Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sphinx.UChicago.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmar From: mmar@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Mitchell Marks) Newsgroups: net.legal,net.politics Subject: Re: corporal punishment in schools (and ACLU) Message-ID: <1075@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> Date: Fri, 30-Aug-85 05:06:26 EDT Article-I.D.: sphinx.1075 Posted: Fri Aug 30 05:06:26 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 31-Aug-85 08:28:49 EDT References: <2149T3B@psuvm>, <11212@rochester.UUCP> Organization: U Chicago -- Linguistics Dept Lines: 33 Xref: watmath net.legal:2226 net.politics:10745 >P.S. What also bothers me is the ACLU, based on an admittedly small amount >of information from reading the newspapers. Like Tom Benson (who posted the original concerned note about corporal punishment), I'm an ACLU member. I think their positions have been consistent, vigorous, and worthwhile -- within the limits imposed on any organization that has a diverse membership and a long history. Taken all in all, I'd say they're one of the very best of the political or quasi-political organizations in American life. So, what bothers you about the ACLU? Let's try for a calm, serious discussion of this, abstaining from flamage all around. Since you offered the criticism, it's your option to set the agenda. But to save time, let me propose some topics and ask whether net readers object to ACLU positions or activities in any of these areas: 1. Defense of free speech for unpopular or unsavory people and groups (e.g. Nazis). 2. Emphasis on `establishment clause' before `free exercise' clause in freedom of religion (e.g. civic-sponsored Christmas displays). 3. Rights of suspects. 4. Family and government -- in re Walter Polovchak. Of course the list remains open for whatever you'd like to bring up. I don't promise to defend them 100%, but I do think usually the ACLU position makes sense. -- -- Mitch Marks @ UChicago ...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmar