ACLU of Texas - Liberty Blog

Leaders and staff of the ACLU of Texas and our Central Texas Chapter were saddened to learn that Roy Mersky has died. Professor Mersky was Harry Reasoner Regents Chair in Law and Director of the Tarlton Law Library at the University of Texas School of Law.

Mersky was also a President of the ACLU in Texas in the 1960s who had a strong commitment to protecting the Bill of Rights, particularly the First Amendment.

Visit the U.T. Law School website to read an in memoriam article and to read reflections from colleagues and friends, and to view a photo gallery, online here.

Professor Mersky’s family has requested that, in lieu of sending flowers, those who wish to remember him make a tribute gift to the Texas Democracy Foundation or the ACLU Foundation of Texas. To make a tribute gift, please click here or on the “Donate Now” button at the top of our home page. Alternately, your gift may be mailed to ACLU Foundation of Texas, P.O. Box 12905, Austin, TX 78711-2905.

The ACLU of Texas extends sincere condolences to Roy Mersky’s family, friends and former students.

Posted on Oct 5th, 2007 at 3:01 PM

A Maverick Organization Since 1938

Today the ACLU of Texas unveils our official seal for the 70th anniversary of the founding of the Texas Civil Liberties Union.

The ACLU got its start in Texas a few years after it was founded in New York in 1920. In 1938, in response to the government's violent response to the strike by predominately Latina pecan shellers in San Antonio, Congressman Maury Maverick Sr called for the creation of an organization to proect and defend the rights and liberties of all Texans - including Latinos and Latinas, and including the First Amendment rights to freedom of association, speech and expression.

This coming March, the ACLU of Texas will commemorate our 70th anniversary with the biggest celebration we've ever thrown - a conference and gala in the city of our birth, San Antonio.

Mark your calendars today, and make plans to join hundreds of civil libertarians and fellow travelers in San Antonio March 7-8, 2008.

Are you ready to pick up the torch?

Posted on Aug 15th, 2007 at 5:56 PM

My Experience at the National Border Security Conference

by Rebecca Bernhardt, Policy Director, Immigration, Border and National Security for the ACLU of Texas

I just wrapped up attending the 4th Annual Border Security Conference, held on the campus of the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP), on behalf of the ACLU of Texas.

The Conference was a who’s who of Washington border security enthusiasts and featured Secretary Michael Chertoff, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Mike McConnell, Director of National Intelligence, as well as Arturo Sarukhan, the Ambassador of Mexico, as speakers.

In attendance were a large number of military, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, and Border Patrol Agents and staff, as well as some local law enforcement, and a wide variety of private vendors, offering technological solutions to border security problems - ranging from unmanned aerial vehicles to virtual fence designs and portable biometric devices.

The conference was free, and several members of the public and press also attended, which helped keep the atmosphere feeling democratic. The conference was sponsored by several of the vendors, who also participated as speakers, including Boeing, SAIC, CSC, and Lockheed Martin.

I attended in hopes of learning more about law enforcement technologies and criminal intelligence practices that are likely to have a negative impact on the civil liberties of Texans soon and I was not disappointed.

* A company called L-1 Identity Solutions offers a portable "live-scan" device that can take a digital fingerprint during a traffic stop. According to the company representative, this devise has already been purchased by law enforcement in Oregon and California. This is the same company that developed the "camera" that is being used in Iraq to take photos, retinal scans and finger prints of Iraqis of security in the green zone.

* CoVi or Cognitive Video Techonologies, of Austin, Texas, now offers a portable license plate scanner, to permit law enforcement to capture license plates at any field location or from a patrol car. I have been assured that the "no hit" data from these photos of your license plate get dumped because it takes too much memory to store them, but what if someone is looking for me but not because I stole a car, just because they want to know where I am? Then what??

* Boeing has won a contract to develop a "virtual border fence" for the U.S. Border Patrol, including radar, towers, sensors, telescopes and other techonolgy. This fencing will be partly modeled on the Israeli virtual fence on their border with Egypt.

As for the actual Conference itself, although the speakers were fairly predictable, I have to say that some of the questions were very direct and the speaker's failure to answer the questions quite telling. For example:

* The panel on drug trafficking was asked a question about whether legalizing marijuana is a plausible idea. Two speakers, Dr. Howard C. Daudistel, of UTEP and Anthony Placido, Assistant Administrator and Chief Intelligence Officer for the DEA, said no - by not even mentioning marijuana in their answers. Instead they both talked about the evils of other hard drugs - including heroin and methamphetamine - without bothering to explain how the dangers of heroin explain why marijuana legalization is a bad idea. It was a truly Alice in Wonderland moment, but the marijuana question always brings that on.

* El Paso Sector Chief Victor Manjarrez was asked how human rights and civil rights figure into border security planning and he answered simply that they follow the law. This seemed to me one of the most honest answers of the Conference - border security planning does not consider human rights unless the U.S. Supreme Court recognizes them through its interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. The hundreds of border deaths caused by the increased militarization are not taken into consideration.

All in all, it was a very educational and eye-opening experience for me and proves that the government has some serious equipment at the ready to track all of our movements!

Posted on May 31st, 2007 at 6:18 PM

ACLU Celebrates Another Successful Legislative Session

Immigration, Prison Reform, Voting Rights top the list

AUSTIN – The American Civil Liberties Union of Texas (ACLU) celebrates the day after Sine Die with many notable successes. Proactive legislation was passed on prison reform, juvenile justice, and drug reform policy just to name a few, while a number of bills the ACLU worked against died – including bills on immigration and roadblocks to voting. The ACLU worked with many coalition partners to make this session a success.

Some of the highlights:

Prison Reform:

HB 1944 passed both houses and aims to eliminate in-prison sexual assault, a major problem in Texas.
HB 770, which passed both houses but was vetoed, would have provided voter registration information upon exit for prisoners who have completed their sentence.
Rider 87 on HB 1 provides that prisoners will have better access to medical care.

Immigration:

Of the over 60 bills and resolutions filed that included anti-immigrant provisions, three-quarters died in committee and almost half of them (30) were never even set for a hearing. Five were set for hearings and then not heard by committee and 13 others were heard by committee and left pending.
Of the bills and resolutions voted out of committee, eight were voted out of House State Affairs so late that they died in calendars or having been set too far down the house calendar. Three bills with an anti-immigrant impact died on the house floor (HB 855, HB 1274 and HB 3829), as did an effort to amend the CHIP bill to cut benefits to some lawful immigrant children.
HB 13, the controversial border security bill, passed as an amendment to SB 11, but all of the anti-immigrant provisions were stripped out. The same was true for SB 47.
Only one immigration-related bill, HB 1196, which targets employers who hire unauthorized workers, was sent to the governor and it was amended to limit any negative impact on immigrant workers.
In terms of affirmative legislation, HB 1121, a bill that assists victims of human trafficking and other severe crimes, has been sent to the governor.

Syringe Access:

Successfully supported efforts to create access to sterile syringes for high risk populations in Texas. While SB 308/HB856 (Deuell/McClendon) did not pass the House, the momentum generated behind the bills led to an amendment being added to SB 10, a Medicaid reform bill, to allow for a pilot needle exchange program in Bexar County.

Juvenile Justice:

Successfully helped to restructure and reform the Texas Youth Commission in SB 103. The ACLU’s former executive director, Will Harrell, is set to become the new Ombudsman for the TYC.

Right to Vote:

Worked closely with the Election Reform Coalition and has been instrumental in fighting HB 218, which would have required 2 forms of identification to vote, and HB 626, which would have required proof of citizenship upon voter registration.

Religious Freedom:

Worked with groups such as the Texas Freedom Network and the Christian Life Commission to add critical safeguards to a HB 1287, a Bible class bill that would have threatened the religious freedom of families in school districts across the state. The passage of the bill in this form was a defeat for the religious right.

Posted on May 16th, 2007 at 12:38 PM

What Odessa, Texas, Parents Say about Religious Bible Teachings in Public Schools

Moreno v. Ector County School Board is a lawsuit that was brought by the parents of school-age children who object to the board's decision to teach a religious Bible class in two high schools in Odessa. Here are their stories.

Amanda Moreno

I joined this lawsuit because I do not believe a public school should instruct my children or their classmates on religious beliefs. It is my role as a mother to teach my children about religion. We are a Catholic family and we attend mass nearly every Sunday. My children also attend catechism every Wednesday night. That is the religious instruction I have chosen for my children. What I expect from the school district is to provide my three children with a well-rounded education to help them prepare to get into college or find jobs.

That is why I pay taxes. I do not want the school — acting as government officials — to preach to my kids, especially when what they're preaching is a way of reading the Bible that is not always the same as what they learn in catechism class.

I have lived in Odessa for 34 years, I was born and raised here. I graduated from Permian High School in 1991. I have three children Isla (15), Carina (10) and Santana (8). My kids will be attending local high school and I want them to receive the best education possible. As a religious person, I also want my kids to be able to explore their religious faith on their own terms, but not at school where they may feel pressure to believe a certain way from their teachers or other classmates. The school district is putting its stamp of approval on this one course, and the kids see that. There is already so much peer pressure in high school. The school district shouldn't add to that by making some kids feel like outsiders because they don't practice the same religion.

I firmly believe that there are other subjects or other skills that the schools can teach to prepare my children for the future, then to preach to them from a Protestant viewpoint bible class.

Amado Flores

I am joining this lawsuit because I care about education in Odessa. I grew up in Odessa and attended Odessa and Permian high schools. I have lived here all my life. I work in an oil field as a derrickman, and I work hard to give my two children a good future. But the school district is failing my children by not giving them an adequate education.

My son Tommy Lee is 12 years old and my daughter Briana is 7. Tommy Lee is very interested in sports, especially football and baseball, and his favorite subject is science. He will soon enroll in high school and I want to make sure he has access to the best courses — ones that will help him get ahead in life. I don't want the school to spend limited resources to preach to my son. That is what my church is for.

I am a Catholic and I regularly attend church with my family. The Bible courses being taught at Odessa and Permian come from a Protestant viewpoint. At Permian, the class is being taught by someone who was a Baptist missionary. I think this clearly shows a preference in the school district for this religious belief and I don't think that's an appropriate message to send to our kids.

It's fine if kids want to get together to study the Bible. I'm all for that. What I'm not for is using tax dollars and public school resources to push an agenda.

Lori White

I have lived in Odessa nearly all my life. For the majority of those years I have been a student, an employee or a parent in the Ector County Independent School District: I attended Permian High School; I worked as a speech pathologist in the district for eight years and as a fifth-grade teacher for seven; and my son Robert "Bobby" White Jr. graduated from Permian High School last spring.

I am an active member of my community and I care deeply about what happens in our schools.

I have chosen to be a part of this lawsuit because I feel the school district should focus on basic curriculum like reading, writing and arithmetic. It is one thing to teach the Bible as literature or as part of a history or religion course but the class currently being taught is not an academic one. The contents of the course have been closely guarded, but reports say that the class is almost entirely devotional in nature. It is part of a sectarian religious agenda that violates the principles of separation of church and state. As a former educator and as a parent, I feel strongly that a faith based curriculum does not belong in our public schools.

Religion is a private matter; one that should be left to individuals and families. It is the duty of the school district to provide our students with the knowledge and tools they need in order to be engaged citizens in our democracy, it is the duty of parents and families to provide them with the training and tools they need to make personal decisions about faith.

Karen Hildebrand

I became involved in this lawsuit because of my belief that religious instruction should be left to religious institutions, not public schools.

I am a native Odessan and care very much about my community as evidenced by all the volunteer work I've done, including the Health Advisory Committee for Ector County ISD, Junior Achievement, Rape Crisis Center, Junior League of Odessa, and Christmas in Action. My three children all went to Odessa public schools.

Religion is very important to me. In fact, I am an ordained Elder in the Presbyterian Church USA and am a member at Westminster Presbyterian in Odessa. I have been a long time Sunday school teacher and currently co-teach a class for college students with my husband and additionally serve as a youth sponsor for our 1st-6th grade group called Just for Kids. I've participated as an adult sponsor on most of the mission trips our church youth group takes every summer to repair homes for the elderly.

However, I believe that the appropriate place to be studying the King James Version of the bible is in Sunday school and church - not a class in a public school. Religion is very personal, and the proper place for it to be addressed is at Sunday school and church and home. Even though the school bible class is an elective, it is still inappropriate.

Instead of putting resources into bible classes, I would like to see the school board focus on improving the education our students receive. I have a huge interest in education (the No Child Left Behind legislation was the subject of my research project for my Masters degree), and I believe that the education we provide for our children in Texas and in particular Ector County is shameful. I found that particularly frustrating as a parent of three sons going through the Ector County school system. Our drop-out rates are high and it seems to me that our local school district has little interest in helping the students who struggle with their education. That's what the School Board should be focusing on, not preaching the bible.

Douglas C. Hildebrand

Having lived most of my life in Texas and having attended college and raised a family in Odessa, I care very much about my community and the public education system. All three of my children attended Odessa public schools. I have served on several non-profit boards and in various local organizations. I became involved in this lawsuit because I am very concerned about the leadership of the Ector County Independent School District and the decision to teach a bible course in the public schools based on the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools curriculum.

Religion is very important to me in my personal life. In fact, I am an ordained deacon and elder in the Presbyterian Church USA, and I worship and serve at Westminster Presbyterian Church here in Odessa. My children were confirmed there and we have been members there for almost 20 years.

But while religion is very important to our family, I do not think that children should be learning religion, or the bible, in a sectarian manner in the public schools. There is not a lot of transparency around the bible course in our schools, but it seems that a faith based curriculum is used, not a scientific one. It seems like a church has invaded our school system — and it's not my church!

Instead of pushing religious classes, the school system should be providing the students with much needed education in other areas. The schools should be focused on teaching the students critical thinking, and training them to be skilled with their minds and hands. For instance, we need welders, mechanics, machinists, people in the building trades, etc.; more resources should be spent on teaching vocational skills.

Maybe the reason students drop out is because they are not learning the things that would be useful to them. The schools should focus on providing those kinds of classes, and let the kids learn the bible in a church of their choosing.

David Newman

As the parents of a 15-year-old 9th grader, my wife and I are deeply concerned about the introduction of the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools' curriculum in Odessa public schools. It is clear to me that much of this particular course was designed to advance the argument, aimed at students and teachers, that America is a distinctively Christian nation and should be governed by Christian principles.

My daughter is Jewish; she attends Bowie Jr. High, and has already been the recipient of taunts based on other kids' perception of an unfamiliar religion. She has even been told she'd burn in Hell if she didn't "find" Christ. The taunting is not unexpected; but I worry what will happen if the kids' misbehavior is reinforced by a Christian advocacy course endorsed by the school district itself.

Make no mistake; the course is not merely (as some have claimed) a neutral survey of the Bible's influence on Western culture. Professor Mark Chancey of Southern Methodist University, who has conducted an exhaustive analysis of the materials created by the National Council, has concluded that the aim of the course is primarily devotional, that the scholarship is often shoddy, and that the course's creators work under a pervasive cloak of secrecy. I have had repeatedly to file open records requests in order to get basic information about the course; the media have been barred from entering classes. I don't know of any other course where the curriculum is guarded so jealously.

Secrecy surrounding issues of faith is particularly disturbing to people who have in the past had to keep their faith a secret. I have the deepest respect for people who openly display true piety in their daily lives; it is they who show (not tell) their children how to live kind and thoughtful lives. But I've been disturbed by what seems a community's rush to embrace Bible-based proselytizing at public schools. Why is such a course needed? Why will the community be taught only one group's interpretation of the origin, purpose, and influence of Christianity? If it's because America is primarily a Christian country, then the course is superfluous. If it's because America is not as Christian as some would like to see it become, then the course does serve an evangelical purpose.

We challenge this course not because we are against religion, but because we believe that a family's religious beliefs are a personal matter; when such matters are broached in public school, the greatest care must be exercised. The curriculum in use in Odessa wants so badly to create a narrative of shared Protestant origins that no care is given to preserving the integrity of religious traditions that do not easily fit within that Protestant narrative. I have closely read the NCBCPS curriculum, and its promotional material. A clear and insistent thesis is advanced about this country: it was founded by and for Protestants, and is now imperiled by studies of other world religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam are mentioned) and by secularists whose pluralism and acceptance of religious diversity have been parts of an ongoing assault on America's core values (values that the NCBCPS argues can only be reclaimed by studying their version of the Bible their way.)

The course — "The Bible in History and Literature" — is in my judgment also pedagogically flawed: given its own simplistic methodologies, it is unlikely to produce better students of literature or history. The connections between American history and Christianity are richer, but far more complex, than those prescribed by the course's advocates

To be effective, a course about the Bible should reflect the schisms, the profound disagreements, out of which our various notions of that Book emerged. This course asserts that one Bible has influenced all of our histories, all of our literatures. But the course never allows "Bible" to be a work like other literature, a thing shaped by and product of a larger and more complex history. Ultimately, the National Council course treats the Bible as an artifact generative of our history and literature, not an artifact in any way engendered by that history or that literature. When the object of a course of study is the stuff of someone's revelation (no matter how sublime — and it IS sublime), the course of study is devotional in nature.

Roland Spickermann

I have always considered Bible literacy important, and was pleased that the local school district was considering inclusion of an optional course in the high school curriculum. One of the basic texts of Western civilization, and for the Western faiths! How could it not be important to study it, and its place in our heritage? I have children in this school district, whom I would consider placing in such a course some day.

But what would a good Bible course look like? The Bible's importance comes from the fact that, through its richness and depth, it has managed to give meaning to such a variety of different, even divergent faiths for so long: to Jews, Christians, Muslims, and yes, even to doubters. A good course would show this, and if it had any value as history, it also would teach what scripture means to each group, and why. A student who could place the Bible in this context would be even more awestruck at the Bible's miraculously durable legacy, regardless of his/her own faith.

I volunteered to serve on the school district's curriculum committee to help find such a course. I began doing research so that I could ask informed questions.

Even just one summer of research, however, led me to strong doubts about the curriculum ultimately chosen by my school board, that of the NCBCPS. Despite nominal gestures toward objectivity, it privileges a narrowly Protestant perspective on scripture, sidelines other perspectives the more they diverged from this, and often omits contradicting information. Just as troubling is its portrayal of our Founding Fathers as Christians writing a scripturally inspired Constitution and claiming a Biblical basis for American law, a portrayal ignoring an overwhelming body of historical research. Even a brief perusal of internet sources would raise serious doubts about this portrayal, if one chose to look. In short, this curriculum not only fell far short of my own hopes, but had troubling flaws which added up to systematic bias.

I would welcome a Bible curriculum. But this curriculum's deliberate biases and indifferent scholarship are serious enough to raise disturbing issues for me about its suitability and legality.

Learn more here.