Time: Sat Aug 16 03:37:18 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA23194; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 20:18:24 -0700 (MST) by usr01.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA09519; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 20:16:47 -0700 (MST) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 20:15:38 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: Freedom of Speech? Not according to UCLA! (fwd) <snip> > >Lawsuit Accuses UCLA of >Suppressing Free Speech >In the Name of Affirmative Action > >Washington, D.C. - UCLA student Alvaro Cardona found that free speech ends >where political correctness and a university's allegiance to race-based >affirmative action begin. > >An experienced and gifted tutor, Cardona applied for a tutoring position >with the university's Academic Advancement Program (AAP), self-touted as >the nation's largest undergraduate affirmative action program. When >Cardona was interviewed for the post, he was not asked about his experience >as a tutor. Instead, was grilled about his beliefs on affirmative action >and was encouraged to show his allegiance to race-based preference >programs-beliefs and policies to which he does not wholeheartedly >subscribe. Cardona refused. > >In early December 1995, the AAP supervisor called Cardona to tell him he >didn't get the job. When Cardona asked for her reasons, she told him that >he was not the proper person to handle AAP students because he did not >wholeheartedly embrace affirmative action. She was also concerned that as >a tutor, Al would stress academics "too much," when in fact it comprised >only 50 per cent of the job. The remainder required "validation" of >students' feelings, and Al's responses to her questions about affirmative >action and discrimination suggested he would not provide enough validation. >Today, August 6, 1997, Cardona is filing suit in U.S. District Court for >the Central District of California against the University of California, >Los Angeles. The lawsuit asks the court to declare that the university's >Academic Advancement Program (AAP) violated the First Amendment to the U.S. >Constitution and Article I, Section 2 of the California Constitution by >attempting to silence dissenting opinions by refusing to hire tutors who >would not swear unyielding loyalty to race-based affirmative action. >"It should come as no surprise that policies based on morally questionable >premises require the suppression of speech antithetical to them if they are >to survive," said Donna Matias, staff attorney with the Washington, >D.C.-based Institute for Justice (www.ij.org), which filed suit on >Cardona's behalf. "UCLA used McCarthyite tactics to defend racial and >ethnic preference programs that are living on borrowed time." > >Alvaro Cardona is a Guatemalan immigrant who moved to South Central Los >Angeles as a child. Although an avid reader and aspiring writer, Cardona >never finished high school but instead dropped out of school to support his >family. Later he earned his GED, attended community college and ultimately >UCLA. During his two years at a community college, Cardona tutored several >hundred students, most of whom were immigrants from a variety of countries. > In the fall of 1995, he enrolled in UCLA's undergraduate history program >and began doing miscellaneous computer work for the AAP. In November 1995 >Cardona's supervisor, the director of the AAP Tutorial Program, encouraged >him to apply for an AAP tutoring job. > >Upon his rejection, Cardona initially took his grievance to the university >legal services office, which told him his was not an isolated incident. > Because they thought he had a strong First Amendment case, legal services >encouraged him to contact the ACLU of Southern California. Four months >later, in September 1996, the ACLU rejected Al's case due to "severely >limited" resources. > >It was surely no coincidence that at the same time the ACLU of Southern >California considered and rejected Cardona's case, it was gearing up for >its lawsuit challenging the California Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI). > Although the law was not passed until November 1996, anti-CCRI forces >began preparing for the likelihood that Californians would vote to >eliminate race and gender preferences in public education, employment, and >contracting. Among the supporters of the ACLU's litigation from the outset >were Charles Young, then Chancellor of UCLA, and Adolfo Bermeo, Director of >UCLA's AAP and one of the defendants in this lawsuit. When the anti-CCRI >lawsuit was filed, both Young and Bermeo submitted affidavits attesting to >the continuing need for race and gender preferences at UCLA. > >To add another twist to this story, in July 1995, the University of >California Regents, the state body authorized to administer the UC system, >voted to eliminate race and gender preferences-the very kind of affirmative >action programs Cardona was urged to support as a condition of employment. >Al Cardona was being asked to endorse a program that the Regents would >later deem inappropriate and that California voters rendered unlawful. >Although this case is a classic free speech case, it also demonstrates the >inevitable constraints on freedom that flow from policies that classify >people on the basis of race and ethnicity. As those policies come under >attack, their defenders rely not on persuasion, but on suppression, >ultimately harming not only the very people whose interests the policies >purportedly serve, but anyone who dares question or criticize the policies. > >"Intertwined in an individual's right to speak freely is the right to >refrain from speaking, that is, to not be forced to swear an oath of >loyalty to a particular political issue or affiliation," said Chip Mellor, >president of the Institute for Justice. "The Supreme Court has held that >loyalty oaths in exchange for a benefit such as employment do not pass >constitutional muster." > >The Institute for Justice (www.ij.org) advances a rule of law under which >individuals control their destinies as free and responsible members of >society. Through strategic litigation, training, and outreach, the >Institute secures greater protection for individual liberty, challenges the >scope and ideology of the Regulatory Welfare State, and illustrates and >extends the benefits of freedom to those whose full enjoyment of liberty is >denied by government. The Institute was founded in September 1991 by >Mellor and Clint Bolick. > > # # # ======================================================================== Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. ======================================================================== [This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail