LOS ANGELES - The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California filed suit in federal court today against officials in charge of the National Park Service (NPS) to compel them to remove a large permanent cross from the Mojave National Preserve. The cross is located in San Bernardino County, California and is clearly visible from a road running through the park. An ACLU member brought the cross to the organization's attention. The ACLU/SC negotiated for many months with NPS officials and believed that the matter was closed after the organization received a letter in October of last year from National Park Service officials announcing their decision to remove it. On December 15, 2000, however, Congress passed HR 4577, which precludes the use of federal funds to remove the cross. The cross remains in place, a clear violation of the First Amendment's non-establishment of religion clause.

"Contrary to what some believe," said Peter Eliasberg, staff attorney at the ACLU of Southern California and First Amendment specialist, "it is not the role of the federal government to advance Christianity or any other sectarian belief. Americans are perfectly competent to make such decisions for themselves without government interference."

"The federal government," said Eliasberg, "should not offer public land - owned collectively by people of every faith and of no faith - as a site for the advertisement and promotion of Jesus Christ, Buddha, Pope John Paul II, or any other particular religious figure."

"If anyone was allowed to place a permanent, free-standing expression of his or her religious or political viewpoint at this site," said Eliasberg, "we would have no objection, but that is not the case. No other group is allowed to do that. This creates a situation in which the federal government favors Christian expression over any other."

In response to articles about the cross's removal, Congress acted to prevent the removal and on December 15, 2000 passed a rider to HR 4457 adding the following language:

"None of the funds in this or any other Act may be used by the Secretary of the Interior to remove the five-foot-tall white cross located within the boundary of the Mojave National Preserve in southern California first erected in 1934 by the Veterans of Foreign Wars along Cima Road approximately 11 miles south of Interstate 15."

Eliasberg noted that HR 4457 results in a clear violation of the First Amendment and pointed to established law in the area.

"The courts have consistently held," said Eliasberg, "that a permanent religious fixture on federal land is a violation of the U.S. Constitution. An Act of Congress doesn't change that. This cross must come down, and no amount of political maneuvering or grandstanding will prevent that."

Eliasberg believes the case presents a crucial first test to the U.S. Department of Justice under new Attorney General John Ashcroft, who promised during his confirmation hearings that he would uphold the Constitution. Eliasberg drafted and sent a letter to the Department of Justice today to urge the Department to act responsibly, abide by the law, and reach a quick settlement rather than attempt to defend a clearly unconstitutional practice.

"This case will put to the test Attorney General Ashcroft's commitment to upholding the principles of our Constitution," said Eliasberg. "This will be a clear indicator of what we can expect from this Department of Justice in upholding the First Amendment guarantees that keep us free."

Much of the controversy surrounding the cross concerned its status as a site where Christian veterans gather to remember war dead in special services. But not all veterans are in agreement about the cross. Morris Radin, an 82-year old Jewish veteran of World War II, spoke at the press conference to describe his experience of fighting for the principles he believes this country was founded on.

"My father, Abe, was just eighteen when he came to America and became an American citizen," said Radin. "As an Orthodox Jew, he knew firsthand what happens when people are not free to practice their beliefs. He and my mother Sophie both left Russia to escape the pogroms. They never told me whether they had witnessed any of the atrocities born of that nation's inability to guarantee their freedom of religion. They drew a curtain on that period of their lives and faced a new life in a different place."

"They came to America without knowing the language," said Radin, "but knowing the larger language of America's promise. America is big enough for everyone to practice his or her own faith and where no one faith is privileged over any other or over none at all. Abe and Sophie Radin loved this country as passionately and profoundly as any citizen."

"The country they loved is the country I fought for and love as well," said Radin, "a country founded on principle, on freedom of conscience and religion, a country where the government isn't Christian or Jewish or Muslim, but can welcome all of these and more on a free and equal basis. That is the country I defend in supporting this legal action."

ANAHEIM - Yesterday evening, the Anaheim Union High School District (AUHSD) approved a settlement agreement with plaintiffs represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California in a book-banning case at Orangeview Junior High School involving a biographical series about gay and lesbian people, "Lives of Notable Gay Men and Lesbians." The subjects of the books include tennis player Martina Navratilova, economist John Maynard Keynes, and writers Willa Cather and James Baldwin. The books were pulled from the library by district officials. The ACLU/SC represented two student plaintiffs, who charged that the censorship of the biographies violated their First Amendment rights and violated state nondiscrimination laws. The suit was filed on December 21, 2000, and sparked heated controversy in the District, including one demonstration outside of the school led by activists in support of returning the books. Today, the ACLU/SC and the District's lawyers will file a motion with the Federal District Court asking for approval of the settlement.

"The swift and successful resolution of this case," said Martha Matthews, ACLU of Southern California's Bohnett Attorney, a staff attorney position funded by Internet innovator and philanthropist David Bohnett to advance lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) civil rights, "shows that individuals who take the risk of acting to defend their principles can make a difference."

"The two plaintiffs in this case and their families" said Matthews, "as well as the two librarians who sought to defend a core principle of their profession - intellectual freedom - deserve the thanks of every student and parent in the District for ensuring an environment that doesn't shut out the contributions of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people."

The agreement was approved by the Anaheim Union High School District Board yesterday evening. It includes the following key provisions:

--The books from the series "Lives of Notable Gays and Lesbians" will be shelved in an AUHSD school library and available to students within ten days.

--AUHSD will amend its policy regarding library books, specifying that, "No books shall be removed from the library of any AUHSD school where the primary reason for removal is that their subject matter involves sexual orientation," and that, "no AUHSD official or employee shall remove books from the library of any AUHSD school," except pursuant to AUHSD's challenge policy.

--AUHSD will distribute its amended policy to all AUHSD principals, library teachers, and library technicians, as well as a statement encouraging library teachers "to include, when selecting books for school libraries, materials discussing controversial ideas and viewpoints and materials representative of the AUHSD student population in terms of religion, race, ethnicity, disability, gender, and sexual orientation."

"The agreement is a victory for all students in Anaheim Unified High School District, gay or straight," said Matthews. "In the pages of these books, they can now encounter gay and lesbian people who have shaped our world, and those encounters will help them see the world in a new way. That's the point of reading. That's the point of libraries - to illuminate both our own and others' experiences - and to help us understand our common humanity, as well as our differences."

Matthews also commended the District's staff and Board for resolving the issue fairly, quickly, and clearly.

"We're very pleased with the fairness and speed with which this issue was resolved," said Matthews. "The agreement we created is a model of clarity and openness, and other school districts could benefit from reviewing and adopting its general provisions."

Gay- and lesbian-themed books frequently inspire censors. According to the American Library Association, two books for children about gay and lesbian families are among the top ten books banned in the United States. Between 1990 and 1999, the American Library Association reported 497 attempts to remove books from libraries on the grounds that they "promoted homosexuality."

Today's revelations that Chief Parks refused to cooperate with the District Attorney's office in its Rampart investigation, then publicly misrepresented the Department's actions, constitute yet another piece of compelling evidence that the Chief is incapable of leading the Department through the reform process. The Department's tardy or incomplete information-sharing has already compromised the prosecution of some of the officers involved in the scandal, and it gives the lie to the Department's tale of the success of its internal clean-up effort. Once again, we encounter an inevitable truth: the LAPD cannot be trusted to police itself.

Los Angeles is caught in a Catch 22. On the one hand, we have a Police Chief who sets himself up as the place where the buck stops, and a Mayor who has actively supported the Chief's ultimate authority. But both of them have consistently thwarted civilian oversight, the only kind of authority that holds the entire leadership of the Department, including the Chief, accountable.

Without that missing piece, the Chief has the last word on reform - and his interests, as anyone can see, are to retain control and minimize power-sharing. A truly independent civilian oversight body could respond effectively to such a situation, but our Police Commission, appointed and removed at the Mayor's whim, is hardly independent. It has demonstrated again and again its inability to muster a response that runs counter to the Mayor's and the Chief's stance.

Throughout the biggest corruption scandal in the history of the LAPD, there has been a lot of talk about accountability from both our Mayor and our Police Chief. It's time to stop talking about accountability and to institute it. An authoritarian personality does not constitute a system of accountability, and does not eliminate the need for such a system. A five-year consent decree is a necessary first step, but not the final answer. We need meaningful civilian oversight that would put the people of Los Angeles firmly in charge of the officers whose duty it is "to protect and to serve."