News & Commentary

ACLU Praises Arkansas Board of Cosmetology for Quickly Confirming that People With HIV Are Not Barred From Practicing CosmetologyJune 2, 2005

ACLU Urges State to Clarify Regulation Used by Cosmetology School to Justify Kicking Out HIV Positive StudentJune 2, 2005

ACLU Applauds School Board Vote to Remove Evolution Disclaimers From Science TextbooksJuly 14, 2005

ACLU of Arkansas Protects’ Student and Family Privacy:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEDecember 19, 2005CONTACT: Rita Sklar, (501) 374–2660; Chris Hampton, (212) 549-2673LITTLE ROCK – Joined by an array of national child advocacy organizations, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a brief today asking the Arkansas Supreme Court to uphold an earlier court decision striking down a state regulation that banned gay people and anyone living in a household with a gay adult from being foster parents in the state. The trial court had found that living with gay or lesbian parents doesn’t harm children.“This anti-gay foster parenting ban goes against the recommendation of every major children’s health and welfare organization in the country,” said Rita Sklar, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arkansas. “These experts understand all too well how this policy hurts the many children in Arkansas in need of safe, stable homes.”The lawsuit was filed against the state in 1999 on behalf of four prospective foster parents. In addition to today’s brief from the ACLU, several other groups have submitted friend-of-the-court briefs in the case, including the Child Welfare League of America, the National Association of Social Workers and its Arkansas chapter, and the American Psychological Association.“One thing that the proponents of this policy can’t seem to explain is, ‘How do they expect the state to find homes for the children in Arkansas who need foster care when you diminish the already small pool of potential parents?’” said Rob Woronoff, a program manager with the Child Welfare League of America. “Policymakers should heed the advice of the child welfare professionals who know that the best way to meet the needs of foster children is to assess all prospective parents on a case-by-case basis.”Four friend-of-the-court briefs, representing a broad range of support for ending the foster care ban, were filed today in support of the ACLU’s lawsuit. These included:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE?May 12, 2006CONTACT: Rita Sklar, 501-374-2660Little Rock – ACLU of Arkansas executive director Rita Sklar announced today that Little Rock attorney Holly Dickson would join the ACLU staff June 1.Mrs. Dickson is a native of Batesville, Arkansas. She studied political science and criminal justice at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock and earned her Juris Doctorate with honors from the University of Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law. Dickson has served in private practice in Little Rock for the past seven years, and has represented clients in cases involving civil and constitutional rights. “I’m looking forward to assisting Director Sklar in carrying out the mission of the ACLU.”“I’m looking forward to working with Holly because of her experience, her skills, and, most of all, her ‘fire in the belly,’ as we say, for defending the Constitution. At a time when Americans just aren’t sure whether the government is listening to our phone calls or entering our homes without a warrant, we all need to safeguard our liberty with vigilance. With our growing network of volunteer attorneys, I am confident Holly Dickson will expand our ability to keep the people of Arkansas free from government abuse of power.”As staff attorney, Dickson will aid the ACLU in its advocacy, litigation, education, and legislative activities.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE?June 29, 2006CONTACT: Chris Hampton, (212) 549-2673LITTLE ROCK, AR – In a unanimous decision cheered by child welfare advocates nationwide, the Arkansas Supreme Court today struck down a regulation that banned lesbian and gay people from serving as foster parents. The decision ends a seven-year legal battle by the American Civil Liberties Union.Pointing to the findings of a lower court that overturned the ban, the Court criticized the Child Welfare Agency Review Board’s reasons for enacting the regulation, writing, “These facts demonstrate that there is no correlation between the health, welfare, and safety of foster children and the blanket exclusion of any individual who is a homosexual or who resides in a household with a homosexual.” The Court went on to say that the state’s argument to the contrary “flies in the face” of the scientific evidence about the suitability of lesbian and gay people as foster parents. The Court added that “the driving force behind adoption of the regulation was not to promote the health, safety, and welfare of foster children, but rather based upon the Board’s view of morality and its bias against homosexuals.”“The Arkansas Supreme Court clearly understood what social scientists and every respected child welfare organization have been saying for years: There is no reason to deprive children of good homes by excluding lesbian and gay people from serving as foster parents,” said Rita Sklar, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arkansas. “We have a shortage of foster homes in Arkansas, especially for teenagers and sibling groups. Thanks to today's ruling, Arkansas' foster children have a better chance of finding loving homes.”The lawsuit challenged a state regulation that banned gay people and anyone living in a household with a gay adult from being foster parents and was filed against the state in 1999. Several prominent child welfare groups took an interest in the case, with friend-of-the-court briefs being submitted by Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, the Child Welfare League of America, the National Association of Social Workers and its Arkansas chapter, the American Psychological Association and its Arkansas chapter, and the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute. These groups urged the court to strike down the exclusion because it works against the best interests of foster children.“This is a wonderful day for the foster children of Arkansas because it means that more stable, loving homes will be available to them,” said Jim Harper, L.C.S.W., L.M.F.T., a Little Rock social worker who works with abused children and their families. “Social science research has consistently shown that gay people are just as able as straight people to provide safe, nurturing homes and their children are just as well-adjusted as anyone else's children. This ban was never about protecting children's best interests, and it's wonderful that it's been struck down.”Arkansas’s Child Welfare Agency Review Board established a policy in 1999 that “no person may serve as a foster parent if any adult member of that person’s household is a homosexual.” That same year, the ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging the policy on behalf of a lesbian from Fayetteville, a gay couple from Little Rock, and a heterosexual man from Waldron whose gay son sometimes lives at home. All of them want to serve as foster parents but are automatically disqualified from doing so by the ban.“There is already a rigorous individualized screening procedure in place that ensures that only those who can provide a safe, stable, healthy home are approved as foster parents,” said Leslie Cooper, a senior staff attorney for the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project, who argued the case before the court. “Today’s ruling means that gay people will go through the same screening process as any other applicants, rather than be automatically rejected no matter how qualified they are.”Cooper and James Esseks of the ACLU’s Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project and ACLU of Arkansas cooperating attorney John Burnett represent the prospective foster parents.More information on the case, Howard v. Child Welfare Agency Review Board, can be found online at http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/12137res20050301.html. Selected Findings of Fact Cited by Arkansas Supreme Court in Howard v. Child Welfare Agency Review Board, June 29, 2006In its decision in Howard v. Child Welfare Agency Review Board unanimously striking down the state regulation banning gay people and people with gay adults living in their homes from serving as foster parents, the Arkansas Supreme Court cited the following findings of fact based on the scientific evidence presented at the trial court:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 8/23/2006?CONTACT: [email protected] LITTLE ROCK, AR -- A federal judge in Little Rock today agreed with the American Civil Liberties Union that Arkansas' rule for getting third party candidates on the ballot is unconstitutional.“This is a great victory for the people of Arkansas,” said Rita Sklar, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arkansas, which filed this case jointly with the ACLU Voting Rights Project. “Arkansans who want to run for political office and have political views different from those of the Democratic or Republican parties can now more easily participate in the political process. Voters also win because they are given more opportunity to support candidates who reflect their political views.”The court ordered the state to put Green Party candidates on the ballot for this coming November election. In order to get on the ballot, Arkansas election law has required that an independent candidate provide 10,000 signatures of voters in the previous gubernatorial or presidential election, but that third party candidates must provide a full three percent of those signatures -- a much higher threshold. The judge said this rule violated Green Party members' and candidates' rights to association, and impedes their right to advance their political goals.On May 30, 2006, the Green Party of Arkansas submitted approximately 18,000 signatures to the Secretary of State in support of its New Political Party Petition -- more than the 10,000 valid signatures required of an independent candidate, but clearly fewer than 24,171 that would have been required to satisfy the three percent mandate. The Secretary of State refused to accept the petition, claiming it lacked the requisite number of signatures.The ACLU filed a lawsuit on June 27, asking the judge to declare the rule for third parties unconstitutional and to order the state to put Green Party candidates on the ballot. Today the judge affirmed the ACLU's position. The state's argument for the rule was that the state had a legitimate interest in ensuring parties have a ‘modicum of support', or else the ballot could become “crowded,” a condition where a ballot is found too cluttered with names to be really useful for the voter. The state also said the third party had to demonstrate a “modicum of support” to get on the ballot.Directly addressing the state's arguments the court today found that: “Arkansas's three percent requirement in its party recognition scheme is not narrowly drawn to serve a compelling state interest. The 10,000 signature threshold is a sufficient modicum of support to serve the state's interest in avoiding cluttered ballots and the evidence shows quite clearly that the three percent requirement is much higher than necessary as it imposes a severe burden under the First and Fourteenth Amendments on the associational rights of the Green Party and the candidates who are plaintiffs in this case….” (emphasis added).“State law has effectively denied ballot access to third parties,” said ACLU of Arkansas staff attorney Holly Dickson. “This law has been so burdensome that third parties really could not sponsor a slate of candidates. Democracy doesn't function unless the people are heard. This decision puts every Arkansan in a better position to have their voices heard. That's what this country is all about.”Today's ruling is online at: www.aclu.org/votingrights/access/26515lgl20060823.html ###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE?December 8, 2006CONTACT: Rita Sklar or Holly DicksonLITTLE ROCK - With the winter holiday season approaching and with the intent of avoiding potential conflict during what is a joyous season for millions, today the ACLU of Arkansas sent out letters to Arkansas school superintendents giving guidance on issues regarding religion and the public schools. The letter addresses two issues: whether there is a place for religious holidays in the public schools, and whether or not schools may make religious material available to students.“I believe the reason there is often so much contention about religion and the public schools is the fact that most of us do not receive an adequate education about how the Bill of Rights protects our rights, and what that means in practical situations — I know I didn’t.” said ACLU of Arkansas executive director Rita Sklar. “I was never taught in school that the reason America has the greatest religious diversity and religious freedom on the planet is because we have government-free religion, for example, and I believe many of us don’t see that when the government supports or promotes religion, religion is no longer government-free.”The letter addresses the question of religious holidays first. It reminds superintendents that the proper role of schools is to educate students in a fair, unbiased, objective, and balanced manner, with respect for different religions. The letter says, in part, “The First Amendment balances freedom of religious belief and expression with freedom from state-imposed expression... [P]ublic schools should not inhibit or disparage religious belief or non-belief, nor should public schools promote, sponsor, or endorse any particular religion, belief, or religious activities. Any public school’s approach to religious holidays should be offered in the spirit of education, and not promoting religious beliefs. ... Public schools may provide instruction about religious traditions and beliefs ... and schools may teach students about religious holidays. ... Education about religion or religious holidays must be explained in an unbiased and objective manner. However, schools may not use their influence to promote a particular religious belief or belief over non-belief either through instruction, observance of holidays as religious events, or encouraging students to observe religious holidays.”The letter also discusses the issue of school performances, noting that school concerts that present a variety of selections may include religious music, but that concerts should not be dominated by religious music, especially when they coincide with a particular religious holiday or are used to promote religion. Plays portraying the Hanukkah miracle or Nativity pageants are entirely inappropriate for the public school setting.Last week, the Baxter Bulletin newspaper reported that Pinkston Middle School in Mountain Home announced to students during lunch that Bibles were available for students outside the cafeteria, and that any student wanting a Bible could pick one up. The ACLU asked the Mountain Home Public School District to discontinue this practice and included this subject in the letter the ACLU planned to send to superintendents on religious holidays. “A school’s participation in or supervision of such activities, such as the Gideons’ Bible distribution, impermissibly suggests that the program is a valid part of a legally required education,” says the letter. “The practice also carries the unmistakable message that acceptance of the Bible or other materials is the norm, and that non-adherents are something less than full members of the school community.... [Furthermore, t]here is no difference between school officials allowing Gideons or any other religious group to hand these materials to students personally or to put religious materials out on a table for students to take ‘of their own free will,’ or for the school to put the materials on the table, whether they came from an outside group or another source. What some perceive as a neutral act of ‘allowing’ students to choose whether to take materials is in fact not neutral, and constitutes school action.”“The purpose of the letter is to assist the schools by outlining common questions and issues and help school officials and students have a less stressful holiday season,” ACLU staff attorney Holly Dickson said. “As we were drafting it, we received a report of another school district where students were told in class to come forward if they wanted to receive a Bible. That’s a hair away from an altar call,” Dickson said, “and it violates the First Amendment.”“We can’t have the freedom to express our religious beliefs and allow the government to promote religion,” said Sklar, “we just can’t have it both ways.”The ACLU has published a list of some of the freedom of religious expression cases the ACLU brought in the last few years years. A copy of the letter to school districts and a short list of the freedom of expression cases are available below. The full list is available on the ACLU’s website .