American Civil Liberties Union Research Articles

Religious Freedom and the Unintended Consequences of State Religion

1. Introduction[A] union of government and religion tends to destroy government and degrade religion.So wrote Justice Hugo Black in majority opinion in Engel v. Vitale,1 a 1962 school prayer case decided by United States Supreme Court. Today, church-state issues continue to rise to forefront of American politics. In recent years alone, disputes have arisen over public school vouchers and prayers, phrase under God in Pledge of Allegiance, display of Ten Commandments in public meeting halls and courthouses, and proper scope of President Bush's recent Faith-Based and Community Initiative. Across Atlantic, William Carey, recently retired Archbishop of Canterbury, argued in April 2002 that establishment strengthens Church of England by allowing it to build a comprehensive network of parishes throughout entire country, and he denied that establishment has constrained the prophetic voice of Church.2 In contrast, Carey's successor Rowan Williams, who became Archbishop of Canterbury in July 2002, has in past advocated disestablishment of Church of England.3 In Sweden, where Church of Sweden had been state church since 1593, parliament passed a statute providing for formal disestablishment of church on January 1, 2000.4In United States, strongest advocates for giving religion a more prominent role in governmental settings have often been religious conservatives, whereas strongest opponents are often political liberals. For example, in recently decided Cleveland school voucher case,5 Christian organizations like Focus on Family, Christian Legal Society, Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of Southern Baptist Convention, National Association of Evangelicals, and United States Conference of Catholic Bishops filed briefs in support of program, which allowed public funds to pay tuition in private schools (including religious schools). Among organizations filing briefs in opposition to program were NAACP and various public education lobbies, whereas American Civil Liberties Union, People for American Way, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State provided legal representation for some of plaintiffs challenging voucher program. Interestingly, however, several religious organizations also filed briefs in opposition to voucher program, including American Jewish Committee, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, National Council of Churches of Christ in USA (NCC), and two regional Seventh-Day Adventist organizations. Except for NCC, these organizations represent interests of religious groups that are (or in case of Baptists, once were) distinctly in religious minority.A growing body of research suggests that any positive benefits to church with direct support from state are outweighed by indirect effects that undermine church's autonomy and its authority with general populace. (For an excellent introduction to this research, see Stark and Finke 2000, chapter 9). If such research is correct, then advocates of governmental endorsement of religion may be undermining very institutions they seek to support. In this article, we use cross-country survey responses to assess impact of religious freedom and separation of church and state on health of religion throughout world. Using survey responses on frequency of attendance at religious services, we find that government establishment of state religion reduces religious attendance, whereas enduring constitutional protection of religion increases religious attendance.Adam Smith recognized that establishment could ultimately undermine state religion. In The Wealth of Nations, Smith discussed impact of establishing a religion on fervor and effectiveness of clergy in that religion:The teachers [of religion], in same manner as other teachers, may either depend altogether for their subsistence upon voluntary contributions of their hearers; or they may derive it from some other fund to which law of their country may entitle them; such as a landed estate, a tythe or land tax, an established salary or stipend. …

Your personal passport. With security concerns on the increase, governments are measuring the effectiveness of biometrics as a means of secure identification. But can biometrics really deliver what governments are promising?

With security concerns on the increase, governments are measuring the effectiveness of biometrics as a means of secure identification. But can biometrics really deliver what governments are promising?

Inventing and Sustaining a Visible Resistance

In the New Yorker, dated September 24, 2001, Susan Sontag identified a disconnection between “last Tuesday’s monstrous dose of reality” and the “unanimity of the sanctimonious, reality-concealing rhetoric spouted by American officials and media commentators” in the days after September 11. For artists, writers, and intellectuals who encountered a blizzard of expressions produced by media spectacle and government narratives, there were struggles to find adequate and incisive forms of response to the events and their possible causes. Sontag argued that there seemed to be a “campaign to infantilize the public” by licensed voices that systematically avoided acknowledgement that this was “an attack on the world’s self-proclaimed superpower, undertaken as consequence of specific American alliances and actions.”In her distinctions, there were evocations of analyses of American foreignpolicy and military dependency, at home and abroad, to be found in publicationssuch as Chalmers Johnson’s Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire and Catherine Lutz’s Homefront: A Military City and the American 20th Century. Not surprisingly, Sontag’s essay was unwelcome to readers for whom the agenda of American response was set by different texts. For example, Anne Coulter, in “This Is War: We Should Invade Their Countries” in the National Review Online,September 13, 2001, stated, “We know who the homicidal maniacs are... Weshould invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.” Reverend Jerry Falwell on Pat Robertson’s talk show, the 700 Club, on September 13, 2001, declared “I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union), People for the American Way—all of them who have tried to secularize America—I point the finger in their face and say ‘You helped this happen.’ ” Falwell and Robertsonagreed that “we” got “what we deserve.”

How liberty is lost

In the wake of numerous recent changes made in American law and that of numerous many countries following the September 11 terrorist attack, civil libertarians, libertarians, and many others have raised concerns that the nations involved are sacrificing their liberty to enhance their safety. Senator Patrick Leahy expressed concern that the United States was “shredding the Constitution.” Civil libertarian organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have described the government’s penchant toward obtaining new powers after September 11 as an “insatiable appetite,” characterized by government secrecy, a lack of transparency, rejection of equality under the law, and “a disdain and outright removal of checks and balances.” Articles in the popular press express similar sentiments. Writing in the American Prospect, Wendy Kaminer expressed the fear that, “Give the FBI unchecked domestic spying powers and instead of focusing on preventing terrorism, it will revert to doing what is does best – monitoring, harassing, and intimidating political dissidents and thousands of harmless immigrants.” In short, it has been argued that in order to protect ourselves from terrorists, democracy may be endangered, if not lost.

Borders beyond Control

INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION lies close to the center of global problems that now seize the attention of politicians and intellectuals across the world. Take just a few recent examples. Prime Ministers Tony Blair of the United Kingdom and Jose Maria Aznar of Spain proposed at last year's European Council meet ing in Seville that the European Union withdraw aid from countries that did not take effective steps to stem the flow of illegal emigrants to the EU. Blair's outspoken minister for development, Clare Short, described the proposal as morally repugnant and it died amid a storm of other protests. Australia received severe condemnation worldwide last sum mer when a special envoy of the UN high commissioner for human rights exposed the deplorable conditions in detention camps that held Afghan, Iranian, Iraqi, and Palestinian asylum seekers who had landed in Australia. Following the September 1i attacks in New York City and Wash ington, D.C., U.S. Attorney GeneralJohn Ashcroft announced several new policies that rolled back protections enjoyed by immigrants. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Human Rights Watch fought back. So did Islamic and Arab ethnic organizations. These groups employed lawsuits, public dissent, and congressional lobbying to secure a reversal of the worst excesses. The Economist ran in just six weeks two major stories describing the growing outflow of skilled citizens from less developed countries to

Roger Nash Baldwin and the American Civil Liberties Union

“Contradictions abounded in this epochal figure in the pantheon of American liberalism, reform, and radicalism,” writes Robert C. Cottrell of Roger Nash Baldwin, a founding father and longtime leader of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Baldwin had been born into affluence yet spent most of his life allied with radicals. He created the ACLU to check governmental encroachments on personal freedom, yet he delighted in associating with powerful public officials, among them that nemeses of civil liberties, J. Edgar Hoover, director of the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation). Democratic in his politics, Baldwin was an authoritarian at home and in the ACLU office. He combined puritanical moralism with perpetual philandering and unconventional marriages. Although personally frugal and a pinchpenny administrator, Baldwin seized upon the opportunity that his second wife's wealth afforded him to divide his time between a New York town house, a New Jersey estate, and a retreat on Martha's Vineyard. Finally, “While beginning his career as a progressive reformer, he headed leftward, becoming one of America's leading Popular Fronters, before ending up in the liberal anticommunist camp.”

What’s Preparation Got to Do with it?

Williams v. State of California is the lawsuit brought last year (April 2000) by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of public school children in 18 California school districts. According to the ACLU Southern California Docket, the suit charges that children who attend schools that lack such basic and necessary learning tools as books, trained teachers, and seats for are deprived of fundamental educational opportunities and also that the state of California has failed to fulfill its constitutional obligation to provide least the bare essentials for the education of all students. In addition, the suit challenges the of the schools for having a racially discriminatory effect on these children, most of whom are children of (see the Web site at http://www. aclu-sc.org/litigation/docket/williams). These conditions include lack of basic resources (e.g., outdated, defaced, or nonexistent textbooks; little or no access to computers; little or no school supplies; no library access), inadequate instruction (e.g., as few as 13% of teachers with full teaching credentials, frequent use of substitute teachers, consistently unstaffed vacancies), overcrowding (e.g., makeshift and jammed classrooms with inadequate seats, multitrack schedules that limit course length and continuous study), and poor and/or unsanitary conditions (e.g., filthy, broken, or unavailable toilet facilities; rat infestations; leaking roofs; broken windows; and other dangers). Using data from the California Department of Education (DOE), the suit points out that in the plaintiffs' schools, children of color make up 96.4% of the student population, compared with 59% across the state. The plaintiffs are seeking a judgment that would require the DOE to establish a systematic process for identifying and remedying substandard conditions. Meanwhile, Governor Gray Davis and the State of California have claimed that public school conditions are the obligation of local school districts, not the state, and have countersued the 18 school districts named in the lawsuit. However, the California Supreme Court granted a motion in October for class certification in the case, which means that the suit can be expanded to include all children in substandard California public schools (not just students at the 18 originally named schools), suggesting that the court sees the problem as a statewide issue requiring statewide solutions (Smith, 2001). This latest decision has raised considerably the stakes involved in the case because any relief granted to the plaintiffs will now apply to every California school with substandard conditions. For teacher education, a striking and important aspect of this lawsuit is its assumption that access to fully prepared, qualified teachers is not only essential to a good education but is also a major divide in the experiences of schoolchildren from advantaged and disadvantaged socioeconomic and racial groups. This assumption is, of course, quite consistent with the agenda to professionalize teaching and teacher education, best represented in the now widely quoted first report of the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future (NCTAF), What Matters Most (1996): This report offers what we believe is the single most important strategy for achieving America's educational goals: A blueprint for recruiting, preparing, and supporting excellent teachers in all of America's schools ... (p. 3) Tens of thousands of people not educated for these demands have been unable to make a successful transition into the new economy.... Those who succeed and those who fail are increasingly divided by their opportunities to learn ... (p. 11) From this perspective, equal access to good teachers with rich opportunities for all students to learn is the best path to a citizenry educated for democracy. The California lawsuit takes as a given the premise that well-qualified teachers are fully prepared and fully licensed teachers. …

Gambling on the Future

In nearly every state in the union, high-stakes tests are now required both for K-12 and for teacher candidates seeking initial licensing. The tests are more than deserving of their name--in many states, the ultimate stake for is graduation from high school, and the stake for teacher candidates is entry into the teaching profession. Numerous commentaries locate the high-stakes testing movement within the context of larger discussions about the need for improved instructional skills and more professional teacher licensing procedures, on one hand, and for higher learning standards and more public and standardized assessments of students, on the other. Unfortunately, many of the larger discussions about testing are also connected to the long history of criticisms of teachers as mediocre students, semiskilled workers, less-than-literate individuals, and members of minor or profession. Although many states are embroiled in major controversies about high-stakes testing for and teachers, Massachusetts--once regarded as leader in terms of its support for K-12 and higher education--now seems to enjoy the dubious distinction as the state that has earned the greatest national and international negative publicity about high-stakes tests. Some recent events from Massachusetts make this point, including the following: * In June 1999, some 20,000 Massachusetts teachers marched to the State House to protest what they referred to as a year of teacher bashing, year that began with dismal test scores for prospective teachers publicized worldwide (59% of initial test takers failed) and with the Massachusetts Speaker of the House referring to teachers and their teachers (i.e., teacher educators and schools of education) as idiots (Vigue & Daley, 1999). * In May of this year, hundreds of Massachusetts students, teachers, and parents protested the state's Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) exam, which by the year 2003 will be required for high school graduation. A petition with more than 7,000 signatures calling for repeal of the law that requires the test was carried to the governor's office by student protesters. Speakers at protest rallies across the state included spokespersons for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union, and parents and from urban, suburban, and rural Massachusetts schools and school districts. Protesters publicly rejected the test, which African American and Hispanic fail at higher rates than do White students. They argued that it unfairly punishes students in urban areas and those from low-income families. Young people carried signs with giant red slashes through the letters MCAS, and other carried placards with the words = MORE CHILDREN ARE SORTED (Vaishnav, 2000). This ingenious (and, from my perspective, quite accurate) rendition of the acronym is not unlike some of those invented by angry adolescents who, near the beginning of the 16 testing sessions it would take to complete the test, told their counselors that MCAS really stood for MASSACHUSETTS CONSPIRACY AGAINST STUDENTS (D. Krause, personal communication, April 18, 2000). * Also in May, the Massachusetts State Board of Education approved the testing of teachers who teach math in school districts where 30% or more of fail the math portion of the test. This new regulation is one of the most recent in the country to mandate testing of veteran teachers. Based on test results, the failing teachers (of failing students) will be required to undergo additional training and professional development but will not be fired. Termination was to have been the result of test failures for veteran teachers in legislation brought forward last year by Massachusetts Governor Paul Cellucci. …

The New Enemy of Privacy: Big Bucks

evidence presented here points to a conclusion that is both obvious and often ignored that currently the main danger to privacy for people who live in free democratic societies comes from the private sector, not the government; Big Bucks, not Big Brother. This danger is highlighted by the sources of systematic, authorized abuse of personal information, as distinct from occasional unauthorized use of such information by some rogue employee or merchant. It is further supported by an examination of the lineup of those who oppose new measures seeking to protect privacy in general and medical privacy in particular. Progressive people have long viewed the government as the enemy of privacy. It has been shown that, in the J. Edgar Hoover age, the FBI and local police forces often opened the mail and tapped the phones of civil rights leaders and antiwar activists. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) protests programs of mandatory drug testing and searches of school lockers by local authorities. Cyber-libertarians vigorously object to govern-

Free Speech: The Lost Years

Free Speech: The Lost Years David M. Rabban In this essay, I intend to cover three basic topics. First, I will explain how I became inter­ ested in the history offree speech in the United States before World War I. Second, I will present an overview ofmy unexpected discoveries about this history in the years between the Civil War and World War I. Finally, I will conclude by pointing out what I perceive to be some striking similarities between the analysis offree speech before World War I and significant current criti­ cisms of First Amendment decisions by the Supreme Court since the 1970s. My interest in free speech before WorldWar I first developedwhile I was a student at Stanford Law School between 1971 and 1974. During my three years at Stanford, I took general survey courses in constitutional law and American legal history, advanced courses in constitutional law, and seminars in constitutional history and free speech. As I completed these classes, I increas­ ingly was struck by the common, though largely unarticulated, assumption that no significant legal interpretation of free speech had occurred between 1801, when the Sedition Act of 1798 expired, and 1917, when Congress passed the Espionage Act soon after the United States en­ teredWorldWar I. Scholars typically viewed Justice Holmes’ 1919 decision in Schenckv. United States' as the Supreme Court’s initial confrontation with the meaning offree speech, and “Free­ dom of Speech in War Time,”2 published three months later by Professor Zechariah Chafee, Jr., as the earliest major law review article dealing with the subject. They similarly regarded the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), founded in 1920, as the first significant organization devoted to defending freedom of expression. Many perceived the legal history of free speech since World War I primarily as the development of a “worthy tradition”3 of protection for un­ popular speech, begun by the famous, mostly dissenting, opinions ofJustices Holmes and Brandeis from 1919 through the 1920s, and reaching fruition in a series of landmark decisions by the liberal Supreme Court in the 1960s and early 1970s. 146 JOURNAL OF SUPREME COURT HISTORY By the end ofmy third year oflaw school, I questioned the assumed absence of legal dis­ putes over free speech during the long period between 1800 and 1917. The social unrest of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centu­ ries—the years immediately before the sup­ posed beginning ofFirstAmendmentjurispru­ dence—seemed especially likely to have pro­ duced debate and litigation about free speech. Just in the decades immediately before 1917,1 suspected, agitation by workers, anarchists, and advocates of birth control tested the meaning of free speech. My hunch proved correct, and my recent book, Free Speech in Its Forgotten Years (Cambridge University Press, 1997), is the re­ sult. An enormous variety ofcases at all levels of the judicial system refutes the widespread assumption that litigation over free speech be­ gan abruptly with prosecutions under the Es­ pionage Act of 1917. These cases, however, have been obscured ever since Chafee mini­ mized and mischaracterized them in his 1919 article, “Freedom ofSpeech in WarTime.”4 Re­ lying uncritically on Chafee, subsequent schol­ ars have not independently examined the pre­ war period. They exceed even Chafee in their neglect of the substantial litigation over free speech before World War I. For example, no major casebook on constitutional law includes a single decision before 1917 in its section on freedom of expression.5 Only a few scholars have tried to explain the assumed absence ofearlierjudicial encoun­ ters with free speech issues. Like most people interestedin constitutional matters, these schol­ ars think mostly about the federal courts, par­ ticularly the Supreme Court. As a result, they have focused on possible factors limiting fed­ eral jurisdiction. The text ofthe First Amend­ ment prohibits only Congress from abridging free speech. Some have asserted that the Sedi­ tion Act of 1798, which expired in 1801, was the only federal legislation before the Espio­ nage Act of 1917 that posed significant threats to free speech. An important Supreme Court decision in 1812 held that federal courts did not have jurisdiction over common-law crimes,6 thereby reducing their exposure to free speech issues. The ratificationofthe Fourteenth...

Examining the Creation-Evolution Issue as a Humanities Course

In early 1981, the 73rd General Assembly of the State of Arkansas in regular session passed Senate Bill 482 without debate. Governor Frank White, immediately signed the bill, admitting that he hadn't read it, and it became state law as Act 590, the “Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act.” A suit on behalf of 23 plaintiffs was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on May 27, 1981, and a trial before Federal Judge William Overton was scheduled for October and then postponed until December, 1981. The trial began on December 7, 1981, and it received national attention. The ACLU called well-known expert witnesses in both religion (Bruce Vawter, George Marsden, and Langdon Gilkey) and science (Francisco Ayala, G. Brent Dalrymple, Stephen Jay Gould, and Carl Sagan). The state's witnesses were creationists associated with the Geoscience Research Institute, Loma Linda University, California (Harold Coffin, Ariel Roth), and the Creation Research Society, Ann Arbor, Michigan (Wayne Friar, Margaret Helder, Donald Chittick, Robert Gentry). Its “star” witness, at least in the eyes of the press, was Chandra Wickramasinghe, University College of Wales. The trial did not involve any of the high profile creationists, such as Henry Morris or Duane Gish, from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) in San Diego, even though it was disclosed that Wendall R. Bird, an attorney associated with (ICR), had written the act. Both sides called local educators. Judge Overton issued his ruling and an injunction permanently prohibiting enforcement of Act 590 on January 5, 1982. The state did not appeal his ruling.

Sacred or Profane? The Cross at Mount Davidson Park, San Francisco

civil liberties organizations and the city of San Francisco over the fate of a 103-foot concrete cross built by the city in 1934 as a public monument in Mt. Davidson Park. Located atop the city's highest hill, the cross is visible for miles around the Bay area. In July 1990 Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, the American Jewish Congress (AJC), and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a suit against the city of San Francisco in the Federal District Court of Northern California.1 They challenged the constitutionality of locat-

Medical-record bill criticized: Groups: legislation won't safeguard patient privacy

Its stated goal is medical-record privacy protection, but critics say a bill comes up short safeguarding patient information. Introduced by Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah), The Medical Records Confidentiality Act of 1995 (S. 1360) aims to establish federal privacy protection for health information contained in either paper or electronic form. If enacted, it would be the first federal-level law to guarantee medical-record confidentiality. Bennett, who chairs the Senate Health Care Task Force, claims existing state laws are incomplete and inadequate. But critics, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), are concerned that while the senator9s bill is stronger than some state laws, it is weaker than others. They say the bill9s enactment would kill certain more effective state-level patient protections.

Groups urge legislating medical-record safeguards: Computerization causes confidentiality concerns

Technology itself might not be the enemy, but its potential power has prompted concern among medical professionals, federal legislators and others, about how easily enemies of patient privacy could obtain and misuse computerized medical records. The American Medical Association (AMA) and American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), two groups uncomfortable with the prospect of universal, computerized medical records, have testified separately before two different congressional panels in recent months, urging that privacy be protected as more powerful technology becomes commonplace.

Constitutional Federalism: Labor's Role in Displacing Places to Benefit Persons

During 1980s, federalism was significantly altered by a defining contest between persons and places over nature of federal union. At issue was extent which the authority of can be extended to persons of citizens (Federalist 15) and, thereby, supersede sovereign state powers and local self-government. Places lost, leaving them with no workable doctrine defend state-local powers against federal power. U.S. Supreme Court seemed abandon field, abdicating its role as umpire of federal system (Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority 1985). decisive action occurred in 1980s, in part, because battle lines were drawn starkly. On one side, President Ronald Reagan and soonto-be Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, among others, adhered view of federalism expressed in Reagan's first inaugural address: the Federal Government did not create States; States created Federal Government. On other side were adherents view expressed by Senator William H. Seward in 1850: The States are not parties Constitution as States; it is Constitution of people of United States. As Justice Harry A. Blackmun later put it: Ours ... is a federal republic, conceived on principle of a supreme federal power and constituted first and foremost of citizens, not sovereign (Coleman v. Thompson 1991). debate became acrimonious in 1985 when U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese III suggested American Bar Association that Court had violated original intent of federal Constitution by selectively applying provisions of U.S. Bill of Rights states via Fourteenth Amendment. This provoked an unusual public rebuke from Justices William J. Brennan, Jr., and John Paul Stevens. executive director of American Civil Liberties Union called Meese the James Watt of Constitution. Given some of underlying issues and line-up of actors, state and local officials were hard put defend federalism.

The Rights of Patients: The Basic ACLU Guide to Patient Rights

The Rights of Patients , by George J. Annas, is the second edition of this text, revised from the 1975 publication The Rights of Hospitalized Patients . This is one of a series of handbooks published in cooperation with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The author is a professor of law, a respected spokesman for human rights, and a frequent commentator on health law and ethics. The book is written for the laity, and the language is clear, straightforward, and free of jargon. Definitions generally are precise and helpful. In his introduction the author states that the most powerful concept shaping the practice of modern medicine is the recognition that patients have human rights and that the recognition of human rights is the only force powerful enough to prevent medicine from becoming an impersonal and dehumanizing industry. Without denying the latent power of human rights and the desire of many of

In Defense of American Liberties: A History of the ACLU

Throughout the 1988 Presidential campaign, George Bush drew cheers from supporters by attacking Michael Dukakis's membership in the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), an organization that he charged was out of the mainstream of American life. Indeed, throughout its history, the organization has championed some decidedly unpopular causes, including free speech rights for racist groups and due process for even the most vicious criminals. But as Samuel Walker argues in his provocative new book--the first comprehensive history of the ACLU--the organization has played a leading role in shaping principles of individual freedom that are now a cornerstone of American law and the way all of us conceive of personal liberty. It has been involved in most of the Supreme Court's landmark cases expanding individual rights, and today argues more cases before the Court than anyone but the federal government. In fact, as American Liberties makes clear, the organization has played a central role in creating that mythical American mainstream that its opponents so often invoke. In fascinating detail, Walker recounts the ACLU's stormy history since its founding in 1920 to fight for free speech. He explores its involvement in some of the most famous causes in American history, including the Scopes Monkey Trial, the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, the Cold War anti-Communist witch hunts, and the civil rights movement. And he examines its most famous personalities, such as its puritan and autocratic founder Roger Baldwin; Felix Frankfurter, a long-time member who later voted against many ACLU cases while a Supreme Court justice; and Morris Ernst, who won the landmark case involving James Joyce's Ulysses and led the ACLU to take up the cause of free expression for sexually-frank publications. Walker deals candidly with the ACLU's less praiseworthy episodes--such as the expulsion of Elizabeth Gurley Flynn from the Board during the ACLU's anti-Communist phase, and he dissects the organization's constant struggle within itself to define the proper scope of civil liberties, revealing facts that will surprise even members of the ACLU. As Walker's engrossing story demonstrates, the history of the ACLU embodies some of the most important changes in American society in the twentieth century. The principles for which the organization has fought--such as free speech, fair play, equality, and privacy--are now accepted and cherished by Americans from all walks of life.

ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO URINALYSIS IN THE DETECTION OF DRUGS

Detecting drugs in the workplace by means of urinalysis has been subject to a great deal of controversy as its acceptance by employees, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), state legislatures and unions varies considerably. A multitude of technical and practical reasons continue to support the belief that there is no viable substitute for urinalysis. Because of the susceptibility of urine testing alternatives methods of drug detection need to be explored. This paper examines physical alternatives as well as psychological tests that may be useful alternatives.

Interest Group Litigation to Enforce Human Rights

Human rights law groups began a major policy-making initiative in the 1980s to persuade United States courts that new international norms have binding legal effect. Since the 1950s the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and environmental and consumer public law interest groups have successfully used litigation to change government policy on racial segregation, prisoner's rights, conservation, and product liability.I Human rights advocates had no such success until the 1980s, when several federal courts made unprecedented decisions based on international law. In Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, the appeals court ruled that the federal district court had jurisdiction to hear an alien's tort claim against a Paraguayan national for violating the

Madness, Myths, and Reality: Response to Roberta Rose

In this article, two mental health consumers respond to Roberta Rose's article, Schizophrenia, Civil Liberties, and the Law. The consumers argue that the real issue is no longer whether or not mental illness really exists, as Rose says the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other civil libertarians have contended in the past while challenging the basis for involuntary civil commitment. Rather, the real issue now for many mental health consumers is whether community-based services and self-help-oriented treatment alternatives are finally going to