(FORTUNE Magazine) – This book review will be less favorable than the one above, as we began talking back to the ACLU's Restoring Civil Liberties: A Blueprint for Action for the Clinton Administration at the first word of the title. Restoring civil liberties? Who took them away? The Reagan-Bush Nazis? As previously argued in this space, the American Civil Liberties Union suffers from split personality syndrome. Some days, it acts as though it merely wishes to protect the Bill of Rights. On other days, including the one when the instant document (hereafter RCL) was produced, it seems to be using the Bill of Rights as rhetorical cover for its own radical agenda. Take ''unjust dismissal.'' Brandishing our favorite phony statistic of the fortnight, RCL states that 150,000 workers are unjustly dismissed every year. So we need a law to revoke the ancient principle -- the so-called employment- at-will doctrine -- under which employers have the same right as workers to terminate their relationship, for any reason or no reason. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld this doctrine. Anyway, what does the issue have to do with civil liberties? Readers will have occasion to ask that question quite often. RCL loonily endorses ''comparable worth,'' a.k.a. pay equity, under which women's pay is determined not by market conditions but by judgments about its actual worth. It calls for allowing HIV-positive immigrants into the U.S., an idea recently rejected by the U.S. Senate and New York Times. It parrots the line that federal refusal to fund obscene art is censorship. It wants public campaign financing for every Lyndon LaRouche who comes along (''all legally qualified candidates''), and wants it extended to congressional elections, including primaries. RCL calls for lots more affirmative action. It demands more minority set- aside programs. Our civil liberties also seem to require legislation enabling the Labor Department to resume ''race norming'' of test scores, a practice outlawed under the 1991 Civil Rights Act. The basic deal in race norming is that every job applicant who takes the General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB) gets a score reflecting only his performance relative to other members of his race, which enables low-scoring minority applicants to get hired ahead of whites who scored higher, which even Teddy Kennedy stopped trying to defend. Endeavoring to plausibilize its own defense, RCL contends that race norming is necessary because the National Academy of Sciences has found that GATB ''is unfair to African Americans, i.e., black people with lower scores perform many jobs better than whites with higher scores.'' The statement is egregiously incomplete. The National Academy scholars did indeed find that many individuals who score low on the test, including many blacks, are in fact qualified workers; the test is a good but not perfect predictor of job performance. But the scholars did not find the test biased against blacks. They said test scores had essentially the same meaning for blacks and whites and if anything were ''somewhat more likely to overpredict than to underpredict the performance of black applicants.'' The ACLU's finest moments in recent years have come in its resistance to politically correct ''speech codes'' on numerous campuses, which punished students and faculty members for statements deemed intolerant by the local academic thought police. But RCL's proposed alternative to the codes sounds almost as bad. It calls for heavy doses of multicultural education, affirmative action in faculty appointments, and forums and workshops to ''raise awareness,'' i.e., brainwash the benighted. We continue to prefer that other personality.