================================== "Card-Carrying Member of the ACLU" ================================== [Or, some facts and history Bush forgot to mention in '88] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --> [Send the 1-line message GET ACLU HISTORY ACTIV-L to ] [LISTSERV@UMCVMB.BITNET for a copy of this file. ] --> [Send GET ACTIV-L ARCHIVE ACTIV-L to above address for a ] [listing with brief descriptions of other files available] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --> Transcription of cassette-recording of ACLU Director's speech --> before National Press Club shortly BEFORE '88 election [I thought Ira Glasser's speech was better on the cassette, and tried to re-create the dramatic style with *emphasis*; if this bothers you, I can email a copy of the speech ~without~ any such notation] Speech by Ira Glasser (ACLU national director), before the National Press Club, Washington, DC. October 6, 1988. [I use *'s for *strong* emphasis, and ~ for ~lighter~ emphasis] [also, commas are sometimes used to indicate pauses, etc.] Introduction ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ For several weeks now the American people have heard charges and counter-charges surrounding an organization known as the A.C.L.U., the American Civil Liberties Union. To hear George Bush and Dan Quayle tell it, the ACLU is a group of extremists, who want to take God off the currency, pull the Pledge of Allegiance from the classroom, and permit children to attend X-rated movies. For Republicans, it's sure-fire applause to note that Michael Dukakis is a, quote: "Card-Carrying member of the ACLU." To hear Michael Dukakis and Loyd Bentsen tell it, the ACLU stands for worthy ideals, even if it does get carried away from time to time. And the Democrats fume that George Bush is guilty of McCarthy-like tactics to imply that joining the ACLU is somehow unpatriotic. Well, to help us sort it all out, today we have with us someone who's proud to be a card-carrying member of the ACLU, the organization's executive director, Ira Glasser. While there may be a partisan debate over ACLU specific positions, surely both Republicans and Democrats treasure its professed ideals: to uphold the Constitution, to protect the rights of all Americans, to defend the freedom of religion, the freedom of speech, and the freedom of the press. Its devotion to those ideals has led the ACLU to support positions across the political spectrum; it has filed a brief in support of Lieutenant Col. Oliver North, but fought against requiring youngsters to pledge allegiance to the flag. Despite the barbs of this Presidential campaign, our speaker today does share at least one trait with George Bush: they both have long resumes. Ira Glasser earned his Bachelors degree in Mathematics from Queen's college in New York, and a Master's degree from Ohio State University. He has worked at a camp for blind and deaf adults as a mathematics professor at Queen's college, and as a faculty member at Sir Lawrence College. He has been a research associate at the University of Illinois, written dozens of published articles, and been editor of Current magazine. In 1967 Ira Glasser began working for the New York Civil Liberties Union, and in 1978 became ACLU's national executive director. Under his leadership, the ACLU has expanded its financial base, and added membership; it now claims a quarter-million card-carrying members. Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Ira Glasser. [Applause] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [Ira Glasser:] Here it is. This is the little piece of paper that you've been hearing about that's caused all the trouble. It's... I pulled it out of my wallet where I had not seen it for some time, and somebody noticed that it expires in October, 1988 and asked me if I was planning to renew. I said "well... I'll see how this all turns out." The truth is that alot of people have been calling up wanting to know how they can get one of these. We have been getting more spontaneous calls -I mean thousands of people across the country in the space of a few weeks- calling up and asking how they can join the ACLU, in numbers that are unlike anything we have ever received before in terms of spontaneous requests. I was thinking that if he needed a job after election day, I might offer George Bush the position of Membership Director, since he has seemed to be more successful than anyone else we've hired at giving us what the media managers call "name recognition", and in generating support. But he has done some other things also, which I will comment on, that I think are quite dangerous. It's also useful to note that at least five people that I know of have sent in gift memberships for Mr. Bush, along with their own, and he may be quite busy before the year is out in resigning as fast as they come in. I was interested to note, as I was waiting for the debate to end last night so I could watch the Met game, I was interested to note that they ~did not~ mention us last night, and it is perhaps true that this episode is beginning to subside, and may even be over. It is perhaps, therefore, a good time to ask ourselves what it all means, what it all meant; what was this all about, and why was George Bush attacking us like that -and what do those attacks really mean; what lasting damage will they do, and to whom, and to what? The fact is, is that this began a few months ago with his decision to take on the issue of the Pledge of Allegiance, in which he found occasion after occasion to wrap himself literally and figuratively in the flag, until he ended one day in New Jersey at an actual flag factory, where he found more flags than anyone had ever seen in one place before. Now, he was attacking Michael Dukakis for vetoing a bill that would have prohibited teachers from refusing to conduct the Pledge of Allegiance in their class. And he did so, he said, on the basis of an advisory opinion on constitutional law from his supreme court, but he ~did not say~ what that was based on. And George Bush made it seem like those who refused to say the Pledge -or defend those who refused to say the Pledge- were somehow a product of antisocial elements, America-hating people, a product of the 60's, a product perhaps of the Carter administration, an invention of Harvard Law School professors, or worse, the ACLU. The fact is, is that that case, that Michael Dukakis cited, was a case that happened about 45 years ago, in the middle of World War II, when two thousand Jehova's Witness children were expelled from school for refusing to salute the flag. Those children were refusing to salute the flag because it was again their religion to do so, and against the religion of their parents. This was a case that began as a religious freedom case. And for people who like to posture about traditional values, and the values of religion, this *was* a case of religious liberty. And when they were thrown out of school for exercising their religious freedom, the ACLU came to their defense, and in the middle of World War II the Supreme Court ruled in their favor, and said that ~one~ of things that the flag stands for, is the right not to salute it; that ~one~ of the things the flag represents is the religious freedom not to salute the flag. And that was not just an abstract issue for those little kids. They were pilloried and abused, because of their exercise of religious freedom. Thousands of them were marched home to the tune of people calling them traitors, and worse. A Jehova's Witness church was burned. In Wyoming, Jehova's Witnesses were tarred-and-feathered, and in Nebraska one was castrated. This was *exactly* the kind of release of religious bigotry and intolerance, that some of us thought this country was founded to avoid. In what they used to call civics classes ~I~ was taught that that's why people came here, to flee England, because they were not in the religious majority and they were being oppressed by the religious majority. Of course, when some of them came here, and found that ~they~ were in the religious majority, they quickly abandoned their love for religious tolerance, and began to oppress everybody else -- which was what led to the first Amendment in the first place: the notion that *whenever* you have a majority, those in the minority are at risk. Those in the minority are at risk. And the first amendment was designed to prevent that. If you're for traditional values in this society, then you ~are for~ the first amendment. If you are for what this country stands for and what the flag stands for, then you ~have~ to support that case, that came to the protection and came to the aid of those little girls. You know, some of them are still alive, and there was an interview with them a few weeks ago, in one newspaper, and they expressed great sadness at that trauma being raised again. They said in very simple language, not written by lawyers, or by judges, "why are they raising this issue? why are they invading religious freedom again? why are they stewing this up again?" Why indeed. ~Who~ is the patriot, I ask you: those, who wrap themselves in the flag, and Pledge allegiance to it -or those who *keep* the Pledge, and wrap themselves in what the Pledge represents? Is the patriot the person who forces people to salute the flag, and throws them out of school, and unleashes abuse upon them, or fires teachers for it? Or are the patriots the ones who recognize that one of the things that patriotism means in *this* country is the right ~not~ to salute the flag, the right ~not~ to show your faith or bend your knee to what the majority or the government thinks is orthodox in politics or religion. That case represented of course a much broader set of principles. This country was founded in the 18th century -*not* in the sixties, and not by the ACLU- this country was founded on two principles, two great principles in the 18th century. Both of them radical. Both of them rather unprecedented. One was the principle of Democracy: People ought to have a say in the decisions that effect their lives. They ought to be able to vote. The majority ought to rule. They ought to be able to vote for representatives in legislatures, and that the majority should govern in decisions. Everybody understands that principle, it's pretty well entrenched in this country. Students learn it real early, when they get to elect an eraser monitor, and when they learn that voting and majority rule is what governs their decisions. But there was another great idea, too: the idea of Liberty, and it isn't the same as Democracy; it's the idea that *even* in a democracy, the majority doesn't get to rule everything; that there are certain individual rights and individual liberties that are ~protected~ from the tyranny of the majority; That just because there are more whites than blacks does not mean that whites can take away from blacks the right to vote or the right to live. That, of course, is exactly what happened in this country for too long. That just because men have more political power than women, does not mean that women are relegated to second class citizenship. That just because major religions have more people than minor religions, it does not mean than the minor religions get to be pilloried, or denied their freedom to exercise their religion. Those two great principles are what this country was founded on, and they are what the flag represents, and ~supporting~ those principles, both of them, is what constitutes patriotism. And ~conserving~ those principles is what constitutes being a conservative. Now, those principles are not self-enforcing, especially the principle of Liberty, which is fragile, and always vulnerable to the excesses of the majority. The ACLU what founded in 1920, 130 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified. And it was a sorry time for civil liberties. Most of the rights we wake up with today and take for granted did not in fact exist then, though they were there on paper. They were not self-enforcing. The right to religious freedom did not exist in fact. Everywhere the religious majority oppressed the minorities. The rights of women did not exist. In 1920 the major Feminist issue was whether or not women could even vote. And notions of gender equality in employment and reproductive freedom were too hot even to mention. Racism, was so firmly entrenched in this country that no one ever could imagine a time when it would be otherwise. Working people did not have the right to organize unions, or strike, or picket, or distribute leaflets, or even meet in their factories without suffering violence, and there was no law to protect them. In 1920 when the ACLU was founded, the Supreme Court had **never** struck down a law on first amendment grounds. The freedom to publish, the freedom of the press, the freedom to speak, existed ~only~ if the majority agreed with what you said. And if they did not, and if the police came to break up your meeting, or break up your leaflets, or prevent you from organizing, nothing protected you. Because the people whose rights were violated first, were the ones who were most vulnerable, and most powerless; the ones least able to know their rights, and least able to afford a lawyer, to protect them. So these cases never even got into court, and the Supreme Court never even had an opportunity to rule on them. In 1909 the N.A.A.C.P. was created, and in 1920 the ACLU, and there began the long struggle to make the Bill of Rights a reality, to fulfill that promise. And gradually over time the cases began to be brought in, and gradually over time, racism began to be attacked, and race discrimination began to crumble. And first amendment cases were brought on behalf of working people, and they slowly gained the right or organize and strike, and picket, and leaflet, and hold meetings. The rights of women, slowly, only very recently, began to gain ground. The right to gender equality and reproductive freedom are a very recent phenomenon, in the last 20 years; much of it in the last 10. The rights of blacks to vote, still at risk as recently as *now*, in the South, was something that began to won, years and years ago, when the ACLU and the NAACP and others began to bring unpopular cases. The rights that most people take for granted today were the results of unpopular cases that we and others brought some years ago. And ~because~ they were unpopular, and because they were on behalf of minorities that the majority feared, or resented, or didn't like, they were *always*, we were always attacked for it. We were ~always~ called "subversive." We were ~always~ called "subversive." When Martin Luther King began to march in the sixties, J. Edgar Hoover called him subversive, and Southern towns said he was part of a Communist conspiracy. When we defended the right of working people to organize, *we* were called subversive. *** *** *** Now, the best example of that, I guess, is what happened to Japanese Americans in this society over 45 years ago. When they were interned in 1942, the ACLU was the ~only~ national organization to condemn it, and help fight it in court. We said at the time, that it was an act of war-hysteria, and racism. And you can imagine what we were called for it. People like George Bush leaped up and said we were unpatriotic, we were disloyal. But 45 years later, Ronald Reagan signed a bill, just a few weeks ago, in which he gave reparations in this law to the Japanese Americans who suffered, and to their descendents. And he called that act back then, an act of "war-hysteria, and racism." Now we are real glad to have his support. I mean that. It was necessary to get that law passed. But the ACLU likes to do it a little bit earlier. The ACLU was there, as it always is, when it counts. When the risk is high, but when the threat it real. It is nice, 40 years later, to decide that an act was an act of racism and war-hysteria; It is nice, 45, 50, 60 years later to decide that people ought to have the right to organize unions; It is wonderful, to decide, 30 years later, that what happened to blacks in this country was an outrage; It is terrific, to decide now, that women ought to have an equal right to employment. But to *get* those rights, you have to be there when they are violated, ~before~ they are popular. ~While~ there is a high risk. And you have to be willing to be called subversive, and disloyal, and unpatriotic. Now, I had thought that people understood that. But now comes George Bush again, for what I guess he sees as a short-term political advantage, and he attacks the ACLU, and he attacks his opponent. But he's also attacking something else. He's attacking the fabric of that great principle of Liberty, he's attacking the Bill of Rights itself, and he's attacking all Americans whose protections depend on the Bill of Rights. You know, when he attacked us, he didn't say, "I disagree with a few things that the ACLU does." Who doesn't? Most of our decisions are made by a board of directors by a vote of 42 to 36, with 12 abstentions, and 3 motions to reconsider. I would be real surprised if there was a single member of the ACLU that didn't disagree with ten or twelve things that we do, and that includes me. I dare say if you're a member of a political party, it doesn't mean you agree with everything that the political party does. But the fact is, is that most people -people like Dwight Eisenhower, and Harry Truman, people like Earl Warren and John Kennedy, people like former presidents of the American Bar Association, and more than a few police chiefs, have lauded and praised the ACLU, not because they agree with everything we do, but because they have come to recognize over time the crucial role that a principled organization that remains non-partisan, and defends Constitutional rights regardless of who the people are whose rights are violated, regardless of who they are, what they believe, or how they act -that that is an important ingredient for protecting all of our rights. And because people recognize that, they quarrel with what we do, here and there, but they understand the importance of the enterprise, and how *deeply* American, and patriotic -and conservative- it is. George Bush does not seem to understand that. He said, in that debate, "I oppose *most* of what the ACLU does." And then he ~listed~, as most of what the ACLU does, four positions, which he managed to get three of them wrong. He said, that we were trying to take the tax-exemption away from the Catholic church. There ~is~ a case that's trying to do that -it happens not to be an ACLU case. The ACLU has not taken a position on that, and will not. Of course, the implication was, that we are anti-Catholic, that we are anti-religion, that we are anti-Christian. He said, that we are supporting the repeal of "the kiddy-porn" laws. But of course the ACLU ~supports~ making it a crime to exploit children that way. What we have opposed are laws which also have the effect of interfering with the right of reputable published to publish sex-education books, for example -and that is not fanciful; there ~have~ been publishers, who on the basis of such laws, have been subjected to legal proceedings, because of that. It is *not* unpatriotic, or un-American, to be concerned about censorship. It is *not* denigrating of children to be concerned about censorship. And it is dishonest, to suggest that because you're concerned about censorship, you somehow support child-pornography. He didn't like the fact that we're concerned about the movie-rating system, and he said -I've been asked if what he said was accurate, and of course, it's difficult to tell, because what he said was "I want to be able to keep my 10-year-old granddaughter from going to an X-rated movie!" As if somehow the ACLU was real anxious to have his 10 year old grand-daughter go to X-rated movies all she could. As if the ACLU, or people who work there, or whose members, don't themselves have children, and are not running around loose trying to get them into X-rated movies. This is *not* about whether or not 10 year old kids can see "Deep Throat." It is *not* about whether or not "Debbie Does Dallas" should be shown on TWA, on flights to California. It *is* about whether the current movie rating system is a source of censorship, which we think it is. It is not about being opposed to ~all~ rating systems; it is about being concerned with that ~particular~ rating system. And it's not as if we think it's the biggest issue in the world; we have never filed a single lawsuit on that issue. But we have met with movie industry representatives from time to time, not even recently, to talk about our concern about those issue. I don't believe that reflects a lack of concern for children, or a love for child-pornography. But you listen to George Bush, you would think so; like the proverbial blind man and the elephant, he tries to describe the elephant by feeling a fringe on its tail, and he tries to convince Americans that that's what the ACLU is about: anti-social, anti-Catholic, anti-children, pro-pornography. You would *never know*, that we spend 95% of our time handling more voting-rights cases in the South than any other organization. You would *never know*, that spend most of our time doing more sex-discrimination cases than any other organization in the country. You would *never know*, that we spend the bulk of our time defending the free-speech rights and the religious-freedom rights, and the privacy rights of thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of ordinary Americans, whose rights are violated every day by local government officials and by their employers. You would never know, because he never looked at the six thousand cases we handle, or the hundreds of bills we lobby on, and made *any* kind of an attempt to accurately portray what it is that the ACLU does, but he did say that opposed most of it. Now, of course, we're ~used~ to that kind of criticism from people like Jerry Falwell. And from people like Jerry Falwell all throughout our history. Falwell ~likes~ to say we're anti-Christian. Just a week or two ago he said, "The ACLU is anti-Christian. Christians," he said, pretending to speak for them, "Christians think about the ACLU the way Jews think about the American Nazis." Now, I expect that from Jerry Falwell, but I do *not* expect that -and Americans ought not to expect it- from a candidate for the presidency, from a major party in this country. I do *not* expect that kind of nonsense to be heard from a major candidate. If he is against all of those rights, if he is in ~fact~ against most of what the ACLU does, then he is against most of the Bill of Rights, and he has aligned himself with the darkest forces in America, which from time to time arise to repress those rights. The fact is, is that he has said, "I am *not* a card-carrying member of the ACLU; I am for the people." *Which* people? *Which* people? The Japanese Americans, who were incarcerated because of their race? The millions of American workers, who were repressed and suppressed because they wanted to organize? The Blacks, and other people of color in this society, who for so long suffered, and suffer still, from discrimination? *Fifty* percent of our population, women, who were relegated to second-class citizenship for so long? The hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens who are chewed up by countless public officials every day in this society, and whose only recourse is the ACLU? *Which* people? *Which* people is he for? --if he's ~for~ *those* people, then he is for the ACLU; and if he is against those people, it is he, and not we, who are out of the mainstream. What he represents, it seems to me, is ~not~ a true patriotism -Samuel Johnson once said "Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels," but he went on to say -and this is not the part most people quote- he went on to say that the "patriotism" he was talking about was not that patriotism which reflects a true love of country, but that *pretended* patriotism, which is used as a cloak for self-interest. I ask you to consider, ~who~ is more patriotic, and who is more conservative -when a person says they're conservative, ask them what it is exactly they're trying to conserve. And frequently you will find, it is not the Bill of Rights, it is not the values this country started with, it is not the values that have expanded freedom for the least of us, and for all of us. It represents instead a mean spirit of repression, an urging to go back to that time when those rights did not exist, and when *they* ruled the country, whoever they are. The fact is, is that George Bush, for what I guess he perceives as momentary political advantage, has been willing to toy with the fundamental structures that protect all of our rights in this society. He has dipped down into those dark forces, and called forth, conjured up, those mean spirits again; those mean spirits, which in another time, beat and burned Jehova's Witnesses; imprisoned Japanese Americans; enslaved blacks; and relegated women to second-class citizenship. Those mean spirits, I had thought, were safely hidden again below the surface. For a major presidential candidate, to call them forth again, is a *scandal*. It is shameful that he would do so. Because what I'm worried about, frankly, is not how many members the ACLU gets out of this. We *will* get more members from the people who understand what the ACLU is and what the Bill of Rights means and how to enforce it and why you need to advocate it on behalf of unpopular causes. What ~I~ am worried about, is all the people who ~don't~ understand, and who get their understanding from what a presidential candidate tells them. What I am worried about is the 22 year old future Dick Thornberg, living somewhere in Pittsburgh and saying "maybe I ~won't~ join the board of the Pittsburgh chapter of the ACLU, 'cause you can never tell how that's going to hurt me 20 years later." Or the young student, the future Michael Dukakis, who is saying this moment "maybe I ~won't~ join the ACLU, and maybe I won't join the Environmental Defense Fund, and maybe I shouldn't join N.O.W.," because if you have ambition, you don't want to be vulnerable to those kinds of things 20 year later. I grew up in the fifties, when it was almost unthinkable to join anything, or sign a petition, because they had created a climate of fear, which made taking risks and defending the underdog, and standing up for what this country believes in and what it was founded on, unpopular, and risky. And *that* is what George Bush is playing with, when he attacks the Bill of Rights, and those people who advocate it. Now, the ~outcome~, whether that's going to happen, does not depend on George Bush; it depends on ~us~; it depends on ~you~. Because the outcome of these struggles ~never depends~ on the people who oppose liberty; they depend on the response -or the lack of response- from people who support it. The reason why the fifties became a time of silence, was not because of what McCarthy said, but because of what the rest of us failed to say. And if George Bush's depredations, if what he has done to undermine liberty succeeds, it will not be because of what he did; it will be because of what we failed to do. ~He~ has done his worst. It remains for us to do our Best. Thank you. ################################################################## American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) 132 West 43rd Street New York, NY 10109-0592 ################################################################## ############################################################### # Harel Barzilai for Activists Mailing List (AML) # ################################################################ { For more info about ACTIV-L or PeaceNet's brochure send } { inquiries to harel@dartmouth.edu / mathrich@umcvmb.bitnet } To join AML, just send the 1-line message "SUB ACTIV-L " to: LISTSERV@UMCVMB.BITNET; you should receive a confirmation message within 2 days. Alternate address: LISTSERV@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU Qs/problems: Rich Winkel, MATHRICH@UMCVMB.["MISSOURI.EDU" or "BITNET"]