No more than two

By Ryan Menezes on 10/30/2009 at 7:10am

Judging from the Freep's photo, only me and Yi attended Monday's Council debate. A photo from any other angle though would show a room that was, well, also mostly empty, but the candidate was facing a couple dozen people, including students from at least three universities.

No one debated because the candidates' schedules conflicted, and rarely did more than one candidate share the room, let alone the stage. To fill dead time, administrators entertained us with remarks they asked we not repeat ("I hate the Dutch," for instance, was a remark that no one said) and James Sappenfield failed to entertain us because he ignored our juggling requests.

The candidates showed great skill at a) tailoring their speeches to students and b) not tailoring their speeches to students.

They tailored their speeches to students by emphasizing our vote's power - if Boston's 400,000 students unite, God help the establishment. Ayanna Pressley said she used to lead CGS government. Tito Jackson said he's the best dancer on the ballot. Doug Bennett said students can give defendants legal advice. Andrew Kenneally said enjoying yourself can be a good thing.

Several of them though, as politicians will, emphasized their simple backgrounds and tried to sound folksy. Why would candidates would want to appear "regular" in front of an audience so l33t?

Kenneally didn't do that, but he unashamedly described policies he knew his audience would not like. At one point, with little provocation, he described why we should tax universities. He said some schools, such as BU, pay their fair share in various ways, but others, like Northeastern, don't. (He didn't know the students he was answering were from Northeastern. Or did he?) Tax exemption protects public interest institutions, he said, but colleges' and hospitals' large endowments or profits put them in a separate category. A different audience member gave him a chance to change his position ("Are you really saying we should tax colleges, or do you just mean we should look at the situation?") but he held firm.

Kenneally also spent time on the evening's other controversial topic, which was the only one about government intrusion - night owl trains, parties for students and clean streets, though interesting, don't really concern us. Kenneally supports "No More than Four," which bars more than four undergraduates from sharing an apartment. Some say the plan prevents landlords from exploiting tenants, but it doesn't - tenants know housing they prefer, the plan raises rents per person and the fire code already prevents overcrowding. The plan really aims to keep where college kids live, and Kenneally admitted this.

"We have to consider just what sort of city we want," he said, and it took dome Eier to criticize college towns in front of this crowd. An audience member called the attitude discrimination against students, but Kenneally said student parties and cars hurt families whose seniority gives them more right to their neighborhood than students have. When asked though if he'd ask colleges to submit students' addresses so the city could enforce the rule, Kenneally didn't say he would.

The election's on Tuesday. Take a look at the candidates' websites and learn more before all is lost:

Felix Arroyo www.felixarroyo.com
Doug Bennett www.bennettforboston.com
City Councilor John Connolly www.connollyforcouncil.com
Tomas Gonzalez www.votetomas.com
Tito Jackson www.titojacksonforboston.c om
Andrew Kenneally www.andrewkenneally.com
City Councilor Stephen Murphy www.steve-murphy.com
Ayanna Pressley www.ayannapressley.com

Bears and Czars sometimes disagree

By Ryan Menezes on 10/26/2009 at 8:10am

We heard Bill O'Reilly talk on Friday, and more of you'd have come had you known of the open bar. He spoke about the internet, entertainment, Afghanistan, healthcare, and he spoke about something more relevant to us - the relationship between the government and the press.

Last week, the Treasury Department invited the major news networks to interview Pay Czar Kenneth Feinberg. This pool of networks normally includes ABC, CNN, NBC, CBS and Fox News, but though Fox says they requested an interview, the department decided to exclude them.

According to CBS correspondent Chip Reid, "All the networks said, that's it, you've crossed the line," and they refused to interview unless Fox could too. The Treasury Department gave in. News site Mediate says the Treasury Department has denied everything in an early statement.

This story didn't get too much coverage, says O'Reilly ("It was like page 17 of the New York Times"). Refusing an interview isn't quite shocking as, say, censorship, and besides, it was Fox. But the government should never try to limit how the press reports news.

"I want the government to have no control over the news," said O'Reilly, and the audience applauded.

Which showed he'd little intention of raising controversy that night. He might as well have said that rape is bad.

"I believe raping a child is wrong," said O'Reilly, later. Seriously. The audience applauded this too.

The White House has said on other occasions that Fox News isn't a news channel at all. Obama said last week that it operates as Talk Radio, so we ought treat it differently.

O'Reilly, however, says that though Fox's nightime programs such as his try to entertain, the channel also reports news. And its commentators span the political spectrum - O'Reilly is an independent, Hannity is conservative and Greta Van Susteren is liberal - so it has no right-wing bias.

He had trouble finishing this last sentence through the audience's laughter.

Dey ttttkkk rrrr wrrrrrdds!

By Ryan Menezes on 10/26/2009 at 8:10am

At the public interest conference the other weekend, someone asked what ACLU campaign earns the most member backlash. Susan Herman's earlier keynote speech had covered various controversial stances - church / state separation, defending spooky speech, not drowning brown people - but to this question, she answered: immigration. Some people, she said, still just don't get it.

Illegal immigrants break the law, but we object to the disproportionate punishment they suffer - for instance, unconstitutional indefinite detention. ACLU-Mass has written at length against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (http://www.aclum.org/ice/), and the federal agency is stretching itself even further, expanding this month its 287(g) "deputize profilers" program, which even the UN has condemned

Instead of focusing on the topic's civil liberties points, the conference's immigration panel talked about other aspects - economics, social justice - so I won't recap everything people said. The other reason I won't recap is that the moderators specifically asked that the panel be "off the record." This may have been their way of saying, "prepare yourselves - this is gonna get juicy," but even revealing whether the discussion contained juice may violate the off-the-record request, something the Society of Not-Journalists forbids.

I will though reference, while quoting no one, two issues people discussed. Neither had much to do with immigration. Both had to do with free speech.

Reporting on immigration, Lou Dobbs has quoted facts (immigrants brought America 7,000 leprosy cases over three years, a third of federal inmates are illegal immigrants), which aren't, actually, facts. He also generally opposes immigration. Should immigration advocates tell CNN to fire him? On one hand, love of free speech may dissuade you from ever punishing someone's words, and refuting them with more words answers them better than silencing the speaker. On the other, incompetence is a good reason to fire someone, and purposely reporting lies is an even better one; the Society for Are-Journalists forbids both. On the third hand - an immigrant leper's hand Dobbs keeps in his briefcase - even if opponents targeted Dobbs solely for his opinions, it's their right to do so, and CNN can consider the protest if they choose.

People can also be too sensitive sometimes. Ought we consider the term "illegal alien" offensive? Ought we, as someone in the discussion may or may not have proposed, "make the I-word like the N-word" in terms of how reluctantly we'd use it? Well, considering that illegal aliens are aliens who are here illegally, there should be nothing wrong with using the correct legal term. "Illegal" is only derogatory in that it says you broke the law, which is true. "Alien" is about as dehumanizing as "Pole" - yes, it can mean "not human," but in context it means a specific type of human. Euphemisms ("undocumented workers," "entrepreneurial tourists," "temps with benefits," "nephews") cover the truth while making what you're covering seem uglier. An audience member at the discussion may or may not have commented that "Mexican" so connotes "illegal immigrant" that some use it as they would "wetback." The solution isn't to strike "Mexican" from our vocabularies and call them "People of Southern Descent."

If you hear any doublespeak at tonight's Councilor-at-Large debate, call them out by hissing and booing. I'm sure moderator James Boggie can handle it. CGS 129, 871 Comm Ave, starting at 6pm. See you there.

Why gay marriage should not exist

By Ryan Menezes on 10/23/2009 at 8:05am

Obama's in town today. So this afternoon, 12:30 to 2pm, MassEquality's demonstrating on Copley Plaza for LGBT rights. "Get rid of DADT!" they'll chant. "Get rid of DOMA! Get rid of ENDA! Wait, no, we mean 'Pass ENDA'! That's one of the good acronyms! Like LGBT! Yeah!"

Also today is the Law school's LGBT issues public interest law symposium from 10am to 4:30 in Room 1270.

Which of course brings to mind last weekend's public interest law conference, which included a panel on same-sex marriage and law Panelists included Fr. Geoff Farrow, whom Cal State's St. Paul's Newman Center fired when he opposed Prop 8, Timothy McCarthy, founding member of Obama's National LGBT Leadership Council, and... Rachel. The third speaker was going to be National Organization for Marriage president Maggie Gallagher, but she couldn't attend because her son came out of the closet. At least that's what I assume happened. As she put it, "My child is sick." So instead, the Harvard Undergraduate Legal Committee phoned Rachel and said, "Hey! You oppose gay marriage, right? And the Head of the Charles regatta is almost done, so you're free, right? And you have a leadership role in some relevant organization which Ryan will forget, right? And you don't mind going up against a room of liberals, right?" And she said "Sure. If James Sappenfield can speak at An Evening Without, surely I can speak here."

So they talked about gay marriage. Father Geoff spoke about how even Christians can't accept the "marriage needs procreation" standard because he married a pair of septuagenarians who weren't Zachariah or Elizabeth. An audience member quoted an article calling "the procreative act" necessary for marriage even when no procreation can occur. No one understood this. Tim tried to decode it, and the audience member eventually simplified it to: "If marriage requires vaginal intercourse, then men can't marry. Right?" Tim said, "Right, tautologies are true, even when you choose premises that discriminate against gays."

The other argument tossed around against marriage was how it could ruin society. "It may not affect my marriage personally," said Rachel, "and it may not affect yours. But that doesn't mean it won't affect marriage overall."

"Wait," said Tim. "If it won't affect yours or someone else's, how would it affect marriage overall?"

"I'm just saying," said Rachel, "that collectively, there's a component that you don't count when - "

"Yeah, but see, the effect on the first marriage is zero. And the effect of the second marriage is zero. And the effect on all these other marriages is zero."

"Well, yeah. But - "

"So when you put them together, how does a bunch of zeroes add up to boom, there goes society."

"Well."

"I just want to know if you get the math."

"Yeah, I get the math."

"You get the math?"

"Yeah, I get the math."

And that was that.

If Susan likes the ACLU, it must be good

By Ryan Menezes on 10/22/2009 at 7:08am

Susan Herman asked attendees at Harvard's Public Interest Law Conference last weekend - "Who here hasn't heard of the ACLU?"

Everyone had, in fact, heard of the largest public interest law firm in the known world, so Susan, ACLU president and the conference's keynote speaker, could move on.

The ACLU routinely saves the nation, attendees learned, but we must always remain vigilant because problems we think we've solved tend to return years later in new, more virulent forms. Susan gave three examples.

1) We defended the separation of church and state (also, truth) in 1926's Scopes Monkey Trial, and though legal scholars may say say we technically "lost," we technically "won" on appeal, on a technical "technicality." The Supreme Court's ruling 40 years later that evolution bans violate the Establishment Clause seemed to decide the issue once and for all. But no. In 2004, we found ourselves again fighting to keep religion from science when we sued the Dover School District to get Intelligent Design out of schools. We won.

2) We defended equal protection under the law (also, love) in 1967's Loving v Virginia. As Susan noted, many people today don't know what "anti-miscegenation," means, and when they find out, they're shocked to learn that laws banned inter-racial marriage and sex as recently as the '60s. Yes - when the current president was born, 17 states banned his existence. But thanks to our lawsuit, the appropriately named Mildred Loving (black) and Richard Loving (white) married legally, and the court struck down the laws they'd broken. The obvious modern day parallel is same-sex marriage, and when the ACLU contacted Mildred before her death last year, she agreed inter-racial and same-sex marriage were the same issue. But an even closer echo came from Louisiana earlier in the week, when New Orleans Justice of the Peace Keith Bardwell denied an interracial couple's marriage application. He was wrong, of course, and the ACLU demands severe sanctions, but Susan took out her phone an read an email from someone supporting him. "It shocks me that the ACLU would try violate this man's freedom to follow his own religious convictions," said the writer. Bardwell hadn't in fact cited religion for his decision, but Susan asked the crowd, "What shall I tell this person? How should we weigh these rights?" Someone in the crowd said the law, not subjective morality, should guide civil magistrates. "Anyone else?" said Susan. "No? Okay. That's what I'll tell them."

3) We defended due process (also, domesticity) in 1942's Korematsu v. United States. Years later, most everyone condemns the mass relocation and internment of Japanese Americans, and the country's even paid their families reparations. But at the time, we were the only lawyers willing to defend Fred Korematsu, who chose to stay in his house instead of going to camp. This violated the Sith's Order 9066, so he went to jail, and we took his case to the Supreme Court. We lost, despite passionate dissents that used the word "racist" for the first time in SCOTUS history and that rightly compared the nation's actions to the ones we we at war in Germany to stop. 60 years later, we're again locking people up without charge, this time on an island of the coast of Florida*.

This brought us to the other theme of Susan's speech - things Obama hasn't solved. We're still fighting detention, rendition and state secrets as we were last year and before.

Susan reminded us of the evils of Guantanamo - not only are most detainees held without charge and with insufficient evidence ("This is all you have?!" said judges at eventual hearings) but many were captured by Northern Alliance bounty hunters who didn't even *think* their prisoners guilty. It's apparently become very chic for New York law firms to say they represent a Guantanamo detainee, but they're a bunch of posers - we were defending detainees long before it was cool.

On Thursday, the House voted to suppress torture photos of overseas detainees. On Friday, the Senate voted to suppress torture / interrogation transcripts.

Every speech about ACLU work needs some anecdotal rights abuses so crazy they cross the line twice and become hilarious again. Susan referenced the suit we won a couple weeks ago, ruling that Arkansas shouldn't shackle women in labor. Or the suit against the public library that divided its books into "Christian" and "non-Christian" sections.

Not everyone enjoyed the speech. A little into the Q&A section ("Do rights ever conflict?" / "Yes. Like free speech vs. fair trial"), one person asked, "I'm not a lawyer. But I'm a writer and an artist. And I think it's a problem that you mention things like women in shackles that everyone agrees with but don't mention the bad. There's such thing as free speech." So far, incoherent, but then: "And even torture has prevented things like 9/11, which no one can deny."

Actually, people can deny it. And Susan did, using facts the other attendees already knew and arguments we already believed.

Keynote speech done, the conference divided up for panels - I'll recap some points that came up later in the week.

Washington weed. Marijuana marijuana.

By Ryan Menezes on 10/13/2009 at 8:08am

Marijuana fills the airwaves this week like it normally fills the air.

In Washington, the federal government has resolved their feud with pro-medical marijuana states. During the Bush administration, DEA officials would regularly raid distributors, even those who complied with state law in places like California . The justice department though has now told prosecutors in the 14 states that permit curative cannabis that chasing patients and dealers is inefficient and irrational.

Locally, the Mass legislature's Joint Committee on Revenue has been debating legalizing marijuana so we can tax it. Even the proposed bill's author said he knows it won't pass. But it is important to keep contacting your legislators and giving them every idea you have.

That's why we're co-sponsoring a debate among city councilor-at-large candidates. The debate's next Monday at 6pm in Jacob Sleeper Auditorium - CGS 129. Our secretary James Boggie is moderating, and though the deadline for submitting questions was weeks ago, continue to send some to him at aclu@bu.edu. If anyone disputes his right to introduce new questions, he'll yell, as he often yells at me, "You dare question my questions? I'm James mutha-jumpin BOGGIE, midget!" before throwing his shoes and socks at their face.

The debate means we won't meet next Monday at 6:30, so stay tuned to find where and when we will. We're going to talk at our next meeting with the campaign to bring medical marijuana to Massachusetts.

A couple other events between now and then:

- Today at 7pm, former intelligence officers Arthur Hunick and Joseph Wippl will speak in Metcalf Hall about the inner workings of the CIA. Attend if you think the CIA routinely save us from disaster or if you think we must reign in their unconstitutional extra-legal practices.*

- On Friday at 6 in Metcalf, Bill O"Reilly (COM '09) will speak as part of our "we'll go see all news personalities, the crazier, the better" speaker series.

- Friday at 10:30am in the Law school. there's a public interest law symposium focusing on LGBT rights.

Of course if you're interested in public interest law, you were probably with us this weekend for the Harvard conference and can skip the rest of this post. If you weren't with us though, you may want us to recap, and we will, as the week goes by.

Introducing our competition.

By Ryan Menezes on 10/13/2009 at 8:08am

Susan Herman, as president of the entire ACLU, is like Amanda, only more so. She took office a year ago after two decades on the ACLU board of directors, and she now spends her time running the greatest organization on earth,  teaching constitutional law and presenting a conferences that give undergraduates free food.  The Harvard Undergraduate Legal Committee is hosting the next of these conferences is this Saturday: the 2009 Public Interest Law Conference. It's free, it features three meals, it's close enough to home that you can come and go whenever you feel like it, and Susan Herman's the keynote speaker.

The conference will discuss various public interest law topics - education, gay marriage, CORE reform, immigration - and runs from 11am to 4pm, longer if you want breakfast and dinner. No one knows how Harvard can afford all this, but so they don't order two many extra bagels / lobsters, they ask we RSVP. That deadline was over a week ago. But we're special, so we can still RSVP if members want to go.

Another thing we should discuss at tonight's meeting - that's right, it's Monday at BU, so we're meeting at 6:30pm in CAS 326 - is whether we want to drive more members away. The time has again come to approve new student groups. The Political Consortium, which we were a part of, used to vote on this, but Political Consortium doesn't exist any longer. Instead, everyone gets to discuss the matter online and vote online, so more people have a say in it than before. After we convinced the "Abolish the ACLU" group to withdraw their application, none of the applicants look particularly evil. But BU has many activist groups and not many activists. For fear of dividing the politically active population further, we may agree with what these people say but fight to the death against their right to say it.

The political groups applying for recognition are:

DEMOCRACY MATTERS: This groups advocates election reform. They focus on a single cause that no other group now concentrates on. That seems a good enough reason to recognize them.

LIBERTY IN NORTH KOREA: Didn't this group already exist? Maybe they lost recognition for not submitting their paperwork in time. Anyway, they seek to "educate, advocate and spread awareness about the North Korean human rights crisis. It will raise funds dedicated to maintaining shelters throughout China to protect refugees in hiding."

MASSACHUSETTS STUDENT PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP: We worked with MASSPIRG earlier this year on voter registration.  They claim they're different from any other public interest group in that they offer D.C. internships.

STUDENT ADVOCATES FOR PROGRESSIVE POLITICS: Yes... it's another progressive politics advocacy group. This one claims they're different because they'll focus on voter registration, which is something they could do through another group or through the Union. They also say they'll decide on the policies they'll advocate by majority vote within the group, which suggests that they don't really believe in anything. Why does this group want to exist? Apparently, it's members used to form the group BU For Barack. Now, they still want to be a group. Ah.

STUDENTS FOR JUSTICE IN PALESTINE: This is one of those "Let's save [place]" groups. If you don't support all of them, you're racist.

THE ROOSEVELT INSTITUTE: This group wants to be a think tank that can publish student policy briefs. Of all the groups applying for recognition, they have the second coolest name.

SYMPOSIUM: Symposium will be an online, student-run political journal. That sounds like something we could use. But wait. Apparently the SAO handbook says "Student groups are not allowed to publish journals of opinion." If true, this means the group cannot exist, but it also means we'll have to sue Boston University of their behalf. Luckily, regarding the possible rule violation, SAO  says "Um, how'd that rule get into our handbook? Don't worry about it." The International Affairs Association has a journal, but it focuses only on IR.

Read more about the groups and discuss them online here.

Mark Twain, Michael Moore, Mary-Beth.

By Ryan Menezes on 09/28/2009 at 12:08pm

DON'T SPY ON ME briefcase bumper stickers may not deter random T searches, but they do make great visual aids when you refuse one. I refused one this morning because of my illegal weapons and my 4th Amendment rights - if you missed our Busted screening, watch it on YouTube. Rather than pass through the Copley checkpoint, I walked all the way from to Hynes, sadly forgetting to first accuse my officer of racial profiling. I'd contact our Boston office about this, but they're already working on the issue.

Many students unsure of their rights contact ACLU-Mass. "Can teachers search through texts on my phone?" they ask. (No.) "Can they force me to say the Pledge?" (No.) "Can they test my urine for drugs?" (Not if you're in the debate society.) Luckily for some, Massachusetts protects student speech more than anywhere else in the country. We got to meet the plaintiffs who defined the national standard and the Massachusetts standard at the ACLU's Constitution Day event the other week.

Mary-Beth Tinker brought us Tinker v Des Moines School District, which we've already talked about in detail. With it, the Supreme Court ruled students can express themselves unless they "materially and substantially" disrupt school operations. We heard from her personal details about the case, how icky boys were at the time and the difficulty of raising kids after having granted them Constitutional rights. ("Really? I can't wear this shirt with the stripper on it? Ooh,. and I thought you were Miss First Amendment!")

Various states try to eat away at the Tinker standard with exceptions for vulgar or violent speech, but Massachusetts's Supreme Judicial Court called it "clear and unambiguous" in 1996's Pyle v South Hadley. Jeff Pyle, now an ACLU cooperating attorney, wore to school a gift from his Mom - a t-shirt labeled "Co-ed Naked Band - Do it to the Rhythm." School administrators didn't like this, and when they put their foot down, Pyle's friends responded with a series of t-shirts to test what schools would and would not censor:

- "Co-ed Naked Civil Liberties - Do it to Amendments" (Censored.)
- "Co-ed Naked Gerbils - Some People Will Censor Anything" (Not censored.)
- "See Dick Drink. See Dick Drive. See Dick Die. Don't Be a Dick." (Censored.)

This last example stands out because the school censored a (positive) social message, but the interesting thing about Pyle's t-shirt is that, like "Bong Hits For Jesus," it meant nothing. We encourage free speech to allow helpful discourse, but people actually have as much right to unhelpful discourse or even complete gibberish.

The Court affirmed Pyle's right to wear his shirt, adding that "Our Legislature is free to grant greater rights to the citizens of this Commonwealth than would otherwise be protected under the United States Constitution." Thus, had BONG HiTS 4 JESUS happened in Boston, Joseph Frederick's school could not have suspended him.

We heard many less influential cases of student rights abuses at the event too. Like the kid suspended for creating the "I hate the Sexy 7" group... on Facebook... for an hour. Or the girls banned for graduation and prom for protesting another student's ban from the talent show. Or the boy who put a swastika on a flyer and faced criminal charges, with the police seizing his family computer. Many of these schools dropped charges hearing the threat of an ACLU lawsuit.

Anecdotal rights abuses turned out the main attraction of Indoctrinate U, which we screened earlier that week. We also learned some interesting facts about some campus's speech codes. Besides that though, we had some problems with the film. I plan to write more about this elsewhere, but for now, let's just say that when The Weekly Standard's Jonathan Last credited the director with "the the on-screen dexterity of a Michael Moore, only with integrity," he was wrong in at least two ways.

Michael Moore directly influenced director Evan Coyne Maloney - Maloney approached Moore to ask him for filmmaking advice. And now, you can too, thanks to a special offer we're extending to BU-ACLU members. His new film's publicists have invited us to an advanced screening on Wednesday featuring a Q&A with Moore himself. RSVP by email, but because we have limited tickets, coming to tonight's meeting at 6:30pm in CAS 326 will more likely assure you a place.

But wait! There's more!

When you come to tonight's meeting, you also get a guided tour of our new exhibit on Mugar's 3rd floor for Banned Books Week. Keeping with the student rights theme, we're displaying various books schools have challenged or struck from their libraries over the years. Telling you more details would take some of the fun out of the exhibit, but know in advance that these are some of the most celebrated books of all time. This exhibit normally costs nothing to visit, but if you come with us, you get to come for FREE! 

Sit home at your computer today.

By Ryan Menezes on 09/21/2009 at 2:21pm

Student Rights Week went great in that we canceled hardly any of the events due to low turnout. We'll recap what happened sometime soon, but for now, here's a list of campaign sites James Boogie compiled:

Mayoral Candidates
Mayor Thomas Menino
Michael Flaherty
Sam Yoon
Kevin McCrea

City Council Candidates
Felix Arroyo
Doug Bennett
City Councilor John Connolly
Ego Ezedi
Robert Fortes
Tomas Gonzalez
Tito Jackson
Andrew Kenneally
City Councilor Stephen Murphy
Hiep Quoc Nguyen
Ayanna Pressley
Sean Ryan
Jean-Claude Sanon
Bill Trabucco
Scotland Willis

The primary is tomorrow - vote. While people are in the election mood, we'd also like to help MassPIRG register those who can't quite vote legally till they finish the paperwork. If you're free anytime tomorrow, contact aclu@bu.edu so we can sit you at the registration drive.

No meeting tonight . We'll meet only on alternate weeks - the next meeting's on the 28th.

Student Rights Week. All week.

By Ryan Menezes on 09/12/2009 at 6:51pm

Next week is our biggest ever. We'll host events every day. If you've seen no advertising, it's because the events ARE the advertising, and they'll draw in new members by the dozen.



Before any of them though is...

SUNDAY

...when the Oberon is hosting "WATERBOARD: the play." Performers Nadeem Mazen and Stephanie Skier will act, sing, play on slip 'n' slides and... waterboard each other. Naturally people will pay money to see this, but we're the ACLU, and our mere presence enhances the event.* They're therefore providing us a VIP table in front, and admission is free if you rsvp to aclu@bu.edu soon enough. The show starts at 8pm. It ends early enough for our Providence members to catch the last train home, so they can return the next day in time for...

MONDAY

...when we meet at 6:15pm in CAS 326. We'll normally meet at 6pm, but we're delaying it a little next week to reduce the dead time between the event and our movie screening at 7. Those of you who saw just one of our six board members on Thursday will get to meet the rest. Then, just to confuse you, we'll hold elections.

Yes, we've filled all our board positions, but we filled the president's against his will. We elected James because he interned with the ACLU a day a week last year, because he had seniority, because of his leadership skills and because he controls an apartment building. But he assures us now that his leading the Student Union means he can't lead the ACLU as well. He told us this before. We ignored him. We choose to ignore him no longer. Amanda has become acting president, and we'll formally reshuffle board positions at the meeting.

Then, at 7pm, we screen Busted in CAS B-50. Everyone has to watch Busted at least once or they'll probably end up in prison. The documentary teaches you how to protect yourself from police. Police have no legal right to search without cause, but many people give permission and then end up in jail. Busted teaches you about your rights and how to asset them during police encounters.

We screen Busted every year, so this one's for those who haven't seen it yet. It also happens to be the last time we'll screen it ever, so if you haven't come before, now's your last chance. Those of us who've seen it will play the Busted Drinking Game:

- Every time a police officer says a pipe smells "freshly used," you take a shot.
- Every time someone makes a joke about someone's colon, you take a shot,.
- Every time we forget to pause the DVD between segments, you take two shots
- Every time they cut to a teen getting fingerprinted before pressing their face to the prison window, you laugh.
- Every time the audience laughs, you light a joint.
- Every time you the guy in the green shirt raises the cast's average acting level by yelling "let him look in the damn BAG," you take a shot, but not before leading the room in a round of applause.

Then go to your house and hide from the cops till ...

TUESDAY

...when we host Busted: BU Edition at 7pm in COM 101. Usually, when we screen Busted, we host a workshop on avoiding searches, but many of the questions concern dorm life instead of street life. So this year, we're hosting a separate workshop, How to Defeat RAs. We've invited the Office of Residence Life to send a rep, and they will, if they dare. Otherwise, we'll have non-representatives who've dealt with ORL in various capacities.

Then go to your dorm and hide from the RAs till...

WEDNESDAY

...when we're screening a movie, but before then is the Student Activities Expo from 3pm to 7pm in Metcalf Hall. We only expect returning members to man our table, but if you're there for the cookies / the Filipino dancing, stop by our table and sign our sheet so we look popular.

Then at 7pm, we'll screen Indoctrinate U, a documentary about how colleges fight minority points of view. If you try to express an idea that's right-wing, offensive or just unpopular, universities may stamp it out, free speech be damned. The film's never seen wide release, but critics love it:

"Alarming and funny."
- Kyle Smith, New York Post

"I can't recommend it enough!"
- Lou Dobbs, CNN

"Judging by the rough cut, the movie will be as slick and incisive as anything by Michael Moore."
- The Daily Telegraph, London

Take a look at the trailer:

The reason we're chose this week to host Student Rights Week is...

THURSDAY

... which is Constitution Day. ACLU-Mass is commemorating the day with an event at 6pm at the public library. This year marks the 40th anniversary of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the Supreme Court case that gave college students First Amendment protections. You'll get to meet the suit's plaintiff, Mary Beth Tinker, who sued after her antiwar armband earned her a suspension. These ACLU Mass events' mean age usually exceeds fifty, so considering this one's called Student Rights in the 21st Century, they'll like some younger faces. RSVP soon because we're going in two groups - one will help at the event. The pther now plans to meet on Marsh Plaza at 5:30pm, but stay tuned for changes.

But if one day of Mary-Beth Tinker isn't enough, consider...

FRIDAY

...when ACLU-Mass have invited us to their office to have lunch with her. RSVPing is optional for most of the events, but for this one, it's not.

On the seventh day, we rest.

* Similarly, waterboarding enhances interrogation techniques.

This is the ACLU

By Ryan Menezes on 09/09/2009 at 4:07pm

As we do each September, we welcome now to our mailing list new friends and strangers.

Some of you joined blindly; you'd have joined LaRouche had his grunts recruited you, and after their first meeting, hours of bathing wouldn't have cleansed you. Some of you joined with full knowledge of the ACLU; you'll soon lead us, bringing controversial updates like "meeting agendas" and a "budget." And some of you are interested but don't know how involved you want to get. You'll know soon.

Our first meeting is tomorrow at 6pm in CAS 326. We will serve:

1. Punch.
2. Pie.
3. Peaches
4. Possibly other refreshments as well.

We'll tell you about the adventures we've had and what we've planned for this year, including screening a couple free movies, visiting the plaintiff in the '60s suit that defined campus rights, teaching on-campus residents how to resist overzealous RAs... and we've planned all that just for next week.

And we'll remind you of the ACLU's role in shaping the world,  which will send those of you who hate liberty fleeing.

- We're the nation's strongest advocates for individual privacy rights. This morning, for instance, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties discussed whether to renew Patriot Act provisions on surveillance and wiretapping. They asked the ACLU to testify.

- We support freedom of expression. All expression, from authors trying to publish novels to Nazis trying to march. So when, say, the senate passed a bill this summer to prosecute hate crimes, we objected because it could chill freedom of expression.

- We work to limit the government's power, holding even the highest government officials accountable. We were famously the first organization to call for Nixon's resignation. More recently, we've pushed to prosecute those who authorized War on Terror torture. Documents we uncovered convinced Attorney General Holder last month to appoint prosecutor John Durham to investigate CIA torture practices. And last week, in our case Al-Kidd v. Ashcroft, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled John Ashcroft  legally liable for his actions.

- Speaking of which, we're against torture, along with the death penalty and all other disproportionate punishment. Lots of what you know about torture at Guantanamo and elsewhere came from information that ACLU Freedom of Information requests uncovered. We obtained a fresh collection of documents last week. You find them at http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/40832res20090824.html We won a suit in April that will force  the government to turn over interrogation photos, but they're now appealing it to the Supreme Court.

- We support separating church and state, which means the government shouldn't restrict or endorse any religious beliefs. We sued  to bring evolution to public schools and to take creationism out. A week ago, a Kentucky court approved our suit  to cut funding from the state's Sunrise Children's Services (formerly known as Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children). The homes use taxpayer money to teach kids religious beliefs. In this case, the religious beliefs included homophobia, but the principle matters either way.

- But yeah, we do support gay rights. We were one of the groups that brought same-sex marriage to Massachusetts, and we sued (unsuccessfully) to overturn California's Prop 8. We've been lobbying Obama to overturn Don't Ask Don't Tell as he promised to. Last month, the administration filed a statement calling the Defense of Marriage Act discriminatory and calling for its repeal, a first for the federal government.

- We support everyone's rights. We filed an amicus brief in Brown v Board of Education, which ended segregation. We're still fighting segregation today - Vermilion Parish School District in Louisiana segregates students by sex, so we filed suit yesterday.

- We believe in the right to lose control.

Disagree with all of this? That's fine. We'll fight to the death your right to do so. Also, we'll defeat you.

If you agree with us though, at least with our weakness for baked goods, we'll see you tomorrow at 6pm.