Article: 9356 of alt.society.civil-liberty From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty Subject: Re: USA TODAY 3-31-93 article on the ACLU Date: 4 Apr 1993 14:55:07 GMT Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93 Lines: 245 Message-ID: <1pmssbINNqha@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> References: <1pf1fkINNhk1@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <1993Apr3.121245.48772@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> In-reply-to: miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu In article <1993Apr3.121245.48772@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>, miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu said: > I'm very interested in the ACLU but missed this article; would anyone > care to summarize it or scan it into a post? Well, what the hell... since that issue of USA Today is now four days old and I seriously doubt that by doing this I'll be costing them any money in lost sales, I'll post the article, without permission... -=-=-=- cut here -=-=-=- cut here -=-=-=- cut here -=-=-=- Copyright 1993 Gannett Company, Inc. USA TODAY, March 31, 1993, Wednesday, FINAL EDITION, Pg. 1A CIVIL DISPUTE WITHIN THE ACLU // Debate over competing principles BYLINE: Dennis Cauchon The ACLU is at war again - this time, with itself. At stake in the battle: nothing less than the soul of the nation's best known First Amendment advocate. The American Civil Liberties Union stands accused by prominent civil libertarians and longtime members of selling out free speech and other principles as it pursues the fight against racism and sexism. "The ACLU is caught in a tug-of-war between civil liberties and the politics of the left, and the politics of the left is winning," says Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, a former ACLU board member. "It's a terrible tragedy." But executive committee member Mary Ellen Gale says it's naive to think equality and liberty can be separated: "Living in the real world teaches you something." The internal fighting has already hurt the ACLU's reputation, earned since its founding in 1920, for standing up for what it thinks is right - public opinion be damned. For example, the ACLU passed a policy in 1990 opposing double jeopardy, trying a person twice for the same crime. But when white Los Angeles police officers were acquitted on state charges of beating a black motorist, the ACLU suspended its policy. The officers now face federal charges. "The ACLU is ready today to sacrifice principle for political expediency," Dershowitz says. The conflict is coming to a head Saturday at a national board meeting when sexual harassment and double jeopardy, two of the most contentious issues, will be voted on. And next month, the Supreme Court will hear a hate crime case that left the ACLU so divided the Ohio chapter filed a brief opposing the national ACLU. Some fear the dispute may someday cleave the ACLU in two, probably with the hard-core First Amendment advocates leaving. "It might end up splitting us apart depending on how far afield policy runs," says Robyn Blumner, executive director of the Florida affiliate. The two camps: Civil libertarians, First Amendment "absolutists." They consider it the ACLU's duty - in fact, its reason for being - to protect free speech, even if it means defending pornographers and racists. To them, the ACLU's high point was in 1977 when it stood alone and defended the rights of Nazis to march in Skokie, Ill., a predominantly Jewish suburb home to many Holocaust survivors. Thousands of members quit in protest. Civil rights advocates believe equality is as important as other rights. They say the First Amendment is no more important than the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees equal protection. And they say speech can be limited if it makes it impossible for women or minorities to get equal educational and employment opportunities. Who wins the fight could have an enormous effect. Only the Justice Department files more briefs before the Supreme Court than the ACLU. And when people's rights are trampled, the ACLU is armed with a $30 million budget, a national staff of 150, an affiliate in every state and hundreds of volunteer lawyers. And it never charges a client anything. It's a matter of principle. President Nadine Strossen and executive director Ira Glasser are trying to broker a compromise between the two factions. "Viewing this as a conflict between civil liberties and civil rights is not a helpful way to analyze these issues," Glasser says. The ACLU has always had conflicts, he says. The right to a fair trial, for example, can conflict with the right to a free press. "We have broad interests," says Strossen. "Other groups have one issue and don't have to find a balance. But this makes us stronger." Finding that balance is proving difficult because most ACLU members are torn in both directions. And on votes, both sides are almost even in strength. Meanwhile, issues that put the competing philosophies at odds are coming up more often: Double jeopardy. The national board's vote to suspend the double jeopardy policy ended in a 31-31 tie, broken by Strossen. The Constitution prohibits double jeopardy, but the Supreme Court has ruled federal and state authorities belong to "separate sovereigns," so it is legal to prosecute a person twice for the same crime. A committee was set up to study the issue, but couldn't reach a conclusion. Instead, each member staked out their own position. Hate crimes. An ACLU committee recommended opposing a law to increase prison sentences for crimes motivated by racial bias. But the national board rejected that position and filed a brief supporting the law in the pending Supreme Court case Wisconsin vs. Mitchell. The Ohio ACLU, which got a similar law overturned in its state, filed a brief opposing the national ACLU. "Let's be honest. It would be very satisfying to set the government loose on racists and bigots," says Ohio legal director Kevin O'Neill. "But you've got to think about the precedent you're setting." Sexual harassment. The Supreme Court has taken a case in which a woman was offended by dirty jokes and vulgar comments by the company owner. She was not denied a promotion or a raise, nor was she touched or propositioned. Last week, the ACLU's executive committee failed to reach a consensus on the issue. Saturday [April 3, 1993], the national board will tackle it. Gale, who backs the civil rights position, says she would have supported civil libertarians 20 years ago. "But . . . it's naive to say the solution to racist speech is just more speech," she says. Gale says restrictions on racist and sexist speech can be drawn without damaging the First Amendment. "You can't have a nice clean set of abstract rules when you have an imperfect world. Your noble principles may not do good. In fact, they may do harm," says Gale. That's the type of talk that makes purists shiver. Blumner got involved with the ACLU after it defended the Nazis in Skokie. "In a world of compromise, there was the ACLU standing up for principle. I said, 'That's the type of place where I want to work.' " But Blumner fears the old ACLU has started down the slippery slope of compromise. The civil libertarian dissidents say the ACLU started to lose its way in 1980, when it implemented an aggressive affirmative action plan. It requires the 83-member national board be 50% female and 20% minority; homosexuals and people with disabilities were recently added to the plan. The board was once controlled by white men, mostly from New York. Critics agreed with the plan's goal, but say the new people were brought in with little regard to their views on civil liberties. "They stacked the board with people drawn from the civil rights movement," says Nat Hentoff, a longtime free speech and civil rights advocate. He says many new board members view themselves as representing constituencies - women, minorities, gays - rather than as representing the Constitution. But, Gale says, "When you put minorities and women in positions of power, it's natural that we're more sensitive to issues of inequality and power. That's a good thing." +----------------------------------------------------+ | End of main article. The following is a separate, | | boxed, sidebar that accompanied the nain article. | +----------------------------------------------------+ Civil liberties vs. civil rights The American Civil Liberties Union is divided by conflicts between its longstanding commitments to civil liberties, emphasizing individual freedom, and civil rights, emphasizing equality. Examples: HATE CRIME SENTENCE ENHANCEMENT Can a jail sentence be lengthened if the victim was targeted because of his or her race? Civil libertarian: Only acts, not beliefs, should be punished. Sentences cannot be increased because the criminal had unpopular beliefs, including racists ones. Civil rights: The government may not be able to limit beliefs, but it can punish some criminal acts more severely than others. If the criminal's motive, such as racism, is harmful to society, he or she can get extra punishment - just as a murderer for profit can get more prison time than a murderer for passion. ACLU position: The national ACLU took civil rights position. The Ohio ACLU took civil liberties position. The Supreme Court hears a penalty-enhancement case April 21. DOUBLE JEOPARDY Can a person be tried twice for the same crime? Civil libertarian: To prevent government harassment, the Constitution prohibits prosecuting a person twice for the same crime. The ban also protects unpopular defendants, such as the police officers who beat Rodney King. Civil rights: The problems of racism in society and the criminal justice system are so severe that blacks would be denied equal justice if federal prosecutors couldn't file civil rights charges against defendants already tried in state courts. ACLU position: The ACLU temporarily suspended its civil libertarian position after the acquittal of the police officers in the Rodney King case. A final decision is expected Saturday. SEXUAL HARASSMENT Is racist or sexist speech protected in the workplace? Civil libertarian: Sexists have free speech rights, too. If the alleged harassment consists only of non-targeted offensive speech - dirty jokes, vulgar comments, etc. - it cannot be punished. Civil rights: Women and minorities have a right, by law, to work in an environment not hostile to them. If a workplace is full of anti-female or anti-minority speech, the worker can sue, claiming harassment. ACLU position: A final decision is due Saturday. Compromise is likely. -=-=-=- cut here -=-=-=- cut here -=-=-=- cut here -=-=-=- -- William December Starr One of the most striking differences between a cat and a lie is that a cat has only nine lives. -- Mark Twain, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar" Article: 9359 of alt.society.civil-liberty From: leb@athena.mit.edu (LARS E BADER) Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty Subject: Re: USA TODAY 3-31-93 article on the ACLU Date: 5 Apr 1993 04:12:23 GMT Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lines: 345 Message-ID: <1pobj7INNe48@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> References: <1pf1fkINNhk1@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <1993Apr3.121245.48772@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> <1pmssbINNqha@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> |> The ACLU is at war again - this time, with itself. |> |> At stake in the battle: nothing less than the soul of the nation's |> best known First Amendment advocate. |> |> The American Civil Liberties Union stands accused by prominent civil |> libertarians and longtime members of selling out free speech and other |> principles as it pursues the fight against racism and sexism. Guilty as charged. I experienced nothing but stonewalling from the CLUM (Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, which I had joined in the belief it supported personal freedom) when I complained about my school's speech code, even though the CLUM's own suggested speech code (which they had mailed to all area schools) was more lenient, and even though a referendum was held recently in which 67% of those voting (over 1000 students) rejected the speech code (called a "harassment policy") because it gave too little room for freedom of speech. Most of the people in positions of power in the ACLU see themselves as being in social change business, not the freedom business. To accomplish sweeping social change, behavior modification is necessary, and that means punishing the losers if they resist. My CLUM newsletter and ACLU mailings continually wail about the menace of the religious right, notwithstanding the unpopularity of religious conservatives and their inability to enact their views into law. It has never once acknowledged the threat from the left. In fact, it and the national ACLU *are* the threat from the left, supporting mandatory imposition of "comparable worth" schemes in setting pay, even though this would artificially limit the pay that many people get notwithstanding the market's willingness to pay more. A staffer from a civil liberties law firm in Massachusetts characterized the CLUM as alternating between indifference and hostility in its attitude toward freedom of expression. Nancy Gertner, an attorney for the CLUM, has in fact spearheaded the attack on freedom of speech in Massachusetts. Testifying before the Massachusetts legislature, she declared, "We [feminists] will dictate the workplace mores of the 1990's." "It will be incredibly traumatic," she gloated. This sort of sadism is not appropriate in a civil liberties or civil rights organization. When the CLUM held its celebration of the Bill of Rights, which they supposedly enforce, they made Gertner the keynote speaker. The activities done for the Bill of Rights theme consisted solely of a youth group formed to discuss racism, even though the Bill of Rights do not mention race at all. To the CLUM, the Bill of Rights is an inkblot into which they can read their own social agenda, without reference to the actual language of those protections. |> |> "The ACLU is caught in a tug-of-war between civil liberties and the |> politics of the left, and the politics of the left is winning," says |> Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, a former ACLU board member. "It's |> a terrible tragedy." Dershowitz is hardly an apologist for racism or other isms. Quite the contrary, he has been very outspoken against prejudice. His views are generally in line with traditional left-wing positions. His criticisms should carry great weight. |> |> But executive committee member Mary Ellen Gale says it's naive to |> think equality and liberty can be separated: "Living in the real world |> teaches you something." |> |> The internal fighting has already hurt the ACLU's reputation, earned |> since its founding in 1920, for standing up for what it thinks is right |> - public opinion be damned. |> |> For example, the ACLU passed a policy in 1990 opposing double |> jeopardy, trying a person twice for the same crime. But when white Los |> Angeles police officers were acquitted on state charges of beating a |> black motorist, the ACLU suspended its policy. The officers now face |> federal charges. |> |> "The ACLU is ready today to sacrifice principle for political |> expediency," Dershowitz says. |> |> The conflict is coming to a head Saturday at a national board meeting |> when sexual harassment and double jeopardy, two of the most contentious |> issues, will be voted on. They did vote. The sexual hysterics won. And free speech lost. |> |> And next month, the Supreme Court will hear a hate crime case that |> left the ACLU so divided the Ohio chapter filed a brief opposing the |> national ACLU. |> |> Some fear the dispute may someday cleave the ACLU in two, probably |> with the hard-core First Amendment advocates leaving. I hope so. Free speech has lost. And it has no real advocates left. There are many "civil rights" organizations. There was only one general-purpose civil liberties organization, the ACLU, and now it has been lost (at least at the national level). It's time to set up another organization to support the first amendment. In the meantime, there are easy ways to fight back. Members of the ACLU can stop giving money to the national organization, and instead direct it to local organizations that still do support civil liberties, telling them why they are getting the money. The Ohio branch is one good branch. I have heard good things about the Michigan and Rhode Island branches, too. My understanding is that many other CLU's do not support personal freedom. The California CLU's apparently abandoned freedom of speech quite some time ago, even encouraging grade-school speech codes. Can any of you out there in the ACLU tell how your local branch stands, so that we can know who to support? |> |> "It might end up splitting us apart depending on how far afield |> policy runs," says Robyn Blumner, executive director of the Florida |> affiliate. |> |> The two camps: |> |> Civil libertarians, First Amendment "absolutists." They consider it |> the ACLU's duty - in fact, its reason for being - to protect free |> speech, even if it means defending pornographers and racists. |> |> To them, the ACLU's high point was in 1977 when it stood alone and |> defended the rights of Nazis to march in Skokie, Ill., a predominantly |> Jewish suburb home to many Holocaust survivors. Thousands of members |> quit in protest. Much of the ACLU board at the time were Jewish. But they valued principle so highly they were willing to support even the freedom of Nazis. How different than today's "civil rights" advocates, who hold that any perceived slight to the group they represent should give rise to punishment in a federal court. |> |> Civil rights advocates believe equality is as important as other |> rights. They say the First Amendment is no more important than the |> Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees equal protection. And they say |> speech can be limited if it makes it impossible for women or minorities |> to get equal educational and employment opportunities. They believe it is more important, and in fact that it is the only thing that is important. In recent years, the ACLU has only expended a significant amount of money in speech cases where another issue of concern to the ACLU, like abortion rights, was at stake. In the conflict over speech regulations in the workplace, the "civil rights" advocates have given no weight whatsoever to freedom of speech when they felt it conflicted with equality. But the whole notion of equality requiring an end to personal freedom is problematic. How can there be equality, when one person sits in judgement of another person's right to speak? The claim that "civil rights" advocates make is that the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause somehow abrogates the First Amendment. But this makes little sense. The equal protection clause requires that those regulations we do have be applied equallly. It does not mandate any imposition of new ones. The cant about "equality interests" coming from some in the ACLU is transparently dishonest, because of its lack of constitutional basis. If equality interests can override the First Amendment, then they can also override the rest of the Bill of Rights. The second amendment could go: Wisians may not own as many guns as Afrosaxons. Search and seizure could be justified: seizing property reduces income inequality and could be used to make the races more economically equal. Convicting alleged rapists without a trial of their peers could reduce sexual violence, which could also be portrayed as furthering an "equality interest." When equality is used to justify regulation of personal lives, socialism and fascism are not far behind. |> |> Who wins the fight could have an enormous effect. |> |> Only the Justice Department files more briefs before the Supreme |> Court than the ACLU. |> |> And when people's rights are trampled, the ACLU is armed with a $30 |> million budget, a national staff of 150, an affiliate in every state and |> hundreds of volunteer lawyers. And it never charges a client anything. |> It's a matter of principle. |> |> President Nadine Strossen and executive director Ira Glasser are |> trying to broker a compromise between the two factions. |> |> "Viewing this as a conflict between civil liberties and civil rights |> is not a helpful way to analyze these issues," Glasser says. |> |> The ACLU has always had conflicts, he says. The right to a fair |> trial, for example, can conflict with the right to a free press. |> |> "We have broad interests," says Strossen. "Other groups have one |> issue and don't have to find a balance. But this makes us stronger." |> |> Finding that balance is proving difficult because most ACLU members |> are torn in both directions. And on votes, both sides are almost even in |> strength. Meanwhile, issues that put the competing philosophies at odds |> are coming up more often: |> |> Double jeopardy. The national board's vote to suspend the double |> jeopardy policy ended in a 31-31 tie, broken by Strossen. |> |> The Constitution prohibits double jeopardy, but the Supreme Court has |> ruled federal and state authorities belong to "separate sovereigns," so |> it is legal to prosecute a person twice for the same crime. |> |> A committee was set up to study the issue, but couldn't reach a |> conclusion. Instead, each member staked out their own position. |> |> Hate crimes. An ACLU committee recommended opposing a law to increase |> prison sentences for crimes motivated by racial bias. But the national |> board rejected that position and filed a brief supporting the law in the |> pending Supreme Court case Wisconsin vs. Mitchell. |> |> The Ohio ACLU, which got a similar law overturned in its state, filed |> a brief opposing the national ACLU. |> |> "Let's be honest. It would be very satisfying to set the government |> loose on racists and bigots," says Ohio legal director Kevin O'Neill. |> "But you've got to think about the precedent you're setting." |> |> Sexual harassment. The Supreme Court has taken a case in which a |> woman was offended by dirty jokes and vulgar comments by the company |> owner. She was not denied a promotion or a raise, nor was she touched or |> propositioned. |> |> Last week, the ACLU's executive committee failed to reach a consensus |> on the issue. Saturday [April 3, 1993], the national board will tackle |> it. The ACLU has decided not to oppose the sexual harassment claim, even though it opens the floodgates for massive speech regulation in the workplace. And virtually all of American life occurs in somebody's workplace. So total censorship is not far behind. What happened to sexual freedom? |> |> Gale, who backs the civil rights position, says she would have |> supported civil libertarians 20 years ago. |> |> "But . . . it's naive to say the solution to racist speech is just |> more speech," she says. How so? It's far more naive to think that we can define what racist speech is. Or that "civil rights" advocates can be trusted to make that judgement. |> That's the type of talk that makes purists shiver. |> |> Blumner got involved with the ACLU after it defended the Nazis in |> Skokie. "In a world of compromise, there was the ACLU standing up for |> principle. I said, 'That's the type of place where I want to work.' " |> |> But Blumner fears the old ACLU has started down the slippery slope of |> compromise. |> |> The civil libertarian dissidents say the ACLU started to lose its way |> in 1980, when it implemented an aggressive affirmative action plan. |> |> It requires the 83-member national board be 50% female and 20% |> minority; homosexuals and people with disabilities were recently added |> to the plan. |> |> The board was once controlled by white men, mostly from New York. |> |> Critics agreed with the plan's goal, but say the new people were |> brought in with little regard to their views on civil liberties. |> |> "They stacked the board with people drawn from the civil rights |> movement," says Nat Hentoff, a longtime free speech and civil rights |> advocate. |> |> He says many new board members view themselves as representing |> constituencies - women, minorities, gays - rather than as representing |> the Constitution. |> |> But, Gale says, "When you put minorities and women in positions of |> power, it's natural that we're more sensitive to issues of inequality |> and power. That's a good thing." Already proven false. The "reasonable woman" standard, now part of sexual harassment law, formalizes unequal treatment of men in adjudicating cases. And Gale and company support it. Gale and company do want inequality and power; they just want to be on the other end of it than the one they think they've been on. What we see here is a new form of majoritarian tyranny emerging. The folks who'll be regulated under our new speech codes aren't from the demographic groups that elected our president or our congressional majority. And that isn't an accident. |> |> +----------------------------------------------------+ |> | End of main article. The following is a separate, | |> | boxed, sidebar that accompanied the nain article. | |> +----------------------------------------------------+ |> |> Civil liberties vs. civil rights |> |> The American Civil Liberties Union is divided by conflicts between |> its longstanding commitments to civil liberties, emphasizing individual |> freedom, and civil rights, emphasizing equality. Examples: |> |> HATE CRIME SENTENCE ENHANCEMENT Can a jail sentence be lengthened if |> the victim was targeted because of his or her race? |> |> Civil libertarian: Only acts, not beliefs, should be punished. |> Sentences cannot be increased because the criminal had unpopular |> beliefs, including racists ones. Civil rights: The government may not be |> able to limit beliefs, but it can punish some criminal acts more |> severely than others. If the criminal's motive, such as racism, is |> harmful to society, he or she can get extra punishment - just as a |> murderer for profit can get more prison time than a murderer for |> passion. ACLU position: The national ACLU took civil rights position. |> The Ohio ACLU took civil liberties position. The Supreme Court hears a |> penalty-enhancement case April 21. |> |> DOUBLE JEOPARDY Can a person be tried twice for the same crime? |> |> Civil libertarian: To prevent government harassment, the |> Constitution prohibits prosecuting a person twice for the same crime. |> The ban also protects unpopular defendants, such as the police officers |> who beat Rodney King. Civil rights: The problems of racism in society |> and the criminal justice system are so severe that blacks would be |> denied equal justice if federal prosecutors couldn't file civil rights |> charges against defendants already tried in state courts. ACLU position: |> The ACLU temporarily suspended its civil libertarian position after the |> acquittal of the police officers in the Rodney King case. A final |> decision is expected Saturday. |> |> SEXUAL HARASSMENT Is racist or sexist speech protected in the |> workplace? What *is* racist or sexist speech? Are there gender-based differences? If so, which ones can we talk about? All, or just the ones approved by the National Organization for Women? Would opposition to the ACLU's affirmative action plan be racist and sexist? |> |> Civil libertarian: Sexists have free speech rights, too. If the |> alleged harassment consists only of non-targeted offensive speech - |> dirty jokes, vulgar comments, etc. - it cannot be punished. Civil |> rights: Women and minorities have a right, by law, to work in an |> environment not hostile to them. If a workplace is full of anti-female |> or anti-minority speech, the worker can sue, claiming harassment. ACLU |> position: A final decision is due Saturday. Compromise is likely. No compromise occurred, freedom lost. But this portrayal of the issue is inaccurate. The issue was whether an isolated dirty joke or allegedly sexist comment should be punishable. The "civil rights" advocates, in their vengefulness and lust for power, say it should be. Lars Bader leb@athena.mit.edu Article: 9360 of alt.society.civil-liberty From: leb@athena.mit.edu (LARS E BADER) Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty Subject: Re: USA TODAY 3-31-93 article on the ACLU Date: 5 Apr 1993 04:28:01 GMT Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lines: 13 Message-ID: <1pocghINNfg5@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> References: <1pf1fkINNhk1@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <1993Apr3.121245.48772@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> <1pmssbINNqha@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <1pobj7INNe48@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> Those who want to contribute to organizations that truly do support civil liberties as well as civil rights could give to a number of organizations that do work for personal freedom. Two of them that do so through the legal system are the Center for Individual Rights and the Landmark Center for Civil Rights. The Center for Individual Rights is at the following address: 1300 19th Street NW Suite 260 Washington DC 20036 I don't know the Landmark Center's address, but I think they are also in DC. Article: 9361 of alt.society.civil-liberty From: slp9k@cc.usu.edu Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty Subject: Re: USA TODAY 3-31-93 article on the ACLU Message-ID: <1993Apr5.001124.65738@cc.usu.edu> Date: 5 Apr 93 00:11:23 MDT References: <1pf1fkINNhk1@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <1993Apr3.121245.48772@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> <1pmssbINNqha@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <1pobj7INNe48@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> Organization: Utah State University Lines: 22 > Can any of you out there in the ACLU tell how your local branch stands, so that > we can know who to support? Our campus chapter, of which I'm a board member, is firmly in support of free speech. Personally I've noticed a distinct swaying toward the left in the ACLU. Most of our members are opposed to the Affirmative Action support, as well as the gun control stance of the ACLU. As I've said here before though, the ACLU is still the most effective organization we have and I think they deserve our support. -- ******************************************************************************** Darrell Fuhriman * "I'm delighted to be here with all of you Internet:SLP9K@CC.USU.EDU * who do so much to shape what our people think..." Bitnet:SLP9K@USU * --Our Pres Bill Drop acid, not bombs * to the American Assoc of Newspaper Editors ******************************************************************************** Disclaimer: This is not a disclaimer