Saturday, 20 June 2009
-
ACLU, Defender of Freedom of Speech, Unsuccessfully Flexes Muscles in Failed Effort to Coerce School
From May 17, 1998.
In which we learn that not all speech is loved by America's would-be great lover of free speech.
Those of you who know me and/or my brother, Dave, may know that in 1982 we were sued by Takey Crist, owner-operator of the Crist Clinic, an abortionist in North Carolina for calling medical abortion -- his chosen area of practice -- "murder." At the time there wasn't a Rutherford Institute or an American Center for Law and Justice; in fact, our pro-life friends at National Right to Life here in Washington recommended that we seek legal counsel from the American Civil Liberties Union. We did just that, and for a period of almost a year, we were represented by attorneys with the North Carolina Civil Liberties Union.
During the time that we were represented by the NCCLU, a dispute arose among their board members over representing "anti-choice" extremists like the Henderson brothers. (This was back in the "old days" before Operation Rescue; our most heinous acts consisted of picketing, sidewalk counselling and prayer, all conducted on public streets and rights of way.) As a consequence the board called a meeting in which a vote would be taken whether to continue representing us.
We were permitted to address the board, and to stay for the vote on the question. The debate and the vote was a fascinating study in the contrasts that make up some portion of that "civil liberties" community. The room was nearly evenly divided between men, mostly middle-aged and older, and women, mostly middle-aged and younger. The men, as a group, spoke of the importance of defending even unpopular instances of the right to freedom of speech; the women spoke of the danger to the right to freedom of choice represented by the rhetoric of folks like my brother and me.
The chairman was a woman. She called the question. By a show of hands, the board voted to withdraw from representing David and me. Some member of the board raised a question about the procedure used for the vote, and it was agreed that there would be a second ballot. On the second call of the question, the closely divided board agreed to continue its representation of us. With the NCCLU continuing its representation, we were able to hold out in the case until John Whitehead raised enough funds with his nascent Rutherford Institute to be able to take the place of the NCCLU as our legal counsel.
For most of us, the image of the ACLU is the image of attorneys representing unpopular speakers against efforts to suppress unpopular views. We readily recall images of a Jewish ACLU attorney defending a neo-Nazi march through a community predominately populated by survivors of the Holocaust and their families. Here in Washington, we remember the ACLU winning the right of the Ku Klux Klan to conduct a march through this predominately African-American community. Few of us would have as a first image the ACLU trying to silence someone BECAUSE of their views.
In Washington, however, the state chapter of the ACLU is threatening to sue the Elma School District if it allows a speaker to address a voluntary student assembly. Walt Brown was invited to address students with permission to attend the assembly given by their parents. Mr. Brown's topic was the scientific evidence for special creation of the universe.
The Washington Civil Liberties Union disapproves of the idea and threatened to sue the school district if Mr. Brown gave the assembly presentation on grounds of permitting religion to be taught in the school. According to Associated Press coverage, the deciding vote to allow the presentation was cast by the school board's chairman, Laura Fitzgerald, who commented, "I feel that young people should have the opportunity to learn of the facts of scientific creation as a way to learn how the Earth was created." Following the board's voate, the audience of students, parents and others broke out into cheers.
Elma High School students who wanted to attend the presentation were required to have written permission from their parents. In addition, no teachers or staff would be required to attend. With voluntary attendance the rule for students and staff, concerns about students "being held captive" and "forced" to listen to a religious presentation were eliminated. And the superintendent of schools is planning in the near future to invite a speaker to address interested students on the scientific evidence for evolution.
Washington CLU spokesman Douglas Honig still objected to the planned presentation, claiming that a discussion of the scientific evidence would still violate the separation of church and state. "What you have is advocates of creationism trying to dress it up as scientific creationism to get it into the science curriculum," he said. In an interesting Orwellian doublespeak, Honig denied that the WCLU's demand that the presentation be cancelled constituted censorship.
Of course, for those who have made even a modest study of the ACLU, news that one of its chapters is in the business of silencing voices with which it disagress is not really "news." When the North Carolina chapter represented David and me, they attempted to condition their representation of us on our agreeing to discontinue praying aloud on the public sidewalk near the abortion business. And, in recent cases before the Supreme Court, where the ACLU regularly appears as a "friend of the Court," the ACLU has distanced itself from endangered speakers, including pro-life activists from Florida and New York.
Life changes. The world goes on. But sometimes our presuppositions prove themselves false. So, next time you hear the acronym ACLU, you may not be able easily to picture that group in your mind's eye as the defender of freedom of speech for all; now you may have to be satisfied to think of the ACLU as the defender of speakers it prefers.
-
recommend
- recs 0
-
share
-
email
- sent 0
Post a Comment