08-12-99 ACLU Newsfeed -- ACLU News Direct to YOU! ---------------------------------------------------------------- IN THE ACLU NEWSROOM **The Latest News Can Always Be Found At:** http://www.aclu.org/news/pressind.html * ACLU Secures Free Speech Rights for State University Students in San Diego * Appeals Court Allows Rights Groups to Enter Michigan University Affirmative Action Battle * ACLU Urges Sacramento Officials to Defeat Unconstitutional Vehicle Seizure Ordinance * ACLU Leads Young People on Mission Targeting Teen Homelessness * New Jersey High Court Says Ban on Gays in Boy Scouts Must Go * ACLU Demands San Diego End Public Subsidy of Boy Scouts * ACLU Applauds United Airlines' Decision to Extend Domestic Partnership Benefits to Employees Nationwide * Other Recent ACLU Press Releases ----------------------------------------------------------------- ACLU Secures Free Speech Rights for State University Students in San Diego FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Wednesday, August 11, 1999 SAN DIEGO -- In a settlement announced today by the American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego & Imperial Counties, state university officials here agreed to rescind all disciplinary action against a student who refused to remove a political sign containing a vulgar four-letter word from the window of his dormitory room. As part of the agreement, the university will revise its policies on student expression on campus. The University also agreed to correct every constitutional deficiency raised by the ACLU in a federal lawsuit filed last spring on behalf of student and National Merit Scholar Ben Shapiro. "This agreement takes the university out of the business of censorship and restores free political expression for students," said Jordan Budd, Managing Attorney for the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties. "The unfettered exchange of ideas, including those that are provocative and controversial, is not only guaranteed by the Constitution, but is also essential to the mission of the University and to a free society," he added. Shapiro had placed a hand-made sign reading "Fuck Netanyahu and Pinochet" in his window last November after reading in the London Times about former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's involvement with biological weapons research and the arrest of former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet for crimes against humanity. Shapiro said he used provocative wording to get people's attention and to provoke debate on human rights and morality. After refusing to take the sign down, Shapiro was charged with violating University regulations on posting notices, which prohibit "offensive" materials and the use of "fighting words." He was ordered to perform three hours of community service as punishment for his alleged infractions. In its lawsuit -- filed on the eve of the deadline for Shapiro to serve his "sentence" and after University administrators had ignored a letter bringing the matter to their attention for over a week -- the ACLU asserted that the University's policies violated First Amendment free speech protections by being vague and subjective, failing to treat all verbal harassment under the same standard, and giving University administrators unbridled authority to suppress political viewpoints or word choices they did not like. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that university officials may not censor student political expression on the basis that, in their view, it exceeds the bounds of good taste, the ACU said. The Court has also ruled that fighting words lose the protection of the First Amendment only when they are directed at an individual in a face-to-face confrontation in a way likely to incite immediate violent reaction. The ACLU argued that the application of a fighting words policy to a written political statement about two politicians who are thousands of miles away was not only unconstitutional, but absurd. "It is reassuring to me that the principles of American freedom and justice that I am learning inside the classroom also apply to the world outside the classroom, including the UCSD campus," says Shapiro, who begins his second year at the University next month. The settlement agreement filed with the court today requires the University to: -- Immediately rescind all disciplinary charges levied by the University against Shapiro and to expunge all references to the incident from his college record; -- Revise its policies regarding the posting of flyers, posters, and banners to prevent University administrators from censoring the content of those notices. The new policy will specifically state that the University may not restrict messages posted in dormitory windows; -- Clarify the meaning of its "fighting words" policy to make it clear that the policy may not be used to censor student political expression. The "fighting words" policy is designed to punish hate speech that intentionally harasses students to the point of substantially impairing their ability to participate in University activities or to use University facilities; -- Revise University materials regarding student discipline to clarify students' appeal rights; and distribute the new policies to students and administrators. In addition, the University has agreed to review its University-wide policies for the purpose of implementing an improved harassment policy which does not threaten First Amendment rights, and also to consider revising its Student Conduct Code to include the right to challenge a disciplinary action based on legal or constitutional grounds. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Appeals Court Allows Rights Groups to Enter Michigan University Affirmative Action Battle FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Tuesday, August 10, 1999 DETROIT -- A federal appeals court ruled today that African American and Latino high school students here have a "direct and substantial" interest in the outcome of a lawsuit over the University of Michigan's affirmative action policies and should be allowed to participate in a pending trial. The decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reverses a lower court's October 1998 ruling excluding the students from the case. The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan and the national ACLU, members of the legal coalition acting on the students' behalf, welcomed today's ruling. "As the appeals court recognized, a ban on affirmative action in University admissions directly threatens the chances that qualified African American and Latino applicants will be admitted," said Michael J. Steinberg, Legal Director of the ACLU of Michigan. Other coalition members are the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Citizens for Affirmative Action's Preservation (based in Detroit). In the lawsuit, Gratz v. Bollinger, two white students are claiming that the University of Michigan's admissions policy constitutes "discrimination." Although the students claim to support equal opportunity, the civil rights coalition members argue that with the lawsuit they have, in fact, launched an all-out attack on one of the fairest, most effective tools for ending discrimination. "The sad truth is that racial discrimination in America is not just a thing of the past," Steinberg said. "The Constitution's Equal Protection Clause does not bar universities from pursuing diversity." Indeed, he said, the simplest way to understand what is at stake in this controversy is to examine the recent experiences of the University of California and the University of Texas, where minority enrollment plummeted when those schools' affirmative action plans were dismantled. The court found those numbers significant as well, noting that the "recent experiences in California and Texas" leave "little room for doubt" that a ban on affirmative action may result in "a substantial decline in the enrollment of these students...if the University is precluded from considering race as a factor in admissions." The University of Michigan is the state's flagship public institution of higher education and a leader in promoting racial diversity. In seeking to enter the case, the rights coalition argued that the University, faced with internal and external institutional pressures, might not adequately protect their clients' interests. They also argued that the University is at less risk of harm than the students if it loses this case. The court agreed with that analysis as well. "We find persuasive their argument that the University is unlikely to present evidence of past discrimination by the University itself or of the disparate impact of some current admissions criteria ...[.]," the court wrote. In issuing its ruling today, the court also granted a motion to intervene in a concurrent case, Grutter v. Bollinger, brought against the University of Michigan's law school. Gratz v. Bollinger, Civil Action No. 97-75321, will now likely move forward to a trial under federal judge Patrick J. Duggan in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, where the case was originally filed. Motions and briefs of proposed intervenors in Gratz v. Bollinger can be found at: First Amended Motion to Intervene http://www.aclu.org/court/gratz_motion_intervene.html Reply Memorandum of Proposed Intervenors Ebony Patterson et. al. http://www.aclu.org/court/gratz_reply_intervenors.html Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Motion to Intervene http://www.aclu.org/court/gratzvbollingermemo.html ----------------------------------------------------------------- ACLU Urges Sacramento Officials to Defeat Unconstitutional Vehicle Seizure Ordinance FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Monday, August 9, 1999 SACRAMENTO -- The American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California is urging city officials to reject a proposed ordinance that would allow police to seize, claim and sell the vehicles driven by people accused of using them to solicit prostitution or buy drugs -- even if they are later found innocent. In a letter sent to Mayor Joe Serna, Jr. and members of the City Council, the ACLU said the asset forfeiture scheme "embodies the most severe and extreme features of forfeiture laws, and is contrary to fundamental principles of fairness and due process." The ACLU has opposed similar ordinance proposals in Oakland and San Francisco. "We recognize that prostitution and drug traffic adversely impact local communities and are matters of legitimate governmental concern," said Alan Schlosser, Managing Attorney of the ACLU of Northern California and author of the letter. "However, we urge the Council not to establish a harsh and overbroad local forfeiture operation that places at risk basic individual and property rights." Those risks, Schlosser said, include: -- Punishment without conviction. Vehicles can be seized and sold without anyone being convicted, or even arrested, for the underlying criminal offense. Even an acquittal of the criminal charge would not result in the return of the vehicle. -- No presumption of innocence. The basic presumption of our justice system, innocent until proven guilty, is discarded. Once a vehicle is seized, the owner has the burden of fighting the system to regain his or her property, a burden which will inevitably fall most harshly on low-income people. -- Punishment of the innocent. Contrary to federal and state forfeiture laws, innocent owners whose vehicles are used for illegal purposes without their knowledge or consent may still lose their vehicles. Thus, a family could lose its only car under such circumstances, even if the vehicle was a necessity for employment or education purposes. -- Cash bounty system. Asset forfeiture is a law enforcement weapon that directly generates revenue for the government, creating a built-in conflict of interest because the proceeds of the forfeiture sale are split between local law enforcement and local prosecutors. The potential for law enforcement abuse is enormous. The City Council is scheduled to discuss the ordinance tomorrow afternoon. Text of letter from Alan L. Schlosser to Mayor Serna and Members of the City Council can be found at: http://www.aclu.org/news/1999/n080999a.html ----------------------------------------------------------------- ACLU Leads Young People on Mission Targeting Teen Homelessness FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Thursday, August 5, 1999 SAN FRANCISCO-- Twenty Northern California high school students will study youth homelessness in the Los Angeles and San Francisco areas this summer, on a journey sponsored by the Howard A. Friedman First Amendment Education Project of the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California. The participants, all high school students ranging in age from 15 to 18, come from families with a range of ethnic, economic, and cultural backgrounds. Students in this year's project come from high schools in San Francisco, Oakland, Albany, Berkeley, Vallejo, Marin County, Castro Valley, Martinez, Santa Rosa, San Ramon, San Jose, and Watsonville, among others. Their journey, titled "Homelessness: Unplugged," will take place from August 8 to August 17. The students plan to visit drop-in centers, group homes, needle exchange programs, youth clinics, merchant associations, and youth employment centers. They will also conduct "on-the-street" surveys with homeless youth in both the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles. "These trips provide our future leaders with a solid foundation as they grapple with the complex social issues confronting them and the rest of society," said Nancy Otto, Director of the Howard A. Friedman First Amendment Education Project. Now in its ninth year, the project has sponsored three years of summer study projects on immigration, juvenile justice, and tribal sovereignty. The young researchers' work resulted in the publication of two reports, titled "Through Our Eyes, Juvenile Justice: Unplugged" and "Through Our Eyes, Immigration: Unplugged." The students will publish a report on this year's journey and use it in presentations to high schools throughout Northern California in the coming year. ----------------------------------------------------------------- New Jersey High Court Says Ban on Gays in Boy Scouts Must Go FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Wednesday, August 4, 1999 TRENTON, NJ -- In a unanimous decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court today said that the Boy Scouts of America's practice of excluding or dismissing a member solely on the basis of sexual orientation is illegal under the state's anti-discrimination law. The Court also rejected the Scouts' claim that the First Amendment gives them the right to discriminate. The American Civil Liberties Union, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, hailed the decision as a tremendous victory for lesbian and gay rights. The ruling upholds a March 1998 state appeals court decision that prohibited the Boy Scouts from banning gay members. "This decision debunks the notion that just because someone is gay means he or she is unfit to serve in the Boy Scouts or any other civic group for that matter," said Lenora Lapidus, Legal Director of the ACLU of New Jersey. "The Court did the right thing in denying the Scouts' claim that the First Amendment gives them the right to discriminate. People have the right to believe what they want, but that is no more a justification for discrimination now than it was in the South 40 years ago." The case arose in 1990 after James Dale, a Matawan assistant Scoutmaster, was ousted from the Boy Scouts when leaders discovered he was gay. Prior to his expulsion, Dale, an Eagle Scout, had risen successfully through the ranks and earned 30 merit badges and other awards during his 12 years in the organization. "Goverments and local charities have been increasingly unwilling to fund and sponsor Scout programs because the Scouts insist on discriminating," said Matthew Coles, Director of the ACLU's National Lesbian and Gay Rights Project. "This decision is bound to accellerate the trend against anti-gay policies." The court ruled that because the Boy Scouts of America are "places of public accommodation" that "emphasize open membership," they must adhere to New Jersey's anti-discrimination law and cannot deny any person "accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges" because of sexual orientation. While the Boy Scouts vowed to appeal today's ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, the ACLU's Coles expressed doubt that they would hear the case. "The Court rejected a very similar argument that the United States Jaycees, a business association, made to justify excluding women," Coles said. "That was 15 years ago, and the Court ruled unanimously. I doubt they would revisit the issue now." Today is not the first time the ACLU has taken legal action to halt unfair practices of the Boy Scouts. In May 1998, the ACLU blocked an Oregon school district from actively recruiting Cub Scouts since they are required by the Boy Scouts of America to refuse membership to boys who do not "profess a belief in God, recognize an obligation to God and declare a duty to God." For similar reasons, this past April, the ACLU sued to end government sponsorship of Boy Scout programs in Illinois because they violated the constitutional requirement of separation of church and state. The ACLU has been involved in other challenges to Boy Scout bans in California and Washington, DC. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ACLU Demands San Diego End Public Subsidy of Boy Scouts FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Wednesday, August 4, 1999 SAN DIEGO -- The American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego & Imperial Counties and the Tom Homann Law Association today demanded that the City of San Diego stop subsidizing the activities of the Boy Scouts as long as it persists in discriminating on the basis of religion and sexual orientation. In a letter delivered this morning, the two organizations demanded that the City Council and Mayor terminate the City's leases, under which the Boy Scouts operate their headquarters in city-owned Balboa Park for $1 per year and receive rent-free use of facilities on city-owned property on Fiesta Island. After a long series of court battles, the California Supreme Court last year ruled that the Boy Scouts are a completely private religious organization, making them exempt from non-discrimination laws and permitting them to exclude boys and adult leaders who are agnostic, atheist or gay. The City of San Diego has stated that it would wait for the outcome of these court cases before deciding what to do about its subsidy of the Boy Scouts. With those cases complete, the organizations said the time has arrived for the City to address the Boy Scouts' discrimination. "The Boy Scouts can't have it both ways," said Linda Hills, Executive Director of the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties. "If they truly are a private religious organization, free to engage in any form of discrimination they choose, then they are not entitled to a government subsidy. Tax dollars should not be spent to promote intolerance." In their letter, the ACLU and THLA point out that both Boy Scout leases bar discrimination based on religion and provide that the Boy Scouts must abide by all laws and regulations of the City of San Diego. The City's Human Dignity Ordinance bans discrimination based on sexual orientation. The letter asks the City to enforce those contracts by requiring the Boy Scouts either to end their discrimination or to move their operations to facilities not owned by the City. The letter also details the City's constitutional obligation to avoid preference for, or support of, religious activity. The groups said that the Boy Scouts convinced the Supreme Court that instilling religious values was their primary organizational purpose and that the recreational aspect of scouting was secondary. Subsidizing discrimination against gays also puts the City in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. "The City cannot lease away people's rights, including the rights of gays, and atheists to be free from discrimination and to enjoy the use of unique public assets like Balboa Park and Fiesta Island," said M.E. Stephens, Co-President of the Tom Homann Law Association, San Diego's gay, lesbian, and bisexual bar association. "It is time for City leaders to earn their merit badge in diversity by ending their sponsorship of the Boy Scouts." A number of government entities have recently cut their ties with the Boy Scouts because of their intolerance. In 1993, the San Diego Unified School District banned Boy Scout activities from its campuses. Last year, following the California court decision, the City of Berkeley terminated free berthing space at a city marina for two Boy Scout training ships. And recently, the City of Chicago ended its thirty-year sponsorship of the Boy Scouts rather than be forced to defend the Scouts' exclusion of gays and atheists in court in response to a federal lawsuit filed by the ACLU. Both the City and County of San Diego Human Relations Commissions have condemned the Boy Scouts' discriminatory policies and have called on the City to ask the Scouts to vacate parkland. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ACLU Applauds United Airlines' Decision to Extend Domestic Partnership Benefits to Employees Nationwide FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Wednesday, August 4, 1999 NEW YORK, NY -- The American Civil Liberties Union applauds United Airlines for becoming the first U.S. carrier to provide comprehensive fringe benefits to the domestic partnerships of its lesbian and gay employees nationwide. The announcement marks a huge step towards equality in the workforce. "United is the first major U.S. carrier to fully recognize domestic partners," said Matthew Coles, Director of the ACLU's National Lesbian and Gay Rights Project. "Since it is the largest airline in the world, its domestic competitors are sure to follow suit." With United's decision to provide these benefits, transportation becomes the fourth major industry to recognize gay and lesbian relationships. "Social recognition of lesbian and gay couples has largely been the result of efforts to persuade local governments and major businesses to include them in fringe benefit plans," said Robert Kim, an attorney with the ACLU of Northern California. "Until United's decision, most of the progress had come from the high-tech, entertainment, and finance industries. This is a major addition to the growing list of businesses that treat lesbians and gay men fairly." United had previously been ordered by a federal judge in San Francisco to provide travel privileges, bereavement leave and medical leave to both same-sex and opposite-sex domestic partnerships. This order was based on a city law that required anyone conducting business with the city to treat domestic partners on par with married couples. The ACLU, along with Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, appeared in the case as a friend-of-the-court. Matthew Coles, Robert Kim, and Kelli Evans represented the ACLU. ----------------------------------------------------------------- * Other Recent ACLU Press Releases 08-03-99 -- ACLU Praises Cleveland Mayor's Support Of KKK's First Amendment Right to March http://www.aclu.org/news/1999/n080399b.html 08-03-99 -- Courts Growing Wary of Government's Use of "Secret Evidence" in Deportation Cases http://www.aclu.org/news/1999/n080399a.html 07-30-99 -- Judge Says Regent University is Pervasively Religious, Cannot Receive State Support for Bonds http://www.aclu.org/news/1999/n073099a.html ----------------------------------------------------------------- ONLINE RESOURCES FROM THE ACLU NATIONAL OFFICE ----------------------------------------------------------------- ACLU Freedom Network Web Page: http://www.aclu.org. America Online users should check out our live chats, auditorium events, *very* active message boards, and complete news on civil liberties, at keyword ACLU. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ACLU Newsfeed American Civil Liberties Union National Office 125 Broad Street New York, New York 10004 For general information about the ACLU, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe to the ACLU Newsfeed, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with "subscribe news" (without the quotation marks) in the body of the message. ----------------------------------------------------------------- --- You are currently subscribed to news as: [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] To unsubscribe, forward this message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
