LOS ANGELES - Civil rights groups filed a motion today to require that the State of California ascertain whether public school students have textbooks to use in class and at home in each of their core subjects. The motion asks the California Superior Court to appoint a neutral expert to design and carry out a survey of California teachers asking them about the availability of textbooks in their classes. In its response to requests for information in the ACLU's landmark education case, Williams v. California, the State of California stated that it does not know whether public school students in California have books to study and claimed that it has no responsibility for ensuring that they do.

"Students and teachers are back to school," said ACLU of Southern California staff attorney Peter Eliasberg, "but the State of California is playing hooky. It simply does not know what it ought to know and has no plan to find out. There's no control and no responsibility, and as a direct result many California students still don't have the most basic of all learning tools: a book."

In fact, the defendants in the class action lawsuit, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin, the California Department of Education, and the State Board of Education, confirmed their ignorance of public school students' access to textbooks and other instructional materials.

When asked recently to identify California public schools in which the availability of textbooks falls short of state standards, defendants's attorneys replied, "Defendants do not have this information. The extent of educational materials in all districts is unknown."

The defendants' attorneys also maintained that the State Board of Education is not "in charge" of determining if "textbook availability falls below district-set standards."

The California Legislature, on the other hand, has clearly recognized that the California Constitution requires the state to ensure that all students have textbooks and other instructional materials.

In 1994, the Legislature declared that, "...education is a fundamental interest which is secured by the state constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law, and...to the extent that every pupil does not have access to textbooks or instructional material in each subject, a pupil's right to educational opportunity is impaired." (uncodified Section 1 to Education Code section 60177).

"When schools fail, students have rights guaranteed by California's Constitution," said Jack Londen, partner at Morrison & Foerster, pro bono co-counsel in the case, "but the State's educational agencies don't respond, and don't even know when public schools fail to provide every student with the books and materials required for learning."

"Students across the state, from Watsonville to Los Angeles," said Catherine Lhamon, staff attorney for the ACLU of Southern California, "are struggling to learn grammar, foreign languages, math, science, and history without a book to take home and study. In an era of high-stakes testing and fiercely competitive university admissions, the lack of a textbook can alter the course of their lives. Someone has to take some responsibility for this."

Students who don't have textbooks expressed anger and frustration about the difficulties they face in learning.

"It makes me mad not to have books," said Manuel Ortiz of Watsonville, a junior. "I don't remember things quickly, so it's hard for me to learn, even if I have books. I really need a book to take home so I can learn."

"We mostly don't get homework in my math class because we don't have books," said Silas Moultrie, an eighth grader at Luther Burbank Middle School in San Francisco. "Without books, we're not getting the education we should be getting."

"Nobody at the state level knows whether students are receiving texts," said Londen. "They're just signing the checks. That's not the return the people of California expect or deserve for our investment in education. An obvious first step is to get an accurate idea of the extent and severity of the problem. The state should have a system for finding that out, but it doesn't. This motion seeks to address that gap in basic accounting."

The suit is brought by the ACLU affiliates of California, Morrison & Foerster LLP, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Public Advocates, Inc., Center for Law in the Public Interest, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, Professors Karl Manheim and Alan Ides, Peter Edelman of the Georgetown University Law Center, and Robert Myers of Newman. Aronson. Vanaman.

LOS ANGELES ? On August 24, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted asylum to Geovani Hernandez-Montiel. After being expelled from school, beaten by a mob and sexually assaulted by police in his Mexican homeland, the 21-year-old gay man sought asylum in the United States. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) rejected Hernandez-Montiel's asylum claim, stating that he was persecuted for his effeminate appearance and characteristics, not his sexual orientation. The ACLU of Southern California and other civil rights groups filed an amicus brief on the Hernandez-Montiel's behalf.

The unanimous decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals orders the U.S. government to grant asylum to Geovanni Hernandez-Montiel. The case is Hernandez- Montiel v. INS, No. 98-70582 (August 24, 2000).

The Ninth Circuit sharply criticized the BIA's view that Hernandez-Montiel was persecuted for his appearance and conduct, not for his sexual identity. The Court stated that a person should not be required to hide or change characteristics that are "inherent is his identity" to avoid political persecution.

"The position of the Board of Immigration Appeals was analagous to saying to a Jewish person who experiences discrimination, 'You weren't persecuted for being Jewish ? you were persecuted for wearing a yarmulke,'" said Martha Matthews, the David Bohnett Staff Attorney at the ACLU of Southern California. "It's an absurd distinction that opens the door for bigotry, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rightly rejected it."

"This ruling," said Matthews, "signals that persecution based on the way a person expresses his or her sexual identity or gender cannot be meaningfully or fairly distinguished from persecution based on sexual identity itself. A person's identity and self-expression are deeply and irrevocably connected."

"In Mexico, if a man has an effeminate appearance, voice, or mannerisms, everyone considers him gay beyond a shadow of a doubt," said Lambda Legal Defense Fund Supervising Attorney Jon W. Davidson. "The government cannot ask someone like Hernandez-Montiel to change his appearance, habits, voice and mannerisms so that people do not associate his appearance with his sexual orientation."

Writing for the panel of three judges, Judge A. Wallace Tashima said, "We conclude as a matter of law that gay men with female sexual identities in Mexico constitute a 'particular social group' and that Geovanni is a member of that group. His female sexual identity is immutable because it is inherent in his identity; in any event, he should not be required to change it.

Geovanni suffered past persecution and has a well-founded fear of future persecution if he were forced to return to Mexico."

"This is a groundbreaking decision," said Shannon Minter, staff attorney with the National Center for Lesbian Rights. "It is the first time a federal court has affirmed that persecution on the basis of sexual orientation is a basis for receiving asylum under U.S. law. It is also a powerful recognition of the links between sexual orientation and gender identity.

The State Department has identified Mexico as one of the countries where gay men and lesbians are very likely to be victims of violence. Effeminate gay men in particular are singled out for ostracization and anti-gay abuse in Mexico. While the U.S. government has granted asylum on the basis of sexual orientation since 1990, the BIA refused to extend this protection to Hernandez-Montiel on the grounds that he could avoid persecution by changing his effeminate appearance and mannerisms.

The ACLU of Southern California was joined by Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights in filing the amicus brief on Hernandez-Montiel's behalf.

LOS ANGELES - The ACLU of Southern California filed suit in federal court today against the Los Angeles Police Department for its attacks last Monday, August 14, on members of the media during their coverage of protests at the Democratic National Convention.

The attacks occurred as journalists covered the events of Monday evening, when the LAPD stormed the protest zone as the crowd attempted to leave. Five members of the media joined the case as plaintiffs.

"This was a critical test to see whether a discredited police department could discharge its duties without violating individuals' civil rights," said Michael Small, Chief Counsel for the ACLU of Southern California. "The department failed in that charge, and then turned on those who were documenting that failure."

"The police department," said Small, "seems to believe that declaring an assembly unlawful frees officers from all constraints. But the Constitution can't be overturned by an order through a walkie-talkie, and state law can't be rewritten by megaphone. Even in an area where an unlawful assembly has been declared, both the Constitution and California's Penal Code, in Section 409.5 (d), guarantee that journalists can remain to document and report on events."

"The LAPD and the mayor are saying they passed this test with flying colors," said Ramona Ripston, Executive Director of the ACLU of Southern California. "But we have reports that the LAPD committed terrible civil rights abuses, attacking members of the media as well as peaceful protesters. We have credible accounts of our police department violating the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, the California Constitution, and California state law. I don't call that a success."

Throughout the last week, the ACLU has received numerous calls, in addition to those from plaintiffs named in this lawsuit, from members of the media describing police attacks on journalists. Plaintiffs include:

Al Crespo, a freelance photojournalist, was standing on the corner of Olympic and Figueroa, one block from the demonstration area near the Staples Center. He wore two 35 mm cameras, one draped around his neck, the other around his shoulder. He was wearing a white t-shirt and several bright, laminated media passes. Crespo took several photographs of the LAPD firing on protesters. Though he was more than 20 feet away from the nearest protester, Crespo was shot three times with rubber bullets. A bystander told him that he was bleeding from his head.�_ Crespo was taken by ambulance to a local hospital where he received treatment for his wounds.

David Horowitz, an award-winning journalist who covers consumer and political affairs, arrived on the scene after police ordered protesters to disperse. Horowitz began to film the LAPD's attacks on protesters from a distance he thought safe, around 100 feet away from protesters. Though his press credentials were visible, a police officer confronted him and ordered him to move. Horowitz turned around and an officer hit him three times with a baton, knocking him to the ground. Another officer kicked his camera out of his hand, breaking it, and still another kicked Horowitz's briefcase, which he was not allowed to retrieve until three hours later, when he returned to the site. At that time, he checked a 35 mm camera that was inside the briefcase. The camera was there, but the film was missing.

Greg Rothschild is a freelance audio engineer, and Kevin Graf is a freelance television cameraman. Both were working for ABC on the night of the 14th. They proceeded away from the protest zone on foot, walking backwards and filming as they left the site. At 75-100 feet away, officers opened fire on the news crew. Rothschild was hit six times, Graf, at least ten.

Jeffrey Kleinman is a freelance cameraman who was working for NBC on the night of August 14. He and his crew filmed protesters dispersing from the protest. Kleinman was filming while standing on a ladder. An officer approached in riot gear, told the crew to move, kicked the ladder, then clubbed Kleinman with a baton, causing him to fall from the ladder. Moments later, as Kleinman continued to film, another police officer opened fire on him, striking him in the abdomen with a rubber bullet. Kleinman was hit three more times in the back and shoulder as he attempted to evacuate. Other members of his crew were hit as well.

"The bullets and batons that struck these journalists were not simply aimed at them," said Ripston. "They were aimed at our basic rights to a free press and to the oversight which it can, at its best, provide over our public institutions, such as the police department."

"The dangers here, both physical and Constitutional, are grave," said Ripston. "Their actions last week demonstrate that the Los Angeles Police Department will take violent measures to operate free of the constraints of public scrutiny . but we cannot allow that to happen; we know too well what happens when the department and its officers believe that no one's looking."