LOS ANGELES - In a reversal of position in response to an ACLU of Southern California lawsuit, Beltran v. UC Regents, the University of California late yesterday announced that it will admit students who qualify academically but whose schools failed to fill out the paperwork for the ELC ("Eligibility in a Local Context") admissions program, which guarantees admission to UC for the top 4% of each graduating class. The ACLU of Southern California filed suit in California State Superior Court on December 20, 2000, challenging the University's violation of the students' due process rights.

"Just in time for Christmas, the University checked its list twice and took back the lumps of coal it left in the stockings of high-achieving students whose schools failed to do the paperwork for the ELC program," said Mark Rosenbaum, Legal Director of the ACLU of Southern California. "These students deserve admission without question. They earned it. The University's decision yesterday will change the lives of thousands of students. It's the right decision, and we're very pleased to see the students' interests placed ahead of everything else."

"We're delighted by the University's announcement, and we commend the University of California for acting so quickly in the best interests of deserving students," said Rocio Cordoba, staff attorney at the ACLU of Southern California. "We look forward to learning the details of the University's proposal to remedy the problems in its ELC program. We are very pleased that the Regents recognized that these were deserving students who had been unfairly punished by an admissions policy that did not function properly, but we hope that the University will take this one step further and institute a system which does not fail in one of six schools in California next year. In any case, no student should ever again be put in the position of having qualified academically but being disqualified through someone else's omission."

"Before we decide whether this fully satisfies the requirements of fairness, however," said Cordoba, "we will need to evaluate the details of the University's response."

Students and attorneys can be reached on Saturday, December 23, by leaving a message for Christopher Calhoun at 213/977-5252; he will be checking messages and will reply with contact numbers for interested reporters.

The ACLU of Southern California filed a federal lawsuit today on behalf of two students at Orangeview Junior High School whose free-speech rights are being violated by censorship of school library books by the Anaheim Union High School District.Ten books were removed by District officials from the Orangeview library in early September 2000, and have been kept in the District's offices ever since, despite the efforts of Orangeview's librarians to get the books back. The books are a series of biographies, written for youth 14 years old and up, entitled "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."We all know why these books have been banned," 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.
"The books were banned because the words gay and lesbian appear on the front cover. The books were banned because they had a positive statement to make to kids about gay and lesbian people, because gay or lesbian people, in the eyes of some, cannot possibly be role models or heroes. The books were banned, in short, because of deep- seated prejudice."
"This is a very clear case of viewpoint-based censorship, which is unconstitutional," said Matthews. "At its core, this kind of suppression is anti-democratic and antithetical to the mission of a school and, particularly, of a school library, which is to encourage inquiry and broaden minds. This kind of censorship is offensive, cowardly, and damaging to students."
The Orangeview library has over fifteen other series of biographies, profiling the lives and achievements of other groups such as African-Americans, Latinos and Latinas, Asian-Americans, women, and persons with disabilities. Only the books about famous gay and lesbian persons were removed from the library and singled out for scrutiny by District officials.
"I have an older brother in high school, who is gay, said plaintiff Daniel Doe [a pseudonym], "I think that having books in the library about famous people who are gay or lesbian would help me and other students learn that gay people can be successful in life, and learn not to be prejudiced."
Public school students have rights under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the California Constitution. Schools can ensure that library books are age- appropriate and have educational value. But they cannot ban books because of disapproval of the viewpoints or ideas expressed in the books " such as the idea that gay and lesbian persons have made important contributions to the arts, sciences, and literature.
Also, under California law, schools cannot discriminate against students, or tolerate student-on-student harassment, on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation. Removing books that provide positive gay and lesbian role models ? even though the library has many books about famous people from other minority groups ? also violates this anti-discrimination law.
"Unfortunately," said Orangeview librarian Chris Enterline. "I have heard Orangeview students using epithets such as 'faggot' as insults and using the expression, 'that's so gay,' to imply that an idea or action is foolish or ridiculous. Books such as the series, 'Lives of Notable Gay Men and Lesbians,' can play an important role in helping to create a school environment in which homophobia, like racism and other biases, is addressed and challenged."
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. In 1999, there were about 500 attempts to remove books from libraries on the grounds that they 'promoted homosexuality.'

LOS ANGELES - The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California filed a lawsuit in California Superior Court today on behalf of public high school students who qualified for a statewide special admissions to the University of California program called "Enrollment in the Local Context" (ELC), but whose schools failed to sign up for the program. The lawsuit charges that the students' rights under the United States and California Constitutions were violated by the program's failure. The program, which takes effect this year for the first time, guarantees admission to the University of California to the students who rank in the top 4% of their class but relies on schools to complete the necessary paperwork and does not provide students any recourse if their schools fail to do so. In order to ensure that qualified students participate in the program, schools were required to submit to the University the transcripts of the top 10% of their junior year class; the University used this larger pool to determine the top 4%. One hundred and thirty-four out of 852 public high schools - almost 16% - failed to send in the paperwork, so students from those schools will not have a guaranteed space at the University of California. The University estimates that, under the program, 3600 additional students would be admitted who may not otherwise have been offered a seat.

"This program provided one narrow bridge to a brighter future for thousands of top-achieving students in California," said Rocio Cordoba, staff attorney at the ACLU of Southern California, "but for students attending the 134 schools that failed to complete the paperwork, and especially for students attending schools such as Locke and Manual Arts in Los Angeles, which are typically dramatically under-represented at UC campuses, that bridge has been washed away by the failure of the University of California's policy to ensure that all qualified students were given the opportunity to participate."

According to an editorial posted on Governor Davis' website, the ELC program's real effects are most likely to be seen on campuses "that are not traditionally known as 'feeders' to the University of California." Locke High School, in Los Angeles Unified School District, with a student body of 2300, sent no students to UC last year. Under the ELC program, numerous students would have been eligible for guaranteed admission.

"The suit seeks no more," said Mark Rosenbaum, Legal Director of the ACLU of Southern California, "than to hold the UC Regents to their word that if high school students academically achieve, they will be admitted within the University of California system. Denying admission to many of our best and brightest students who play by the rules on already unlevel playing fields, only to have the rules changed once they qualified for admission to the UC system, sends an unmistakable message that California's higher education admissions policies are rigged against poor students and students of color. The Regents might as well have posted signs outside their campuses saying, 'Students of color and low income students need not apply.'"

"The students involved in this case and others who were denied the chance to benefit from the ELC program," said Cordoba, "are remarkable students with tremendous promise, hope, and ambition. They want to become journalists, lawyers, engineers, and pediatricians. They did more than just follow the rules -- they exceeded expectations. Many are the first people in their families to go to college. This program �_ which offers more than just admission, but academic guidance and college advice as well �_ is particularly important for students whose families are less familiar with the culture of higher education and the complexities of the college admissions process and whose schools often have overworked and overwhelmed college counselors, unable to provide the guidance they need."

"Most of the students we met with had no idea, for instance, that this program even existed," said Cordoba. "Many thought they had no chance of getting into a UC school."

"The University clearly saw that its outreach and enrollment mechanism was failing at a rate of almost 1 in 6 schools," said Cordoba. "Why didn't someone stop to ask what would happen to the students in those schools? Why didn't anyone at the University flag this problem and create a solution that would give students a fair chance? These failures are troubling, especially considering that the ELC program was founded in the aftermath of Proposition 209 for the purpose of creating a new avenue for under-represented students to reach the University. "

The program was designed as a measure to help UC admit a diverse student body in the face of Proposition 209's ban on stronger, more affirmative steps to recruit and admit a diverse population of students - but the students primarily affected by their schools' failure are students of color and students from economically struggling communities.

"As we look at the data for the schools affected, we see a very clear pattern," said Cordoba. "The very students this program purports to help - students from schools that don't send many students to UC and students from communities which are under-represented at UC - constitute a large block of those excluded by this program's failures. Any program that truly aims to provide more access to under-represented students must, at a minimum, think through these problems in advance and offer effective remedies to the affected students. This program fails to meet that basic test."

In at least one instance earlier this year, UC made special arrangements to accommodate students from a school that had failed to meet the paperwork deadlines. This summer, Pittsburg High School in Contra Costa County mailed its paperwork in after the July 31 deadline. The University offered admission guarantees not just to the top 4%, but to the larger pool of 10% it would have evaluated and whittled to 4%.

"We're pleased that the University is capable of being flexible about this," said Cordoba, "but we're puzzled about why it has limited that remedy to one school. We believe that the only fair option at this point is for the University to guarantee admission to all students in the top 4% of their class who would have qualified for the ELC program. It's a matter of basic fairness."