Why The A.C.L.U. Isn't Crazy by Anne Heidel   Every summer night I looked forward to my wholesome part-time job at the small discount bookstore on Main Street. During the day, I encountered a surprising amount of antagonism working as an intern at the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland. After Maryland held an execution, I expected the nasty phone calls-- "did you watch him fry last night?"-click. While the pro-lifers denounced my sins, I politely stood my ground. I got used to being snubbed by the wardens after making too many inquiries into conditions at the Maryland House of Corrections. What astonished me was the attitude of fellow progressives toward my job. Instead of a principled nonprofit organization protecting the Bill of Rights, they saw the ACLU as a group of obsessive legal theorists who make careers out of meddling. Besides dismantling the myth that the ACLU is the guardian of Nazi demonstrators and lost causes, I would like to shed some light on its less publicized activities and convince my liberal friends that I have not gone astray. Maybe the reason that both conservatives and liberals criticize the ACLU is that it represents them both. The organization is nonpartisan and funded by an eclectic community of private donors. Its sole agenda is defending the civil liberties guaranteed in the US Constitution, freedoms that may benefit any social group, party, or constituency. Having said that, let me note that I filed few complaints all summer from anyone rich, white, or conservative. About half of the letters each day requesting our legal assistance were from inmates in the state prison system. These complaints addressed death sentences, due process violations, and prison conditions such as inadequate health care and abuse by correctional officers. Other frequent requests described job discrimination, police misconduct, and the obstruction of free expression or religious practice. The ACLU's popular image as a last legal resort also led exasperated individuals to contact the organization, frequently for issues beyond the scope of civil liberties advocacy. I referred many callers to Legal Aid, government agencies, pro bono law clinics, the NAACP, and non-profits that deal specifically with tenancy disputes, family law, gay rights, and other issues. No one in the Maryland chapter office had time to meddle in lost causes. Even with a surge in student interns and volunteers during the summer, there was still a backlog of correspondence with people requesting legal help. Resources were scarce; even the legal staff spends valuable time fundraising and soliciting private, pro bono litigation support. One Friday in July, everyone from the Ivy-trained attorneys to the interns unplugged the phones and painted the office, cleaned out the basement, and rearranged file cabinets. My point is that civil liberties defense is in demand. Certain cases get media attention because they stretch the traditional exercise of rights, but most ACLU litigation follows a conservative application of constitutional principles. Without the ACLU, many civil liberties violations would go unchallenged. Those individuals with few resources and little legal knowledge are most likely to be denied their rights in a political and economic environment where power affords protection. Until the system denies your civil liberties, you will not realize how few people are on your side. Why do people think the ACLU has such an unusual range of clients? An innocent death row inmate and a Nazi marcher have one thing in common-- no one wants to listen to them. Except the ACLU. The reputation of the Maryland ACLU has benefitted from a series of recent victories against racist practices that have eluded private litigation. The state General Assembly just increased funding for Baltimore City Schools as part of a settlement on a school adequacy case brought by the ACLU. This was the first serious legal challenge to an educational system with pervasive inequalities tied to socioeconomic status, justified by facially-neutral criteria like property taxes and urban demographics. Another successful suit led to the demolition of high-rise public housing, originally designed to segregate low-income Baltimore residents, and reformed procedures for assisted housing placement. In 1997, the ACLU of Maryland also won a settlement over racially-motivated police searches on Interstate I-95. These important decisions receive little media attention compared to occasional cases that test civil liberties in new, controversial contexts. Over winter break I observed a court proceeding for a potential ACLU client, an inmate on a hunger strike to protest his sentence. Driving back downtown to tell the office that the warden won the right to force-feed the prisoner, I couldn't help but feel relieved that our side had lost. Without solid food in the next few months, this man may have starved to death. Still, my personal feelings don't conflict with ACLU intervention. The organization works for private citizens, it doesn't judge the righteousness of their actions or set a legal agenda. This particular inmate said his case was unfair and no one listened. Over a year ago he stopped eating to protest his sentence and no one seemed to notice. The ACLU may have lost the case, but we let someone's voice be heard. There are few organizations willing to work for that kind of a victory; I'm proud to be a part of one.

Home | Archives | L-Word by Email | About The L-Word | Staff | Feedback