ACLU stands proudly with Constitution

Jeanie Akamanti
Ph.D. student, sociology president, ACLU, SIUC

In a recent guest column in these pages, senior Alex Berezow asked the rhetorical question, Whose side is the ACLU on? Mr. Berezow used instances commonly cited by FOX Network pundits to argue that the American Civil Liberties Union is an enemy of the people, engaged in a full-frontal assault on America.

This is an extraordinary accusation against an organization whose mission and work is committed to insuring the full implementation of the guarantees and rights contained in the U.S. Constitution to all persons in the United States. Ensuring rights. Protecting basic liberties. That does not sound so radical.

The ACLU was established in the midst of the Red Scare that accompanied World War I when individuals were being imprisoned for their political views and their opposition to the war. The ACLU's defense of our freedoms was often dismissed as the crank views of a vocal minority, and more than eight decades later, the ACLU's commitment to protecting, defending and extending the basic American values enshrined in our Constitution still results in controversy.

The ACLU does not, however, take on every controversial matter. Mr. Berezow, for example, states the organization was instrumental in the recent decision in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals finding the inclusion of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance meant students in public schools could not be compelled to recite these words each morning before beginning the school day. While the ACLU supports that decision, one that now will be reviewed by the Supreme Court, it actually played no role in the case.

As Mr. Berezow demonstrates, the ire that citizens feel toward outrageous points of view is often directed against the ACLU for defending one's right to express them. The most difficult cases the ACLU takes up, such as NAMBLA (National Man/Boy Love Association) or the right of Nazis to march through the largely Jewish suburb of Skokie, Ill., often cause consternation in a public only weakly committed to our Constitution and its protection of minority rights.

Indeed, the Bill of Rights was designed partly as protection against the tyranny of the majority. To the extent that the majority wishes to compel allegiance to its traditional values as does Mr. Berezow both the Bill of Rights and the ACLU are anti-democratic.

In the last analysis, Mr. Berezow fundamentally misunderstands the very nature of our constitutional system. It is true that we elect leaders for local, state and federal office based upon majority rule. Those leaders make policy decisions for an entire community, an entire state or the entire nation. But the Constitution also protects individual rights to free expression and free speech (even when that speech is abhorrent or unpopular), freedom of religion (including the ability to be free of government advancement of religion), freedom from unreasonable search and seizure and the right to due process under the law. Are these rights to be cast aside when they are used to advance unpopular causes?

Mr. Berezow wonders with whom the ACLU sides in these matters. He may be comforted to know the ACLU stands proudly with the U.S. Constitution. This is not a frontal assault on America; it is a defense of its most fundamental values.

Jeanie Akamanti Ph.D. student, sociology president, ACLU, SIUC

Copyright 2009 - Daily Egyptian