Time: Sat Aug 16 03:38:49 1997
	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)

>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