Attorneys rap DOE’s press release policy

Every Sunday, "Back in the Day" looks at an article that ran on this date in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin. The items are verbatim, so don’t blame us today for yesteryear’s bad grammar.

AUGUST 5, 1978 » The Department of Education has set up procedures regarding the issuance of press releases from its civil rights compliance branch — procedures which two attorneys say are unconstitutional.

The procedures were put into effect Feb. 6, a week after two DOE civil rights employees were suspended — and subsequently fired — after they held a news conference to charge that the department was not complying with federal civil rights regulations.

The two employees — Ira Vanterpool and Elizabeth Fujiwara — returned to their jobs last month after they were reinstated by Federal Judge Samuel P. King.

The new press procedures surfaced yesterday during an interview with Vanterpool.

The Star-Bulletin had sought Vanterpool’s reaction to new civil rights grievance procedures adopted by the Board of Education Thursday night. He mentioned the press release controls when he was asked whether he felt his right to free speech was still being blocked.

In the case of Vanterpool and Fujiwara, the new procedures require them to obtain approval from their branch director before they can issue a press release.

Reinhard Mohr, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented Vanterpool in his freedom of speech suit, said, "These shocking guidelines are in direct violation of the First Amendment and numerous Supreme Court decisions."

He said public employees not only have the right, but the duty to speak out on matters affecting a program that affects the public. He said this edict smacks of prior censorship, also forbidden by the Constitution and court decisions.

"The guidelines seem to be in direct contradiction with others of the DOE that call for open communication," he said. "They seem to be an attempt to muzzle Ira Vanterpool and Elizabeth Fujiwara." …

Fujiwara’s attorney, Paul Austin, wasn’t any happier.

"Coming on the heels of the unconstitutional firing of my client, and preventing, among other things, the release of controversial information, is, I think, further illustration of the DOE’s willingness to ignore the First Amendment," he said.