DOCSLIB.ORG

Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey New

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey New RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY NEW BRUNSWICK AN INTERVIEW WITH ARYEH NEIER FOR THE RUTGERS ORAL HISTORY ARCHIVES INTERVIEW CONDUCTED BY SHAUN ILLINGWORTH NEW YORK, NEW YORK JULY 10, 2015 TRANSCRIPT BY JESSE BRADDELL Shaun Illingworth: This begins the third interview session with Aryeh Neier for the ACLU Oral History Project at Rutgers University’s Oral History Archive on July 10, 2015 in New York, New York. Thank you very much for having me here again. Aryeh Neier: Glad to do it. SI: Last time we left off, we were talking about how you left the organization and the job as National Executive Director. You then, the next year I believe, published a book, mostly related to the Skokie case. [Editor’s note: National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie was a famous case in 1977 regarding the right to free speech, in which an ACLU lawyer named Burton Joseph successfully defended the right of members of the National Socialist Party of America-- formerly the American Nazi Party--to march through Skokie, Illinois, which had a large Jewish population. In 1979, Mr. Neier wrote Defending My Enemy: American Nazis in Skokie, Illinois.] Can you tell me about how that came about and why you felt strongly to write on that subject? AN: Well, the Skokie case had attracted a great deal of attention and I was eager to put forward my reasons for wanting to take on the defense of free speech for the American Nazis. I wrote the book at great speed. I knew all the information; didn’t have to do any research. I think it took me less than three months to write the book. It was just something I wanted to do and felt it would be a good thing to do. SI: It was more personal motivation. Was there anybody from the ACLU saying, “Well, we should explain this?” AN: No, no. This was strictly my effort and I didn’t start working on the book until after I left the staff of the ACLU. SI: Which was about a year and a half after Skokie? AN: I left at the beginning of October 1978. The Skokie case had actually endured, I think, for about fifteen months, from March or April 1977 to about June 1978. It wasn’t that long after the end of Skokie that I left. In fact, I think I probably announced my departure before the Skokie case was entirely resolved, but at that point it was fairly clear what was going to happen. SI: Once you left the ACLU, did you want to just spend some time, almost like a sabbatical? AN: Yes, very much so. A few months earlier, in 1978, I had received a call from Robert Bernstein who was the Chairman and CEO of Random House Publishers. He wanted me to join him in creating a Helsinki Watch Committee. He did this because he was, at that point, also the chairman of the Association of American Publishers. In that connection he had travelled to Moscow to sign a copyright agreement with the Soviet Union. While he was in Moscow he visited some of the Russian authors that Random House published and those gave him an awareness of political persecution in the Soviet Union. So he came back eager to do something. There had been a Moscow Helsinki group established in 1976; the members--or most of the members--were being imprisoned at that point and so Bernstein wanted to launch an effort in the United States to assist them. He asked me to join him in this. I agreed to do so. I had known him fairly well because on behalf of the ACLU, we had been active in a couple of cases jointly with Random House. They had published books by former CIA agents and the CIA had tried to 2 censor the books. The ACLU represented the former CIA agents. Random House represented itself in the litigation. We had dealt jointly with those free speech cases, and so that was the basis on which he called me. I helped him put together a Helsinki Watch Committee and we got initial funding for it. Then, after I announced my departure from the ACLU, he and others associated with this effort, asked me if I would become the director of the Helsinki Watch. I said, "No." I said I was tired because of my fifteen years at the ACLU. I was looking for something equivalent to a sabbatical. I made an arrangement with New York University. I became a visiting professor of law at New York University and also a fellow of a newly established humanities institute at New York University. Then I got another call, I think the day after the newspapers carried the story that I was stepping down as ACLU Director. I got a call from the head of a foundation called the Twentieth Century Fund. Their practice was to commission books on public policy issues. It’s now called The Century Foundation. The President of what was then called the Twentieth Century Fund asked me would I like to do a book for them. I said, “Yes.” We worked it out. I gave them a proposal for the book. They gave me a grant for the book. That led to a book I published somewhat later called Only Judgment. In the interim, I did the Defending My Enemy book very quickly. So I spent the time at New York University teaching at the law school, serving as a fellow of the Humanities Institute--none of that took very much time. The work on the book didn’t take very much time. I travelled quite a lot during that period. I had been invited to go to South Africa because there were newly established public interest law centers in South Africa. One of them was being established at Witwatersrand University. It’s known as Wits. The dean of the law school, John Dugard, was stepping down and was becoming the director of this public interest law center. He asked me, would I come to South Africa to advise them on how to operate this public interest law center, and I did. I went to South Africa for a month. It was also during this period that I made my first trip to Asia. The Indian Consul in New York invited me to go to India at the expense of the government of India to lecture at the University of Calcutta and to the Bombay Merchants’ Association. I travelled to India for three weeks. I went to a human rights conference in Italy during this period. I did quite a lot of travelling and spent my time on a fairly relaxed basis for essentially about two and a half years following my departure from the ACLU. Ronald Reagan became President in January 1981. Reagan immediately made clear that he was going to repudiate the human rights policy associated with Jimmy Carter. So I went back to Robert Bernstein, who had asked me to head the Helsinki Watch, and I said, “Now I’m ready to do that on the basis that we would build on the Helsinki Watch, which was focused entirely on the former Soviet Bloc countries.” I said, “I’m happy to do that, but I also want to build it into an organization that would deal with human rights on a worldwide basis.” Bernstein and the others associated with the group agreed. In early 1981, I became the executive director. I had been vice-chair before I was on staff and I retained the title vice-chair, but effectively, I was the executive director of the new organization, which evolved into Human Rights Watch. SI: How did your time at the ACLU prepare you for Human Rights Watch? They are two very different organizations in many ways. AN: They’re very different and yet, I brought to the effort to deal with human rights internationally a lot of what I had learned at the ACLU. It turned out that some of the people with whom I was particularly associated at the ACLU, had also made a transition into working on human rights internationally. At the ACLU, one of the people with whom I had collaborated 3 was a woman from Mississippi named Patricia Derian. I had been very impressed with her and persuaded her to run for the board of the ACLU and also for the executive committee of the ACLU. She had been a housewife in Mississippi. She had started as a nurse, married a surgeon who was a professor of medicine at the University of Mississippi in Jackson, and she started to become prominent in civil rights when Jackson, Mississippi closed its public schools in order to prevent desegregation. As a Jackson, Mississippi housewife at that stage, she led an effort to keep the schools open. That led to her prominence in the civil rights period. When the Democratic Party disaffiliated the Mississippi Democratic Party because it was all white and seated an integrated democratic party at the Democratic Convention in--I guess, this must have been 1972--she became the National Democratic Committee Woman for Mississippi. She was the white National Democratic Committee woman and a black pharmacist from Clarksdale, Mississippi was the National Democratic Committee Man. So she also became a factor in Democratic Party politics. When Jimmy Carter ran for President in 1976, he got to know her. When he became President, she had been active in civil rights in the United States; and she was on the ACLU board.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey New
    RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY NEW BRUNSWICK AN INTERVIEW WITH GARA LAMARCHE FOR THE RUTGERS ORAL HISTORY ARCHIVES INTERVIEW CONDUCTED BY SHAUN ILLINGWORTH NEW YORK NEW YORK MAY 11, 2015 TRANSCRIPT BY JESSE BRADDELL Shaun Illingworth: This begins an interview with Gara LaMarche on May 11, 2015 in New Yok, New York as part of the ACLU Oral History Project for the Rutgers Oral History Archives. Thank you very much for having me back. Gara LaMarche: Thank you. SI: To begin, I wanted to ask a little bit more about the period when you were working under Ira Glasser. Your job had been created out of what had been, I think you said, seven jobs staffing the committees. Then the committee system was going away and you said you split your time between special projects for Ira Glasser and staffing the committees. Do you remember any examples of what those special projects would be? What he would have you do? It was a short time. You said it was maybe six months. GL: Yes. It would have been from January ‘78 to--is that right? No. It would’ve been from October of ‘78 when he came on, or a little after that, to August of the following year. It might be eight months at the most. Well, first thing, the committees weren’t going away yet. I think it probably took another twenty years probably for the committees to go away. I was actually a co- chair, I think, with Susan Herman, who’s now the ACLU President.
    [Show full text]
  • REGULATING RACIST SPEECH on CAMPUS: a MODEST PROPOSAL?T
    REGULATING RACIST SPEECH ON CAMPUS: A MODEST PROPOSAL?t NADINE STROSSEN* TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................... 487 I. Some Limited Forms of Campus Hate Speech May Be Regulable Under Current Constitutional Doctrine .......... 495 A. General ConstitutionalPrinciples Applicable to Regulating Campus Hate Speech ...................... 495 B. ParticularSpeech-Limiting Doctrines Potentially Applicable to Campus Hate Speech .................... 507 1. Fighting Words ................................... 508 2. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress ......... 514 t The title is drawn from Jonathan Swift's essay A Modest Proposalfor preventing the Children of poor Peoplefrom being a Burthen to their Parentsor the Country, andfor Making them Beneficial to the Public (Dublin 1729), in JONATHAN SwIFr 492 (A. Ross & D. Woolley eds. 1984). This Article not only responds to the specific points made in Lawrence, If He Hollers Let Him Go: Regulating Racist Speech on Campus, 1990 DUKE L.J. 431 [hereinafter Lawrence], but also addresses the general issues raised by the many recent proposals to regulate racist and other forms of hate speech on campus. Professor Strossen's Article, as well as Professor Lawrence's, are expanded versions of oral presentations that they made at the Biennial Conference of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in Madison, Wisconsin on June 16, 1989 (available from author). After discussion of these presentations, the Conference adopted the following resolution: The ACLU should undertake educational activities to counter incidents of racist, sexist, anti-semitic and homophobic behavior (including speech) on school campuses and should encourage school administrators to speak out vigorously against such incidents. At the same time, the ACLU should undertake educational activities to counter efforts to limit or punish speech on university campuses.
    [Show full text]
  • L\Rne{\Can . C\\J\\ \..\Be{T\Es \9'00-\9'0A
    I/ I I \ne l\rne{\can . C\\J\\ \..\be{t\es Dn,on ~eco{dS and . ?ub\\CO.\\Qt'\S \9'00-\9'0A \)\)oa\e Pro uesf Start here. This volume is a finding aid to a ProQuest Research Collection in Microform. To learn more visit: www.proquest.com or call (800) 521-0600 About ProQuest: ProQuest connects people with vetted, reliable information. Key to serious research, the company has forged a 70-year reputation as a gateway to the world's knowledge -from dissertations to governmental and cultural archives to news, in all its forms. Its role is essential to libraries and other organizations whose missions depend on the delivery of complete, trustworthy information. 789 E. Eisenhower Parkway • P.O Box 1346 • Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 • USA •Tel: 734.461.4700 • Toll-free 800-521-0600 • www.proquest.com University Microfilms International A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA HISTORY CREATES OUR CLIENTS: THE ACLU'S 57-YEAR RECORD by Alan Reitman Associate Director American Civil Liberties Union If this nation possesses a Constitution, a Bill of Rights, courts dedicated to legal principles, and in theory just about everybody believes individual rights should be protected impartially--of what possible use is an organization like the American Civil Liberties Union? The civil liberties chronicle of the last 57 years, which matches some of the most chaotic decades in American history, clearly reveals how badly needed is this private, non-partisan organization devoted solely to the protection of the Bill of Rights.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 February 4, 2014 the Honorable
    WASHINGTON LEGISLATIVE OFFICE February 4, 2014 The Honorable John A. Koskinen Commissioner of Internal Revenue CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-134417-13), Room 5205 Internal Revenue Service 1111 Constitution Avenue NW Washington, DC 20224 Re: Comments on Draft Guidance for Tax-Exempt Social Welfare AMERICAN CIVIL Organizations on Candidate-Related Political Activities LIBERTIES UNION WASHINGTON LEGISLATIVE OFFICE Dear Commissioner Koskinen: 915 15th STREET, NW, 6 TH FL WASHINGTON, DC 20005 T/202.544.1681 The American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”) respectfully submits these F/202.546.0738 WWW.ACLU.ORG comments in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (the “Notice”) issued by the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS” or “Service”) and the LAURA W. MURPHY 1 DIRECTOR Treasury Department on November 29, 2013. NATIONAL OFFICE 125 BROAD STREET, 18 TH FL. I. Executive Summary NEW YORK, NY 10004-2400 T/212.549.2500 As we explain in detail in our comments below, while we support replacing OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS SUSAN N. HERMAN the current “facts and circumstances” test for political activity by affected PRESIDENT tax-exempt organizations with a bright-line standard, we have serious ANTHONY D. ROMERO concerns with the rule as proposed in the Notice, both from a First EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Amendment perspective and as a simple matter of workability. ROBERT REMAR TREASURER We comment below on: The danger with the Service’s proposed “electioneering communications-plus” approach in the definition of candidate-related political activity (“CRPA”), which would cover any public communication that refers to a candidate within 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election, or, in the 60 days before a general election, refers to a political party; Why the proposed “functional equivalence” test, which would count as CRPA any communication that is “susceptible of no reasonable interpretation” other than one in support of or opposition to a 1 Guidance for Tax-Exempt Social Welfare Organizations on Candidate- Related Political Activities, 78 Fed.
    [Show full text]
  • Top of Page Interview Information--Different Title
    Oral History Center, The Bancroft Library, University of California Berkeley Oral History Center University of California The Bancroft Library Berkeley, California Anthony Romero Anthony Romero: Leadership of the American Civil Liberties Union in Times of Crisis The Marion and Herbert Sandler Oral History Project Interviews conducted by Martin Meeker in 2017-2018 Copyright © 2019 by The Regents of the University of California Oral History Center, The Bancroft Library, University of California Berkeley ii Since 1954 the Oral History Center of the Bancroft Library, formerly the Regional Oral History Office, has been interviewing leading participants in or well-placed witnesses to major events in the development of Northern California, the West, and the nation. Oral History is a method of collecting historical information through tape-recorded interviews between a narrator with firsthand knowledge of historically significant events and a well-informed interviewer, with the goal of preserving substantive additions to the historical record. The tape recording is transcribed, lightly edited for continuity and clarity, and reviewed by the interviewee. The corrected manuscript is bound with photographs and illustrative materials and placed in The Bancroft Library at the University of California, Berkeley, and in other research collections for scholarly use. Because it is primary material, oral history is not intended to present the final, verified, or complete narrative of events. It is a spoken account, offered by the interviewee in response to questioning, and as such it is reflective, partisan, deeply involved, and irreplaceable. ********************************* All uses of this manuscript are covered by a legal agreement between The Regents of the University of California and Anthony Romero signed March 24, 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • Collective Lives / Collective Struggles the Individuals Who Joined Together to Save Gene & Kate’S Home and Created the Eugene V
    Collective Lives / Collective Struggles The Individuals Who Joined Together to Save Gene & Kate’s Home and Created the Eugene V. Debs Foundation Prepared for the Eugene V. Debs Foundation Archives by Timothy J. Kelley Foundation Board Member September 2018 We’re all immortal, as long as our stories are told. Elizabeth Hunter Table of Contents Introduction 1 Donald Allen 6 V. Dewey Annakin 8 Roger Baldwin 10 Morris Blumberg 13 Quentin Bone 15 Bernard J. Brommel 16 John P. Burke 18 Ned Bush Sr. 19 William Coakley 21 J. Robert Constantine 22 Marguerite Debs Cooper 25 Rolla Cowger 28 Woodrow W. Creason 29 Curtis B. Culver 31 William Davey 32 S. A. Dewitt 34 John Dos Passos 37 Tilford G. Dudley 42 Eugene I. Dyche 46 Oscar K. Edelman 49 Ronald Elperin 51 William Fox 52 Albert Frampton 53 Royal France 54 Ruth Crawford France 56 Erich Fromm 58 Adolph Germer 61 John Grindrod 64 Shirley Grindrod 65 Doyt Hamilton 67 Constance “Connie” Hamilton 69 Howard D. Hamilton 71 Leavitta Brewer Hamilton 75 Mary Donovan Hapgood 77 William J. Hillis 80 John Haynes Holmes 81 Ruth Le Prade 84 Mitchell Loeb 88 Dora Mayer 90 Louis Mayer 92 John McDaniel 95 Marjorie McDaniel 96 Duncan McDonald 98 James “Brad” Miller 101 Lilly Martin Miller 101 Clyde R. Miller 104 Virgil Morris 112 Thomas Mulvihill 113 James O’Connell 114 Otto Pragan 115 Albert Schweitzer 118 Clifford Shanks 121 Mulford Sibley 123 Upton Sinclair 128 Edward K. Spann 136 J. Karl Stark 139 Kate Rotsheck Steichmann 141 Earl Stephanson 146 Irving Stone 148 Norman Thomas 158 Edmund Whalen 164 Debs Foundation Charter Members - Photograph Credits Name Photo Credit Allen, Donald W.
    [Show full text]
  • NADINE STROSSEN1 New York Law School 57 Worth Street, New York, NY 10013-2960 (212) 431-2375; (212) 431-1992 (FAX) [email protected]
    NADINE STROSSEN1 New York Law School 57 Worth Street, New York, NY 10013-2960 (212) 431-2375; (212) 431-1992 (FAX) [email protected] PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 1988-present Professor of Law, New York Law School (teaching Constitutional Law, International Human Rights, Advanced Constitutional Law and Freedom of Speech) 1990 Adjunct Professor, Columbia University Graduate School of Business (co- developed and co-taught course on International Business & International Human Rights) 1984-1988 Associate Professor of Clinical Law, New York University School of Law (taught Civil Rights Clinic, Advocacy of Civil Claims, Lawyering, and Constitutional Law & Appellate Advocacy) 1976-1984 Attorney in private practice, Minneapolis (1976-1978) and New York City (1978- 1984) 1975-1976 Judicial Clerk, Minnesota Supreme Court EDUCATION J.D., Harvard Law School - 1975 * Editor, Harvard Law Review * Magna Cum Laude (top 5%) A.B., Harvard College - 1972 * Phi Beta Kappa * National Merit Scholar * Honors major (History & Literature) * Briggs Prize National Institute of Trial Advocacy - 1981 1Last updated 8/23/07 (Steven Cunningham). Total number of publications, as of that date: 302. 1 HONORARY DEGREES Honorary Doctor of Laws Degree, Mt. Holyoke College – 2004 Honorary Degree, The Packer Collegiate Institute – Brooklyn, NY (the first honorary degree awarded in the school’s 155-year history) – 2002 Honorary Doctor of Laws Degree, Massachusetts School of Law – 2000 Honorary Doctor of Laws Degree, Rocky Mountain College – 1996 Honorary Juris Doctor Degree, San
    [Show full text]
  • Nadine Strossen and the ACLU
    Tulsa Law Review Volume 41 Issue 4 The scholarship of Nadine Strossen Summer 2006 Nadine Strossen and the ACLU Norman Dorsen Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Norman Dorsen, Nadine Strossen and the ACLU, 41 Tulsa L. Rev. 661 (2013). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol41/iss4/4 This Legal Scholarship Symposia Articles is brought to you for free and open access by TU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Tulsa Law Review by an authorized editor of TU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Dorsen: Nadine Strossen and the ACLU NADINE STROSSEN AND THE ACLU Norman Dorsen* 1. My purpose in this article is to shed light on what Nadine Strossen does in her day-and night-job as president of the American Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU"). To do this I will first discuss the ACLU itself, its structure, and its processes. Some of what I discuss may be familiar to the audience of this symposium, which knows the ACLU both from its ubiquitousness in American life and, in some cases, through their work with (and perhaps against) the organization at the national or affiliate level. As Nadine's immediate predecessor as ACLU president, I shall try to indicate how she justifies the description of activist as well as scholar. First, a personal comment. When one leaves a demanding post after many years of service, there is always a risk that your successor will disappoint you by depreciating, or even reversing, your decisions and priorities.
    [Show full text]
  • The ACLU at 100 Bill Donohue President Catholic League For
    1-Copyright_AR_copyrt.qxd 10/31/12 10:30 AM Page i 2012 Report on Anti-Catholicism Copyright © 2013 ® Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights All rights reserved. Published in the United States of America i The ACLU will celebrate its centennial on January 20, 2020. Always contentious, it has become the most influential civil liberties organization in the nation. Today it boasts more than 1.5 million members and employs nearly 300 staff attorneys; it also has thousands of volunteer lawyers. Its presence at the nation's elite law schools is testimony to its clout. Most important, it has won many historic cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. Its reputation as a non-partisan organization that vigorously defends the free speech rights of all Americans, independent of their ideology or political leanings, is well known. However, it is a reputation that can be seriously challenged. Indeed, as I detailed in The Politics of the American Civil Liberties Union (Transaction Press, 1985), it would be more accurate to say that the Union is the legal arm of the liberal-left. Its reputation as a force for freedom can also be seriously challenged. As I argued in Twilight of Liberty: The Legacy of the ACLU (Transaction Press, 1994; new material was published in the 2001 edition), the Union entertains a vision of liberty that is increasingly libertine: its promotion of radical individualism works to undermine the kind of moral consensus that is a bedrock of free societies. In doing so, it ineluctably increases the power of the state, allowing individual rights to eviscerate the authority of such mediating institutions as the family, school, church, and voluntary associations.
    [Show full text]
  • Speaking of Race, Speaking of Sex: Hate Speech, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties Nadine Strossen New York Law School, [email protected]
    digitalcommons.nyls.edu Faculty Scholarship Articles & Chapters 1994 Speaking of Race, Speaking of Sex: Hate Speech, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties Nadine Strossen New York Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/fac_articles_chapters Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, and the First Amendment Commons Recommended Citation Strossen, Nadine, "Speaking of Race, Speaking of Sex: Hate Speech, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties" (1994). Articles & Chapters. 1108. https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/fac_articles_chapters/1108 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at DigitalCommons@NYLS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles & Chapters by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@NYLS. Speaking of Race, Speaking of Sex Hate Speech, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties Henry Louis Gates, Jr., Anthony P. Griffin, Donald E. Lively, Robert C. Post, William B. Rubenstein, and Nadine Strossen with an introduction by Ira Glasser n NEW YORK UNIVERSITY PRESS New York and London "War of Words: Critical Race Theory and the First Amendment" by Henry Louis Gates, Jr., is adapted and expanded from "Let Them Talk," New Republic, September zo and z7, 1993. Reprinted by permission of The New Republic,@ 1993, The New Republic, Inc. Several passages in "Racial Myopia in the Age of Digital Compression" by Donald E. Lively originally appeared in an article entitled "Reformist Myopia and the Imperative of Progress: Lessons for the Post-Brown Era" (46 Vanderbilt Law Review, 865 [1993]), and are reprinted by permission of Vanderbilt Law Review. "Regulating Racist Speech on Campus: A Modest Proposal?" by Nadine Strossen is reprinted by permission of Duke Law Journal, in which a previous, fully footnoted version (1990 Duke Law Journal, 484 [1989]) appeared.
    [Show full text]
  • TRIAL and ERROR TRIAL and ERROR the American Civil Liberties Union and Its Impact on Your Family
    DOWNLOADED FROM: Family Guardian Website http://familyguardian.tzo.com Download our free book: The Great IRS Hoax: Why We Don’t Owe Income Tax TRIAL AND ERROR TRIAL AND ERROR The American Civil Liberties Union and Its Impact on Your Family George Grant -: : :, ,.< ., . ..’ .:”, , ,-:-. ...i -..“. ..-. ,- -~ .- .. ., . “ Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Publishers, Inc. 13rentwood, Tennessee — The mission of Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Publishers, Inc. is to publish and dis- tribute books that lead individuals toward: ● A personal fairk in the one true God: Father, Son, and Holy SpiriG ● A Iiiestyle of practical discipleship; and ● A worldview fiat is consistent with the historic, Christian faith Moreover, the Company endeavors to accomplish this mission at a reason- able profit and in a manner which glorifies God and serves His Kingdom. 01989 by George Grant All rights reserved. Fimt Edition. No part of thk publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, re- cording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except for brief quotations in critical reviews or articles. Unless otherwise noted, all scripture quotations are either the author’s own or are from the New King James Version of the Bible, @ 1979, 1980, 1982, 1984 by Thomas Nelson, Inc., Nasville, Tennessee and are used by permission. First printing November 1989 Second printing March 1990 Wolgemurh & Hyatt, Publishers, Inc. 1749 Mallory Lane, Suite 110, Brentwood, Tennessee 37027. Printed in the United States of America. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Grant, George, 1954- Trial and error : the American Civil Liberties Union and its impact on your family / George Grant.
    [Show full text]
  • Of Pragmatism and Principle: a Second Look at the Expulsion of Elizabeth Gurley Flynn from the ACLU's Board of Directors
    Tulsa Law Review Volume 41 Issue 4 The scholarship of Nadine Strossen Summer 2006 Of Pragmatism and Principle: A Second Look at the Expulsion of Elizabeth Gurley Flynn from the ACLU's Board of Directors Burt Neuborne Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Burt Neuborne, Of Pragmatism and Principle: A Second Look at the Expulsion of Elizabeth Gurley Flynn from the ACLU's Board of Directors, 41 Tulsa L. Rev. 799 (2013). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol41/iss4/11 This Legal Scholarship Symposia Articles is brought to you for free and open access by TU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Tulsa Law Review by an authorized editor of TU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Neuborne: Of Pragmatism and Principle: A Second Look at the Expulsion of El OF PRAGMATISM AND PRINCIPLE: A SECOND LOOK AT THE EXPULSION OF ELIZABETH GURLEY FLYNN FROM THE ACLU'S BOARD OF DIRECTORS Burt Neuborne* I. INTRODUCTION: A POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE I am delighted to participate in this well-earned tribute to Nadine Strossen, whose dedicated service as president of the American Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU") in a troubled time has contributed greatly to the ACLU's success in defending American freedom. Nadine's tireless advocacy of liberty and her hardheaded effectiveness in articulating the case for civil liberties has earned her the respect and gratitude of millions of Americans. Nadine's success in leading the organization, both internally and in the public arena, warrants special thanks from those of us who feel a particular emotional and intellectual attraction to the ACLU.
    [Show full text]