The critical question is what we are doing to children’s aspirations when a sterile, limited and unrealistic world is portrayed in the books that they read.

‘‘This is the basic issue. Women today have fewer roles and opportunities than men. Women do engage in more limited behaviors in more restricted settings. But what are the consequences of portraying this state of affairs in elementary texts? Since textbooks reach a child at an early and impressionable age, the stereotypes which they portray may perpetuate these inequalities. Rather than limiting possibilities, elementary texts should seek to maximize individual development and self-esteem by displaying a wide range of models and activities for both -sexes.”’

On the basis of this provocative and careful study, Dr. in the East Bay

Jacklin has been asked by a committee of concerned — citizens to lead workshops on how to evaluate textbooks for sexism. This committee plans to make specific evaluations of the books now being considered for State of California approval for use in the schools. On February 22, 1974, Dr. Jacklin stated that ‘‘preliminary analysis of the current textbooks under consideration indicates that the publishers have NOT changed. Adult women still hardly appear in textbooks (except in preprimers and first grade books before story plots are developed). Adult males and boys continue to be the leading characters of ’ stories. The Education Code states that women and men will be shown in a variety of roles...we seem to have a situation in which the choice of any of the textbooks now being considered would break the law.’

By IVERNE WILLY

Member of Oakland Chapter ACLU Board and Women’s Rights Committee

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT: JOB DISCRIMINATION

As the most active women’s group in the East Bay, Women’s Action Training Center of Oakland has led the struggle over women’s employment opportunities — at the East Bay Regional Park District. The District, which covers most.of two counties, employs only 11 percent women, and these are clustered in lower paying clerical jobs. Speaking before the district board, representatives from a large variety of groups, including B.J. Miller of the State Fair Employment Practices Commission, and Thomas Rankin, at- torney and representative of Local 2428 of the Association of Federal, State, and Municipal Employees (AFL-CIO) reasserted their support for the need of a strong affirmative action program.

Among the necessary priorities in any proposed affirmative action program for EBRPD, Ms. Denise Long from Women’s Action Training Center stressed changing such job descriptions as ‘groundsman’ to ‘groundsperson,’ affirmatively recruiting females through the use of female organizations, and changing job ladders so secretaries can move into higher paying jobs where they can use their skills and knowledge of the park district. Sex-bias complaints charging violations of Title 7 — of the Civil Rights Act have been filed against EBRPD with the Fair Employment Practice Commission and the Equal Employment Commission.

Opposing a federal revenue sharing grant to EBRPD of $25,000.00 for funding in the development of San Leandro Bay. Park and a park along the shore of Emeryville, WATC along with - ACLU representative attorney Ken Kawaichi and other community involved groups joined together to demand that the Alameda County Board of Supervisors delay the revenue sharing funds until EBRPD sets up a specific affirmative -action plan, in compliance with federal law. The Alameda County Board of Supervisors is expected to vote on this issue in the coming weeks.

ALAMEDA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: ELIMINATING RACISM AND SEXISM

At jeopardy for Alameda County is $875,000.00 worth of federal funding for the California Council on Criminal Justice if new federal anti-discrimination regulations are not followed in Alameda county. Written by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA), the new affirmative action regulations require the county to turn in regular breakdowns — indicating race, sex and national origin of all persons (1) employed by the county; (2) receiving disciplinary action; (3) applying for employment; (4) applying for promotion or transfer; and (5) ter- minating employment. Detailed records of the community labor force characteristics will also have to be kept, as well as the characteristics of persons served by the county departments.

BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: RIGHT OF WOMEN TO PAR- TICIPATE IN CITY GOVERNMENT

With the support of over twenty East Bay community groups, including the Oakland Chapter of the ACLU, the Oakland City Council was approached recently to appoint equal female representation for the city’s. boards and commissions posts. As of June, 1973, only 11 out of 94 seats were filled by women. Led by Women’s Action Training Center of Oakland, a community group organized for. action around female’s issues, ACLU member Mike Coppersmith representing the ACLU affirmative action committee, spoke before the city council urging the need for equal female representation to fill the city’s twenty-seven vacant posts.

As a result of the continuing requests by WATC and other East Bay activists groups, of the twenty-seven com- missioners posts open, the Oakland city council appointed ten women, a sub- stantial increase in comparison with previous board appointments. Women have traditionally been generally excluded from representation on Oakland’s Boards and Commissions, but WATC, ACLU and others vow their continuing efforts to attain an equal number of women to city government posts in the East Bay.

THE EAST BAY‘S MOST DYNAMIC AFFIRMATIVEACTION ORGANIZATION

Women’s Action Training Center, an activists East Bay community group. created to address the needs of women’s issues is located in the old Julia Morgan Presbyterian Church at 1914 High Street in Oakland. Focusing on the needs of older women, women at home, employed women, and single mothers, WATC concentrates on issues in the East Bay Community. Its slogan is ‘don’t agonize, organize’ which is just what this group of high-powered, enthusiastic women - is doing.

Currently involved in job discrimina- tion suits, organizing speakers to defend the rights of women in government positions, problems of women and aging, exercise groups, classes for women in organizing, and setting-up coalitions of women for immediate issues such as increases in P.G.8E. rates, the meat boycott, etc., WATC covers a broad base and has large support from a variety of sources.

the group was formed in 1973 by co- directors Tish Sommers and Ruth McElhinney. The group welcomes in- terested persons to call (415) 533-3200 for further information. -

Several women's rights proposals

WOMEN’S RIGHTS _

pending before state legislature |

By TOBY SHERWOOD

ACLU-NC Staff Counsel and Legislative Representative

The sensitivity of the California legislature to the women’s rights movement is reflected in numerous bills which have been introduced during the 1973-1974 session. A few have become law; some have been vetoed by the Governor and many are still pending in the legislature. Some sense of the scope and nature of the legislative response to the women’s movement may be gleaned from the bills described below. This discussion is not meant to be all inclusive, or even to include the ‘most important’ bills; it is simply an attempt to give a glimpse of some of the issues with which the legislature has been and is concerned.

Among the new laws are several which recognize inequitably treated. For example, a Joint Committee on Legal Equality has been created to study ‘all facts relating to conforming California laws, regulations and administrative guidelines with the principle that equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex.’ ACR 33 (Moretti), Ch. 114.

that women are being Recognizing that women constitute a Majority of California’s population, and ‘that women are underrepresented in appointive positions, a resolution has been passed urging that appointments at the State, county and municipal level be made with an eye to assuring that the percentage of women in appointive positions ‘will more nearly reflect the percentage of women in the population of each jurisdiction.” ACR 36 (Ralph), Ch. 131. A history of women legislators in California is to be compiled for inclusion in a compilation to be prepared by the National Order of Women Legislators.

ACR 40 (Davis), Ch. 43. It will no doubt show that women have also been greatly underrepresented in the legislature. At present there are no women and forty men in the senate and two women and seventy- eight men in the assembly.

The presence of women on city councils is recognized in a new law which provides that any reference to ‘councilman’ or ‘councilmen’ shall also include ‘coun- cilwoman’ or ‘councilwomen,’ and allowing a female member of a city council to call herself ‘councilwoman.’ S.B. 38 (Whetmore), Ch. 30. The Governor vetoed two bills to require that opportunities for participation in athletics be provided to both sexes ‘on as nearly an equal basis as possible’ in all California schools and colleges. $.B. 1227 (Dymally) and S.B. 1228 (Dymally). _ Two pending bills will, if enacted, facilitate voting by women. One will allow women to use the prefix ‘Ms.’ (or ‘Miss’ or “Mrs.’) when registering to vote. A.B. 765 (Kapiloff). Another will make it possible for any person whose name has been changed since the last election to fill out a form on election day and vote. A.B. 3118 (DUNLAP). This bill will be particularly important to any woman who changes her name when she marries.

A concern for language and. an acknowledgment of the existence of -working women are seen in two bills which will change references in the law from ‘workmen’s compensation’ to ‘worker’s compensation.’ ACA 99 (Sieroty), A.B. 3109 (Sieroty). A similar recognition of women wage-earners is — found in a bill which would extend the responsibility for child support to mothers. A.B. 1293 (Keene). At present it is unlawful only for a father to wilfully fail to support his child. Penal Code Section 270.

Another pending bill will open the way for unemployment compensation benefits for a person leaving his or her employment to perform ‘marital or domestic duties.’ A.B. 3077 (Gonzales). It seems likely that women who must leave income-producing jobs to care for their families will be especially benefitted by this bill.

Finally (for the purposes of this article at least), a bill is pending which provides that no ‘privileges or immunities’ or ‘public benefits’ shall be- denied because of a woman’s consent or failure to consent to an abortion. A.B. 2553 (Vasconcellos). And a bill has been introduced to permit issuance of alcoholic beverage club licenses to certain clubs provided that membership is not restricted on the basis of ‘race, religion, national origin, or sex.’ S.B. 1501 (Rodda).

U.C. Berkeley goes slow on affirmative action despite HEW demands

- By Bea Baio, ‘Associate Director, C.C.E.W.—

Women’s Center, University of California , Berkeley

As this is being written, it would appear that the University of California, Berkeley Campus, has revised its affirmative action plan sufficiently to allow the release of several large federal grants to important units or research directors on the campus. Funds were being withheld while negotiations were pending over im- provements in the third draft of the required affirmative action plan.

HEW put a temporary hold on Berkeley’s federal contracts in November, 1973; this third revision was submitted to HEW in December; negotiations for ac- ceptance have continued during January; and now in February the basic analytical and statistical procedures to be used in the plan seem to have been accepted by HEW. Thus the major part, if not the final plan, seems approved and the University is expected to make the plan public by the first week in March.

There is no general agreement on the affirmative action plan on the part of the various Univeristy groups in- volved. In January, Sharon Lim Lau, the affirmative action coordinator resigned in dismay at the impotence of her position, particularly its location in the administrative hierarchy. Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Mark Christensen, and Vice-Chancellor for Administration, Robert Kerly, are the designated Affirmative Action Officers; and Ms. Lim Lau reported to Kerley through one additional layer of bureaucracy.

Her ability to participate in policy-making was thus effectively screened, although her understanding when she was appointed only six months before, was that the position would be more influential. Her conclusions in January were that the University had very little com- mitment to affirmative action and was engaging in a “*holding’’ action to placate frustrated minority groups . and women without doing anything. She also indicated a feeling that HEW itself was perhaps in the same posture.

Credibility is lent to this skepticism about the ‘‘true nature’’ of the commitment to affirmative action, when it is remembered that the United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments in the DeFumnis case which is a challenge to the basic tenets of affirmative action. (The plaintiff, Marco DeFumis, is challenging ‘‘the minority preference admission policy of the Univesity of Washington Law School.’’ He claims that his application was not judged on the same basis and by the same criteria. as applications from blacks, Chicanos, Native Americans and Filipino Americans and that he was thereby discriminated against in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.)

Although the University of Californa at Berkeley and the negotiators from HEW agreed publicly that ‘‘there are no differences overall in philosophy and principle’’ on affirmative action, it is clear that misinformation and misunderstanding, as well as outright opposition, continue at all levels of academia.

Recent statistics, for example, were issued for the Berkeley campus showing that .26 percent of the ap- pointments in 1973 to ladder rank faculty positions’ were awarded to women, contrasted to 3 percent in 1967. What was not included was the retirement, resignation, non-retention figure to match, which would have shown that the increase in number of faculty positions held by women was almost nil. This is a very simple example of the difficulties with statistical analysis, and indicative of the reporting problems now being worked out between the University and HEW in which the employment goals will be arranged in clusters of academic units. This manner of reporting as well as the intent on the part of UCB to appoint a responsible Affirmative Action Officer with committment to affirmative action has been strongly questioned by the League of Associated Women who originally brought the case against the University in 1971, The skepticism of the ‘‘clientele’’ groups on the campus has also been evidenced within the past few weeks when the call went out from the Chancellor’s office for suggestions for an Affirmative Action Advisory Com- mittee tc represent all levels of academic employment. Several responses including that of the Status of Women and Minorities Committee of the Academic Senate, that

Continued on page 8

San Francisco's only legal resource

By EVE PELL Member, ACLU-NC Board of Directors — and Women’s Rights Committee

The Women’s Legal Center, called by the Bay Area Guide to Women’s Legal Resources, the best all around feminist legal resource in San Francisco, closed recently, after more than a year of operating. Its office at 558 Capp Street answered over 2,000 inquiries and requests for help. .

Elaine Kramer, one of the founders of the Center, explained that all of the Center’s staff were presently enrolled in law school or working full time, and that the Center had had to suspend operation for lack of funds and lack of volunteers able to carry on the work. As legal workers, the staff could only give information about the workings of the law, counselling, and referrals to the women who came for help. Without lawyers and money they were not able to expand the scope of their work, so several of them decided to become lawyers themselves The Women’s Legal Center grew out of a ‘‘Women for women closes-some reasons why and the Law’’ class given at the People’s Law School. Scores of women took the course because they felt in- timidated when faced with legal matters and urgently needed some education about their legal rights. The Center was set up to act as liason between women. needing legal help and the legal community. The staff were not . themselves attorneys, but legal workers familiar with divorce and family law, as well as welfare and em- ployment law, the areas which most affect women. They compiled a list of feminist attorneys and provided a_ referral service to them and to appropriate agencies and groups like SFNLAF, ACLU, Welfare Rights, etc.

In addition to explaining the law and giving referrals, the staff counselled women. Many who came were seeking a divorce, or being divorced. Some of the women were unaware of their rights under community property laws; while others just wanted to get out of the marriage and didn’t want to fight for their rights. People educated them about the law and encouraged them to tight. Much of the work of the Center was devoted to increasing

Continued on page 12

WOMEN’S RIGHTS

U.C. and HEW and affirmative action

Continued from page 7

of the newly formed Minorities Council, and also that of the Center for the Continuing Education of Women — Women’s Center indicated a willingness to suggest candidates only when the function of the Advisory Committee and the policy of the University in the matter of affirmative action had been clarified. At the last meeting of the Regents, the UC student body presidents challenged the University’s contentioin that equal hiring programs were “‘well under way’’.

On the other hand, much criticism of the principles and purposes of affirmative action and possible deleterious effects on academic freedon and ‘‘quality’’ education are still voiced by dissident eremie groups. To quote a The institution sets the criteria, not HEW. The criteria must be applied equally to men and women, whites and blacks, and must not itself be discriminatroy, i.e., criteria which give preference to people who did their undergraduate work at Ivy - League. schools would be discriminatory in that women have been denied, until very recently, the Opportunity to attend such institutions.

The very limited instances only can preference be given to women and minorities: when there has been a history or pattern of expulsion, and/or discrimination, and if two candidates are equally qualified, only then can preference be given to the member of the minority group.

staffing their faculties, and a cilical review of appointment and advancement criteria to insure that they do not inadvertently foreclose con- sideration of the best qualified persons by untested presuppositions which operate to exclude women and minorities.- Further, faculties are asked to consider carefully whether they are requiring a higher standard and more conclusive evidence of accomplishment of those women and minorities who are considered for appointment andad- vancement. (italics added).

The report of the AAUP concludes that the politics of reaction at the present time should cause more concern © than the possible misapplication of federal intervention on behalf of affirmative action. And it concludes with the re-

Although affirmative action deals with many additional aspects of academic employment — recruiting, ad- vancement, retention, conditions of employment, salary inequities, etc. — the underlying tenet seems well stated by the most recent report of the AAUP (American Association of University. Professors): ...Lhe further improvement of quality in higher © Gincetion and the elimination of discrimination due to race or sex are not at odds with each other, but at one. What is sought in the idea of affirmative action is essentially the revision of standards and practices to assure that institutions are in fact drawing from the largest marketplace of human resources in

leading observer:

The major fantasy among tlc resistant to the idea of affirmative action is that ‘whenever you have a © white male competing with a female or black for a — job, preference must be given to the woman or black, even though the white male is better qualified.’ This fantasy is one of the major sources of paralysis in achieving affirmative action.

In fact, Executive Order 11246, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, and Title IX of the Education Amendment Act of 1972 require the opposite interpretation.

affirmation of trhe important strength of a well-designed — affirmative action plan which will in truth improve both quality and equal opportunity. But, the Report adds, such — a plan is based on an assumption —

...that institutions of higher education are what — they claim they are — and that all of us as teachers and professors are also what we say we are; that we mean to be fair, that our concern with excellence is not a subterfuge, that we are concerned to be just in the civil rights of a/J persons in the conduct of our profession.

What is the status of iirinatve action at the University of emia, Berkeley?

“Anti-abortion forces threaten previous victories —

Continued from Page 5

promises to be as explosive and divisive as the Vietnam war. Not satisfied to mount only an all-out attack on the decision itself, as if unwilling to wait for its final- denouement, the right-to-lifers have been voraciously eating away at the effect of the decision. They have been taking their bites in Congress and in the state legislatures.

Two of their most vicious attacks have been upon those who have suffered the most from our earlier abortion laws — the poor. Having finally escaped from the knife of the illegal, back-alley abortion practitioners, poor women could finally make their own decision whether to have an abortion, knowing that if it was to abort, it could be performed he. proper medical attention and under a state or federally-funded medical care plan. This right will be short lived if Senator Buckley and the right- to-life Np have their WAYn cir:

The Buckley fidert to the Soetal Secuetey amendments would prohibit use of Medicaid funds for performance of abortion. The amendment passed the Senate by a voice vote and is now in the Senate/House conference. Minority women leaders and feminist organizations have joined in seeking to repel this selective enforcement of the Supreme Court decision. The right-to-life groups have not confined their ‘‘morality’’ to the poor of this country. In an amendment introduced by Senator Jesse Helms (R-

- Women's Rights Committee

‘Continued fon Page D

the ability to administer anestate; Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, in which four Justices found sex to be a “suspect classification’’ and subject to “strict review’’ and a total of eight Justices found in favor of Ms. Sharron Frontiero; and the very recent case, Cleveland Board of Education v. La Fleur, 94 S.Ct. 791, which found public school maternity leave rules to be un- constitutional as violative of due process, without mentioning Frontiero or *“suspect classification.’’ Any obituary notice for sex discrimination is grossly exaggerated. We must continue to vindicate women’s fights case by case, wrong by wrong. The protection of all rights, including women’s rights, is piecemeal and tem- porary. The Nixon Court has given us frequent reminders of this truism. Recent Supreme Court inroads on the rights of the ~ arrested and the accused have made mockeries of some of the Warren Court - victories in the areas of wiretapping, search and seizure, self-incrimination, interrogation, and confessions. The battle for legal equality for women will be fought in the courts for many years to come. Even a victory at the highest judicial level can not be considered a final or definitive victory. Victorties like Reed, Frontiero, — and La Fleur are always tentative, : tenuous. Lest we forget — before the - honorable ink was even dry on Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, and Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, the right-to-abortion cases, the campaign of the right-to-lifers was well under way and was aimed at abrogating ‘completely the court’s decision by means of a constitutional amendment, which just might get ratified before the Equal Rights Amendment. Lesson: Victories require - vigilance. |

A «funded ACLU Women’s Rights Project can help the Northern California affiliate play a more active part in the protecting of the victories, the shaping of constitutional law, and the launching of creative legal and educational attacks on sex discrimination. We will then be able to employ the skills of two additional full time staff members who can contribute to the ACLU’s efforts to make it possible for more women and men to ‘‘stand as full and equal individuals before the law.’’

N.C.), the revise Assistance Act was amended to prohibit funds for purposes of providing abortion as a means of a country’s family planning program. A - more broad sweeping set of limitations was defeated in the Conference, thus sending the right-to-lifers to the State Department to sell their es aaon of the amend- ment.

The rider to i Foreign Assistance Act isin contravention of express provisions of the United Nations Statement of Human Rights. It prevents countries, which have been able to obtain at their request abortion devices, thus leaving helpless such over-populated countries as India and the Philippines which have looked to us for this technical assistance. The rider passed the Senate unanimously and the Senate/House Conference Committee.

It is interesting that these amendments have been adopted without the usual Committee review and floor debate and they have passed by a voice vote.

- Another pending restriction, similar in nature to the amendments to the Hill- Burton Act and to the pending Church amendments to the Social Security Act, have to do with access to abortion facilities. The amendments to the Hill- Burton Act allow certain medical in- - stitutions and hospitals to refuse to perform abortions based on their collective or religious conscience. A currently pending amendment to the Legal Services Corporation Act would restrict the right of a woman to use of federally-funded legal services programs for the purposes of . obtaining an abortion or access to abortion factilities. Once again, another low blow for the poor.

Access to abortion at medical and hospital facilities has been a particular problem ever since the Supreme Court decision. The National Women’s Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union has been an early protector of these rights. It has undertaken litigation in several states where medical institutions have refused to perform abortions. or impose unreasonable requirements for the obtaining of abc dons, or limit the use of state and local public funds for abortion. The Roe decision has resulted in new | legal tangles with which the courts must also tussle. Several weeks ago the Supreme Court agreed to join the fray when it granted review to two Florida cases concerning the rights of the father of the - unborn child in the abortion decision. In one of those cases the lower court held unconstitutional that part of a Florida law requiring a wife to obtain her husband’s consent before having an abortion. It similarly denied an attempt of an un- married father to enjoin the mother’s abortion. Other courts are coming to grips with the parental consent issue where the unmarried mother is a minor. All of these issues, along with the forced sterilization - cases, are being reviewed by courts around the country. They are significant and bear our attention. They all emanate from the right that feminists and civil libertarians have advocated — the right of a woman to control over her own body and a woman’s right to privacy.

However, we should not let these cases divert us from the singular effort of the right-to-life groups to impose forced pregnancies, first upon poor women, then upon all women. Two recent events should be a sufficient reminder of our need for vigilance. After the long and successful end to abortion laws in New York State, | our advocates went about other pressing business. It was only the veto by Governor Rockefeller in his personal feud with President Nixon that saved repeal. Closer — to home, we remember the emotional and victorious initiative that wiped out the significant death penalty decisions.

Lest we be smug we should note that the amendment has over 90 supporters or sponsors in the House and 53 in the Senate. The proponents display a well- | financed campaign. They are touting only one issue. They have taken their campaign out of the forum of reason and con- stitutional protection and into the forum of public opinion. A fetus in a bottle can be most persuasive evidence in that forum.

WOMEN’S RIGHTS >

Woman's role changing in the labor market

By MADELINE HOLCOMB MIXER = Women’s Bureau U.S. Department of Labor

An important article in the Monthly Labor Review of December, 1970 undertook to discuss the economic status of families headed by women. In it Robert Stein pointed out that the number of such families has been increasing more rapidly — 24 percent between 1960 and 1970 — than the total of all families which increased 14 percent for the same period. The Current Population Survey figures for March, 1973 show that the upward trend has speeded to more than an 18 percent increase in the three years from 1970 to 1973, so that currently approximately one in every eight families is headed by a woman. This is a:change from three years ago when one of every ten families was headed by a woman.

According to Stein one of the important damestic problems facing the Nation in the 1970’s is how to improve the economic status of these families. He goes on to say that many of the women ‘suffer from one handicap or more to successful competition in the labor market — lack of sufficient education or training, irregular and unstable work histories, sex or racial discrimination in hiring, ill health, and the = of arranging for satisfactory child care.’

It is my observation that one or more of those same handicaps is suffered by every woman in this society, either in reality or in terms of sexual stereotypes, but such liabilities may not be peoenices ae se seeks employment.

Training 1 is crucial for women of all ages. The number of training opportunities easily accessible to women is so limited that we find that for most stereotyped ‘women’s jobs’ one either receives no training or must pay the costs ~ of educating and/or training herself. A teacher, a nurse, or a secretary must pay; a waitress, a service worker, a household employee, of a person who does unskilled re factory or operative work is unlikely to receive any training. —

On the other hand, there is on-the-job training for — many semi-skilled jobs and the skilled crafts. These positions have customarily gone only to men but, through equal employment opportunity laws and af- firmative action plans, a few government contractors, one or two utility companies, for example, have begun to open up beginning labor grade jobs to selected women, those who can pass an aptitude examination and a per- sonal interview with an all-male committee.

This may put that woman in line for a company training program such as auto mechanic, plant equipment operator , cable splicer, or lineworker for the first time. In addition, the armed forces of this country are beginning to open up many new occupational areas. It will be most instructive to see what steps their recruiters adopt to make themselves believable to women who have always been ‘drummed out of the Corps.’

Enrollment in registered apprenticeship training programs is still beyond the reach of all but a minute number of women. For example, as of December 31, 1973 there were 38,708 apprentices registered in California, 138 of whom were women. That figure, 138, represents an 80 percent increase over the number of women in apprenticeships registered only one year earlier, at the end of 1972. It takes determination bor- dering on fanaticism and lots of luck for a women to get such an opportunity.

When will we develop a way to let large umbes of women know that the Human Engineer‘ng Laboratory of the Johnson O’Connor Research Foundation has con- ducted studies which show that of the twenty-two ap- titude and knowledge areas they measured, there is no sex difference in fourteen areas; women exce! in six areas; and men excel in two? Where will we get funding to enable a devoted organization like Kristy Cook’s American Association cf Women Truck Drivers to train more than a few of the 1000 women on welfare in all parts of this country who — have expressed the desire to sacrifice to learn this oc- cupation? How will these women pull themselves up by

the bootstraps from the barefoot and pregnant status assigned to us as women? They are ready — why aren’t wer Research findings point to another quad area of need — child care services for women in the labor force, both those who work and those who wish to work. Yet week after week and month after month, requests come into the Regional office of the Women’s Bureau asking for ‘references and statistics to prove this need over and over again. Surveys reveal the need a/so for infant care, for twenty-four hour services (especially in resort areas), and for facilities to care for sick children, who are temporarily excluded from their usual child care centers. _

After ten years of extensive travel through thirteen Western States, a year ago I saw for the first time, an industry-born-and-bred child care center which is serving the children of the employees of the Joshua Tree Clothing factory in Gardena, California. The determination and practicality of the President of that company, Bernard Grenell, and the Director of the Joshua Tree Child Care Center, Diana Jones, had led to a happier situation for mothers, fathers, and children who ‘go to work’ next door to each other in a bright, friendly atmosphere.

~ Older siblings who visit the Center during vacations from their schools have benefited as well. The quality of life has improved there through. the recognition that the worker is also a parent.

The miracle of this down-to-earth center is that Grenell and Jones kept on through sixteen months of frustration to open the Center and were not daunted by the initial enrollment of eight children. ‘They built up to the. authorized enrollment of forty-eight in less than a year with one adult for every five children at a cost that penalizes neither the parents nor the management. Joshua Tree is becoming a celebreated saga in the Los Angeles area but the word is being spread much too slowly to benefit children now alive.

Thus we see that some solutions are being developed, but they must be duplicated across the country so that women will not need to keep reinventing the wheel.

State Court

Forced sterilization order appealed to The State of California is apparently in the business of sterilizing ‘‘mentally deficient’’ ‘‘colored females’’. Last summer the Contra Costa Probate Court granted a request by Holly Kemp’s father that he be permitted to have her in- voluntarily sterilized for her own good, for the good of the people of the State of California and, not incidentally, for the , good of her father.

Holly Kemp is a 32-year-old black woman who has been described by her doctors as ‘‘mildly retarded.’’ She lives in a nursing home and although she has spent time in state hospitals for the mentally retarded, she was never officially declared a ward of her father until he decided in 1972 to have her sterilized. He applied for guardian status and two weeks later moved to have her sterilized. In his petition for the sterilization order, Mr. Kemp claimed:

1. That his daughter was sexually active _and that taking care of a child or un- der going an abortion would be dangerous to her health;

2. That both his daughter and a son are mentally retarded and that any issue would undoubtedly also be mentally retarded;

3. That any children would be a financial burden on the people of the State of California or on her father.

ACLU-NC is representing Ms. Kemp in her appeal to the California Court of Appeal. The sterilization operation has been postponed pending the outcome of the fase.

When the matter came before the trial court, a Public Defender was appointed to represent the interests of Holly Kemp. At the hearing, Mr. Kemp testified and various medical rerports were admitted into evidence. No evidence was presented on behalf of Holly Kemp and no witnesses were called for her. All of the evidence was hearsay in that none of it was direct eens yet no objection was made.

On appeal ACLU argued: (1) that the Seobite court had no authority to issue a mandatory involuntary sterilization or- der ; (2) that the order violated her right to privacy and free expression, and served no compelling state interest which could not be served by less restrictive means of birth control ; (3) that the sterilization was cruel and unusual punishment, punishing her for her status as a mentally retarded person who might have a child unac- ceptable to her father; (4) that it was a_ denial of equal protection of the laws, because, had she been an inmate in a mental institution, involuntary steriliza- tion could only have been carried out pursuant to more rigorous standards and procedures set forth in the Welfare and Institutions Code, Section 7254. She was thus treated differently by virtue of her not being so mentally retarded that she required full hospitalization; and (5) that she was incompetently represented by counsel below. Were not the consequences of the court action so serious, the facts would indeed by ludicrous. Ms. Kemp has never been pregnant and no direct evidence was even presented that she had et ever had intercourse. Her father said that her doctor said that she said that she had once had intercourse. The doctor, however, said it was the father who told him that she had had intercourse. Ms. Kemp’s counsel failed to even challenge these contradictory hearsay -statements. No serious attempt was made to use birth control pills, nor was an intrauterine device prescribed. Ms. Kemp lives in a home occupied solely by women and is under constant escort when she travels.

Not one of the twleve documents relied upon by the trial judge recommended sterilization. In fact the only doctor who. made a recommendation, specifically recommended against sterilization, at least until other birth control methods had been attempted. Most telling of all. the doctors reports is that of the doctor who suggested that birth control pills or an: IUD are ‘‘contraindicated’’. This man described Ms. Kemp, in a letter written in - 1972, as a ‘‘mentally deficient colored female’’. Not even he, however, would directly recommend involuntary sterilization. :

Furthermore, the use in 1972 of the term ‘‘colored’’ which has long since been denouced as a racial slur is indicative of the attitude of many towards eugenic manipulation. It is no different in form than that practiced by the Nazis. It is an insult to the people of this state to suggest that we need to protect ourselves from “*deficient’’ ‘‘colored’’ females by sterilizing them against their will and for the “‘public good.’

Far less grevious measures than sterilization exist to prevent Ms. Kemp’s pregnancy. but these alternatives have not even been explored. The trial transcript merely states that other means of con- traception are ‘‘contra-indicated.’’ In fact, the trial court had before it the letter _of.a psychiatrist which stated ‘‘that the most conservative and reversible methods of birth control should be employed on this patient...the fact of her retardation does not justify the use of the most drastic procedure when less psychologically traumatic methods are available and should be attempted first.’’

The letter is a classic statement of the “least restrictive alternative’? which should have been employed. .

Finally, ACLU Legal Director, Charles Marson argued that Ms. Kemp was denied **due process of law’’ by the failure of her court appointed counsel to provide minimally effective representation. He pointed out that the public defender who was supposed to protect her interests did not object to hearsay evidence, called no witnesses in her defense and did not cross- examine witnesses against her. Marson charges that Ms. Kemp’s counsel was so incompetent that ““‘he might as well not have appeared... This oe was a farce and a sham.’

We have asked the Court of Appeal to reverse the Superior Court’s order for sterilization. No reply has yet been received from counsel for her father.

WOMEN’S RIGHTS

Recent marriage case may expand equal rights By Fay Stender, Member of ACLU-NC Board and Women’s Rights Committee One of the most important court decisions in the emerging field of women’s rights is a California Court of Appeal case not quite six months old: Marriage of . Cary, 34 C.A. 3d 345, 109 Cal. Rptr. 826 (September 26, 1973). The court (First District, Division 1)issueda - unanimous decision affirming the judgement of the trial court (Superior Court of San Mateo), dividing what would have been community property had the parties been married, equally between a man and woman who lived together in a family relationship, although both knew that they were not married.

The Court of Appeal held that a relationship between unmarried parents who had lived together for eight years, and their children, who had lived with the parents and been acknowledged by the father as his own, was that of a *‘family’’ coming within the purview of the Family Law Act. Reasoning from the public policy expressed by the Family Law Act that concepts of “‘guilt’’ and ‘‘in- nocence’” are no longer relevant in determination of family property rights, and that this public policy. supercedes contrary pre-1970 judicial authority, the court held that the trial court was obliged to divide the property equally without considering concepts as guilt or fault. ; :

The man in the Cary situation urged that since both parties appeared ‘“guilty’’ (e.g. both knew they were not married) and the Family Law Act does not expressly cover such a situation, the pre-1970 notion that the law must leave the parties where it finds them was applicable. Said the court: “‘We disagree.’’ On this critical point the court said: 5

**Giving effect to such an argument would lead to an unreasonable result and frustrate the obvious objective of the Act. We should be obliged to presume a legislative intent that a person who by deceit leads another to believe a valid marriage exists between them, shall be legally guaranteed half of the property they acquire even though most, or all, may have resulted from the earnings of the blameless partner. At the same time we must infer | an inconsistent legislative intent that two persons who, candidly with each other, enter upon an unmarried family relationship, shall be denied any ' judicial aid whatever in the assertion of otherwise valid property rights.’’ (34 C.A. 3d at 352).

The court of Appeal could clearly have equitably divided the property of Paul Cary and Janet Forbes without anchoring the decision in the Family Law Act. The court, in a well-reasoned opinion, interprets the general tenor and scope of the entire scheme embodied in the Family Law Act. The case is too recent to have occasioned law review comment, but it is discussed in new materials issued by California Continuing Education of the Bar, Community Property Aspects of Marital Litigation, (in pamphlet form as Program Material February-March 1974) preparatory to inclusion in a new CEB practice book on California Marital Litigation.

Under the heading ‘‘Court’s Jurisdiction to Divide Property’’, and the sub-heading ‘‘Quasi-Marital ‘Property’’ the CEB author states:

It should be emphasized that the Cary case does not require, in fact specifically excludes by definition, the woman in question to be a ““putative ’’ spouse, — e.g., one who believes in good faith that she is married. Cary extends the statutory protections previously extended to putative spouses under Civil Code 4452 to persons living in family arrangements. The definitions of family

[ The editor wishes to acknowledge and express ap- preciation to the people who worked on this special supplement to the ACLU News on Women’s Rights. Nancy McDermid, chairperson of the ACLU-NC Women’s Rights Committee coordinated the writing of the supplement and authored | two of the articles. Other contributors to the supplement were Bea Bain, Madeline Mixer, Marilyn Patel, Eve Pell, Joseph Remcho, Toby Sherwood, Fay Stender and Iverne Willy.

In addition, I would like to acknowledge the layout and production assistance of Rita Friedman.

arrangements vs. casual living arrangements have yet to be drawn. Obviously, as life styles change, and com- munity mores and philosophies change, these definitions will likewise change.

On January 1, 1975, Senator Dymally’s bill to give husband and wife equal management and control over community property, replacing the previous law giving ees and control to the husband, will go into

ect.

In all three of these separate developments, the Cary decision, the Vargas case, the Dymally Bill, we see changes in the law reflecting increased women’s in- dependence and property rights. To the author’s knowledge, three trial court cases in California raise variations of Cary, and the numerous problems of pleading and evidence which the new decision poses. The author maintains a file of materials on these cases and Cary pleadings and papers, which will be made available to women’s rights attorneys and litigants. One of the functions which the Women’s Rights Committee of the ACLU and its proposed Women’s Rights Project hopes to fulfill will be the maintenance of files on important women’s rights cases to assist litigants and attorneys making new law in this field and seeking to extend equal protection of the law, in all its various manifestations, to women who have previously been denied it.

In the opinion of the writer, the Cary case present and resolves equitably, albeit sub silentio, the constitutional issue of equal protection under the law for unmarried women in this state. The equal protection clause of both the Federal and State Constitutions require that persons under like circumstances be given equal protection and security in the enjoyment of their personal and civil rights including the acquisition and enjoyment of property and the enforcement of contracts. It requires that persons similarly situated receive equal treatment.

When a woman enters into a relationship with a man wherein the same companionship, love and affection and mutual obligations and assistance are exchanged as in a de jure marriage, the woman is entitled to a division of the Property acquired as though it had been community property. To deprive her of such property rights absent a compelling state interest constitutes a violation of her constitutional rights. No doubt the phraseology of argument in the cases to follow in Cary will continue to analogize the women in Cary situations to ‘‘de jure wives’’, “‘de facto wives’’, ‘‘putative spouses’’, and will still refer to the exchange of ‘‘services’’ in the ““marriage’’. While the language may contain some of the old ter- minology, the thrust is clearly to recognize new relationships, new independence, and new mutual dependence on voluntarily undertaken relationships.

Women's Literature

formative discussion of women’s problems.

On Sunday, April 7, at 11 p.m., KTVU-TV (Channel 2) in Oakland will air a one-hour program on discrimination against women. Hosted by Public Affairs Director Jan. Zellick, the program ‘‘All the People’’ will feature Marilyn Patel, Carol Murray, Fay Stender and Ingrid Haubrich who are all members of the ACLU- NC Womens Rights Committee. Don’t miss this in-

ACLU has recently published three new pieces of literature on women’s rights. The Rights of Women is a new paperback book published by National ACLU and written by feminist attorney Susan C. Ross. It explains women’s constitutional rights and discusses discrimination in employment, education and criminal law. It charts and lists current laws affecting women and — explains the legal system. The 384-page book is $1.25. ‘‘Update: Women’s Place Under California Law’? is a ~ new pamphlet by Harriet Katz Berman who works for ACLU’s Legislative Office in Sacramento. This piece supplements the original pamphlet which was published last year and it outlines recent developments in the Legislature in the areas of community property, day care, job discrimination, and pregnancy and work. Both **Update’’ and the original ‘‘Women’s Place Under California Law’’ cost $5.00 per one hundred.

Finally, National ACLU has revised its pamphlet, ‘*Sexual Equality, This is the Law.’’ This piece reports highlights of ACLU efforts across the country to expand constitutional rights of women. These too cost $5.00 per one hundred.

All the above publications can be ordered by sending a ‘check or money order to ACLU-NC Literature, 593 Market Street, Suite 227, San Francisco, Ca. 94205.

Women’s Center

Continued from page 7 ; women’s self esteem and feeling of worth. ‘‘This was the only place,’’ states Elaine Kramer, ‘‘women could go where someone would listen to them and they could talk about their problems.’’ ; :

‘‘Women don’t have economic independence,’’ Elaine continued. ‘‘They have either low or no income of their own. Many are unable to qualify for legal services because the income for both spouses is added to determine eligibility. Therefore, they must rely on private attorneys who can collect their fee by getting a court order for the husband to pay.’’

Most calls to the Center concerned family law: divorce, child custody and support, adoption, community property. Elaine Kramer said that divorce was frequently a sort of garbage can of law, a money-making aspect, where attorneys are not often supportive of women clients and frequently do not give them full information or ap-- prise them of various options available. The feminist approach of the Center encouraged women to assert themselves, to see themselves as capable adults, and gave them some knowledge of the workings of the law. For instance, a woman whose ex-husband was failing to make child support payments would be told that an attorney would be necessary to go to court ta obtain an order to’ show cause — and the terminology would be explained to her, as well as the procedure.

The Center ran clinics where women could do their own in pro per divorces. The Center believed in demystifying law so that women would not be initimidated as they went through legal processes and thus would be better able to protect themselves. They also wrote and published a booklet telling women how to keep their own names, or petition the court to resume maiden names. :

I asked Elaine Kramer whether there were sufficient legal resources in the Bay Area available to meet — women’s needs. ‘‘No,’’ she answered. ‘‘There are few: private attorneys for individual cases, almost no money for test cases. A few women’s law firms are doing em- ployment discrimination cases, but at their own ex- pense.’’ She noted that scores of California codes would be in violation of the Equal Rights Amendment if it passes. Many of these inequitable laws could be reformed, if the legal resources existed to challenge them in court.

Legal services, governmental agencies, and specialized women’s groups (Lesbain Mothers Union; Bay Area. Women Against Rape) provide some services, but only touch the surface of the needs.

A central clearing house for women’s rights cases does not presently exist in the Bay Area, and foundations hav been reluctant to fund women’s projects. Laura X. of the Women’s History Resource Center, told me that she had been turned down for funding by over 200 foundations. That Center, also, is closed down.

‘Most women’s projects are not skilled at fund raising,’’ said Elaine Kramer. ‘‘There are virtually no women on foundation or industry boards of directors, no informal network of women like the ‘old boy’ network of business and professional men.’’ The oppression of women, since it is more subtle, psychological and economic, is less apparent to men than the oppression of racial minorities. ‘‘ ‘They deserve what they get’ is a prevailing attitude,’’ she continued. ‘‘Most men don’t think it is a joke, but they don’t think it is that im- portant,’’

The Women’s Legal Center may or may not reopen: ~- its future is uncertain. What is certain is that thre is one less place for thousands of Bay Area women in need of legal help to find information, counselling, and un- derstanding.

COMMENTARY, LETTERS

Disabled students explain rights problems

Editor’s Note: The Berkeley-Albany Chapter, represented by attorney Eugene Rosenberg, has supported the Berkeley Disabled Students Union (DSU) in its efforts to enforce California Civil Code 54.1 part 2-5 which guarantees disabled persons the right to enter public places. Last fall a wheelchair-ridden DSU member attempted to enter a well-known Telegraph Avenue discount record store; the proprietor denied access. Rosenberg successfully challenged the storeowner by calling the Berkeley police and requesting enforcement of the law. The storeowner stepped aside; no citation was issued. The Chapter is working with the DSU on other problems they have. The following article - 4s by two DSU members.

by Michael Williams Scott Luebking

Some members of ‘‘The Pepsi Generation’’ would be turned down for cannot run through fields, or settle down on a log, or in some cases even pick up that bottle. This is not the only thing they would be turned down for. They might be ejected from movie theatres, buses, or public restrooms. And these people’s heinous crime? Being handicapped.

These people (unlike Blacks, Chicanos, or women) form a minority that has yet to be heard from. And that is largely because they have gone unseen. Until recently, these people have been hidden away with relatives or have suffered the stultifying sterility of state institutions.

In places like Berkeley, where many disabled persons attend the university, activists groups have been formed to attain the basic rights of living. And this means creating in the public an awareness of the barriers the physically handicapped en- counter.

When most people go out, they pass ‘brick walls,’” but don’t see them. The handicapped can’t help but see them.

Every day these ‘‘walls’’ block their way. ““Walls’’ like curbs without ramps or too narrow aisles in stores. Or long, beautiful flights of stairs. Just try getting into the main branch of Berkeley’s public library in a wheelchair. The stairs become Mount Everest. And if you do get in, take a look at the fountain or phonebooth or public john. The handicapped need to use these also.

But having access to a building is no guarantee that the ‘‘brick walls’’ are gone. People’s attitudes can form the blocks of these walls. A person with such a disability as cerebral palsy is sometimes refused bar service because of the way he moves or speaks. Most managers of movie’ theatres look askance at persons in wheelchairs rolling into their establish- ments.”’

This same lack of understanding plagues the handicapped househunter. The disabled are trying to move out of the institutions and into places of their own, but many landlords refuse to rent to them. The landlord believes his- insurance rates will increase. He thinks the neighbors will object to the wheelchair ramp the prospective tenant would need to get into his apartment. The landlord is concerned about wheelchairs doing damage to his property. And so on.

Employers often claim that the han- dicapped are insurance risks or that their disability makes them unreliable. They say customers and other employees are up- tight about being around the handicapped. No wonder so many disabled are on welfare.

All of this absurd discrimination results from the general public’s unawareness of the needs and limitations of the physically disabled. Though this is unintentional, it does make the handicapped person a second class citizen and deprives him of his right to liberty and pursuit of hap- piness.

In 1973, this is unexcusable. that company’s commercials. They

LETTERS

Nazis have free speech rights too :

Dear Editor: = Re: Free Speech and'Nazis, February 1974 Issue When I tell you that I am a survivor of Nazi Germany’s concentration camps, I need not describe my personal feelings whenever I see a group of uniformed members of the American Nazi Party or White People’s Socialist Party, as they call themselves. However, my abhorrence of the political philosophy of these people does not give me the right to deny them the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment. —

I was shocked to hear elected officials and other community leaders state that the Nazis couldn’t possibly have ‘‘free speech rights.’’ They apparently based this opinion solely on the grounds that this group advocates beliefs and actions that are reprehensible to most of us and may even be unlawful, as far as the constitution is in- volved. Believing, as I do, that the First Amendment is absolute, I manage to grit my teeth and bear it when I hear their views expressed, as long as they don’t do anything for which they can be J/egally prosecuted.

‘Quite aside from the First Amendment issue, I was surprised to see evidence that these elected officials and other community leaders have so little faith in the basic good sense of the American people. It’s true that much work remains to be done before discrimination disappears from the American scene; perhaps we will never be able ~ to erradicate it completely. But it is also true that the openly racist beliefs of the Nazis have attracted such a tiny number of followers that their number can only be expressed in fractions of percentages. It is obvious that . most Americans are able to see that the ideas advoated by the Nazis run counter to the principles of a democracy in which the rights of individuals are guaranteed. —>

When I hear John Maher of the Delancy Street Foundation suggest that the Nazis should be dragged out and beaten up, I am reminded that these are the same tactics the Nazis in Germany employed with those op- posed to their philosophy before they came to power. Once they actually attained power, they simply ‘‘did away’’ with their opposition, in the truest meaning of that expression. We all know that their reign ended in the death of millions of people, but I will remind Assem- blyman Brown, Ms. Golden and Mr. Maher that it began with the suppression of free speech. ~

: Sincerely, Eva Metzger

Mitford’s fingerprints and the DMV

Dear Editor:

The article in the December issue of the NEWS about the need for Jessica Mitford’s fingerprints brought to mind the fact that the Department of Motor Vehicles is now requiring, without any legal authority, that you submit . your Social Security Number for inclusion on your license. Earlier this year when I applied for renewal of my license I asked if it was necessary to do so and was told that it was not. Accordingly, I did not — and I have a blank space on my driver’s license. Since they already have my picture, they certainly don’t need my Social Security Number for identification, anymore than San Jose State need be concerned about which Mitford they have on their-staff.

Robert Kahn

Wanted: office space This coming August, ACLU-NC’s lease on its present. office space will expire. The organization has outgrown its downtown San Francisco offices and is in the process of seeking new accomodations.

The new facilities must be near a law library so the location is pretty much limited to either the Civic Center area or downtown San Francisco. 4,000 to 6,000 square feet will be required in the new building.

Since ACLU’s office space can be purchased or received by the Foundation, tax-deductibility would attach to any gift of office space. Therefore, a Special Committee of the Board of Directors has been authorized to seek a con- tribution from someone who may ownan office building and is willing to give space or rent it at a reduced rate.

This same committee will be looking into the possibility of buying a building if one can be found which the Foundatin could acquire for a very minimal down- payment and a long term loan. If the committee recommends this course of action, decisions will have to be made about whether the Foundation should obligate itself to long-term debt. One advantage is that the Foundation would receive a bruk on property taxes.

If you or anyone you know either knows of available space, or owns such accommodations and would consider a tax-deductible donation to the ACLU Foundation, please call or write Associate Director Tom Layton, 593 Market Street, Suite 227, San Francisco, Ca., 94105, (415) 781-2597.

Judge’s order protecting speech at Presisdio not appealed

-> "The government abandoned ‘its appeal last: month of a permanent injunction issued by Federal District Court Judge Robert Peckham against the Commander of the Presidio in San Francisco in favor of five members of the Committee for Conscientious Objectors (CCCO) who were forbidden to hand out leaflets on Presidio property last year. The five were represented by ACLU-NC cooperating attorneys, Michael Weiss and John Hansen, and staff counsel Joseph Remcho.

The five CCCO members entered the Presidio last July and began to distribute literature printed by their organization which argued gainst the war and advised soldiers of the ways they might avoid active duty in military service. Military police informed the five that . they were in violation of the Presidio commander’s regulation that required that prior permission be obtained before any leafletting takes place.

Two of the individuals left the army base but the other three were arrested by military police. Charges against them were dismissed but the Commander of the base isued “‘bar’’ letters to them which forbade them from again entering the Presidio.

Since the Presidio has no guards or sentries and maintains roads and facilities for public use, Peckham ~ concluded that it is an ‘“‘open base’’ and that the “‘commander’s restrictions on speech were not prompted by a legitimate concern for the internal security of the base.’’ The judge added that by opening the base, the commander’’ abandoned any right he might have had to restrict the exercise of First Amendment rights.’’

Base commanders have the discretion to restrict public activity and access to a military base in the interest of security but, Peckham found that ‘‘where. internal security is set aside, in favor of public use, one phase of | that use — free expression — however distasteful to the commander, cannot be curtailed by a resort, to the rationale of ‘protection of the base.’ ”’

Peckham therefore ordered the commander to allow CCCO members to leaflet at the Presidio. The govern- ment had filed a notice of appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal but the U.S. Supreme Court decided a case with similar facts the same way Peckham did recently. For that reason, the government finally abandoned its appeal last month. Therefore, freedom of speech will prevail at the Presidio as long as it remains an “‘open base.’