The ACLU National office annually recognizes the efforts of graduating seniors who have demonstrated a strong commitment to civil liberties throughout their high school experience. This year, 15 high school students will each be awarded a $7,000 college scholarship through the program. These scholar-activists will also be invited to participate in the Youth Activist Institute at the National ACLU office in New York City, to be held over several days in the summer of 2010. There, the scholarship recipients will learn more about the work of the ACLU and receive hands-on training on how to be grassroots activists and leaders on their campuses.

To qualify, students must:

• Have demonstrated a strong commitment to civil liberties through some form of activism
• Be a high school senior planning on entering an accredited college or university as a full-time, degree-seeking student
• Have attained a cumulative GPA of 3.0 on a 4.0 scale at the time of graduation
• Not be a current ACLU plaintiff or witness in a legal case

Application process:

• To apply for the scholarship, the student must be nominated by the affiliate, in this case, the ACLU of Southern California. Affiliates can nominate more than one student
• The first step for the affiliate is conducting a brief interview with the potential applicant to determine if he or she is a qualified candidate. If so, the affiliate sends out the application form.
• The application form includes: 1,000-word personal statement about your civil liberties activism; a recommendation form to be completed by an adult leader in your school or community that attests to your commitment as an activist and civil libertarian (this reference cannot be a family member); and an endorsement form that will be filled out by the local affiliate to formally nominate you for the scholarship. You will be required to submit your most up-to-date high school transcript to the GPA requirement.

Applicants will be judged on the following standards (in order of importance):

• The strength and depth of the candidate's contributions to civil liberties
• Demonstrated leadership
• The likelihood of the applicant continuing commitment to civil liberties in the future
• Commitment to academic excellence
• Demonstrated financial need

Winners will be announced in February 2010.

To schedule an application interview with the ACLU/SC, drop us an email. Deadline to schedule an interview: Nov. 13, 2009. Deadline to return completed applications to the ACLU/SC: Nov. 27, 2009.

Download this flyer to share with your friends!

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court heard arguments today in an American Civil Liberties Union case addressing whether Congress - transfer to private owners of a small parcel of land with a Latin cross on it in the Mojave National Preserve remedies the Establishment Clause violation found by the lower courts. The ACLU argued that transferring the land – with a cross on it designated by Congress as a national memorial -- to the Veterans of Foreign Wars does not cure the government's unconstitutional endorsement of one religion over another.

“We are hopeful that the Court will see that the land transfer does not fulfill the government's obligation not to favor any particular religion over others,” said Peter Eliasberg, managing attorney for the ACLU of Southern California, in reference to his arguments before the court today. “The cross is unquestionably a sectarian religious symbol, and as a congressionally designated national memorial – one of only 49 national memorials in the country – it would convey the message that the military values the sacrifices of Christian war dead over those of service members from other faith traditions.”

The case, Salazar v. Buono, stems from a complaint raised by Frank Buono, a veteran and former assistant superintendent of Mojave National Preserve, who claimed that the designation of an overtly religious symbol as a national war memorial was offensive and violated the separation of church and state. In 2001, a federal district court found in Buono's favor, and granted a permanent injunction barring defendants from permitting the display of the cross. The cross was originally erected in 1934 by veterans of World War I, and has been replaced several times since then. The most recent cross was built and looked after by a local resident, Henry Sandoz. Requests to erect a Buddhist shrine on the property were denied.

"By designating the cross as a national war memorial, and transferring the land underneath the cross to the VFW on condition that it maintain the memorial or forfeit the land, Congress has merely highlighted its message of religious endorsement and preferential treatment,” said ACLU Legal Director Steven R. Shapiro. “Rather than resolving the Establishment Clause violation, Congress has compounded it."

In 2002, while the federal district court case was pending, Congress designated the cross as a national memorial, one of only 49 such memorials around the country. Others include Mount Rushmore, the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial, although the Mojave cross would be the only one dedicated to soldiers who fought and died in World War I. In an attempt to circumvent the Establishment Clause violation, Congress also transferred one acre of land on which the cross stands to the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Sandoz, the local resident looking after the cross, in turn transferred five acres of privately owned land to the federal government.

“The cross's message would not be, as the memorial's defenders claim, one of commemoration for all war dead and veterans, or for all veterans of World War I,” added Eliasberg. “Thousands of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and members of other faiths who have served their country with honor do not regard the cross as a „universal symbol. - That's one reason the military allows soldiers and their families to choose which religious symbol to put on headstones in military cemeteries – a policy the ACLU staunchly supports.”

Read more about the Mojave cross case at https://www.aclusocal.org/news_stories/view/102832/

Peter Eliasberg will appear before the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday to argue Salazar v. Buono, an important First Amendment case concerning a cross erected by private citizens in California's Mojave National Preserve. Here are some of his thoughts on the eve of arguing the case before the nation's highest court.

Eliasberg is Manheim Family Attorney for First Amendment Rights for the ACLU/SC, as well as our managing attorney.

This is my first case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. I've argued in front of the California Supreme Court, and also seven or eight times before the 9th Circuit. But you sense that this is an even higher level, so yes, I'm nervous.

There are a lot of different issues in this case, and it's very hard to know what the justices will focus on. Lower courts have already decided that the placement of the cross on federal property violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and the government did not ask the Court to review that decision. One of the issues to be considered by the justices now is whether that violation is meaningfully eradicated by the government's proposal to transfer ownership of the small patch of land on which the cross stands to a local veteran's group, even though the cross will remain designated a national memorial.

It's utterly clear that the government's proposal does not live up to its obligation not to favor any particular religion. The cross is unquestionably a sectarian religious symbol, signifying the divinity of Jesus. As a congressionally designated national memorial to World War I veterans ''' one of only 49 national memorials in the country ''' this cross would convey the message that the military values the sacrifices of Christian war dead over those of service members from other faith traditions. This would be true even if the property were to be transferred to private owners.

The cross's message would not be, as the memorial's defenders claim, one of commemoration for all war dead and veterans, or for all veterans of World War I. Thousands of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and members of other faiths who have served their country with honor do not regard the cross as a '''universal symbol.' That's one reason the military allows soldiers and their families to choose which religious symbol to put on headstones in military cemeteries ''' a policy the ACLU staunchly supports, by the way.

Another issue the justices will consider is whether the plaintiff in the case, Frank Buono, a military veteran, former assistant superintendent of Mojave National Preserve and someone who visits the area of the preserve near the cross regularly, has standing to sue. And there's also an issue over whether the question of standing has even been properly presented to the court, since the government did not ask the Supreme Court to review the lower courts' ruling that Mr. Buono had standing when those decisions became final in 2004.

Clearly, Mr. Buono is directly affected. And anyone who is directly affected by government favoritism of one religion can and should be able to sue, if our constitutional freedom of religion is to mean anything. Otherwise, a Jewish student '''offended' by school-sponsored Christian prayers, for example, would have no legal recourse.

I've done a tremendous amount of preparatory work for this hearing in recent months. You always wonder, '''Is there some question I haven't thought of?' But by and large, I feel ready. I've done two moot courts at Harvard, one at NYU and one at Georgetown University. The moots are indispensable to preparation. They are a chance to test your arguments and how well you know them, but also to see what people who are smart think of them.

I drink decaf coffee, so tomorrow before I head to the court, I'll have a cup or two. There's really nothing you can do at the last minute before a major case like this except get yourself as grounded and relaxed as you can be, and try to keep your head clear.