|
|
|
| |
| Responses to OAH about the Adam's Mark Hotel Allegations | ||
| OAH Annual Meeting |
Below, in chronological order, is a series of more than 40 responses that OAH members and other historians have sent by email to feedback@oah.org during the past several days. This file was updated on Monday Feb 14, 8:35am EST 2000.
Re: More Reasons Why the Annual Meeting of the OAH Must Not Be Held at the Adam's Mark Hotel I urge the Organization of American Historians to move the venue of its upcoming annual meeting in St. Louis, Missouri, to a hotel or facility other than the Adam's Mark or to postpone the annual meeting until an appropriate headquarters for the convention can be secured. I do not come to this decision lightly. You received on January 24, 2000, the joint letter from Professor Jeffrey T. Sammons of New York University, Professor Mark Naison of Fordham University, Professor Allen Sack of the University of New Haven, and me. I want to express to you personally why I cannot and will not set foot in an Adam's Mark Hotel and to convey to you additional information, of which you may not be aware, that may help the leadership of the OAH come to the same decision. The Adam's Mark Hotel Chain, which is headquartered in St. Louis, has a notorious record of flagrant racism and a continuing pattern of the most vulgar discrimination against African Americans dating back at least to 1991. I have spoken with several of the attorneys for the U.S. Department of Justice and the Florida Department of Justice, a number of the individual complainants involved in the class action suit against the Adam's Mark in Daytona Beach, and with other individuals intimately familiar with the pending suit, in addition to those knowledgeable of the earlier labor complaints and successful racial discrimination suits against the Adam's Mark in St. Louis. I am limiting quotations in some instances as requested because of the continuing litigation against the Adam's Mark Hotel Chain, CEO Fred Kummer, and the HBE parent corporation in which he and his family hold controlling interest. What I am conveying to you in this communiqué is information that has been made available in either sworn depositions, public records, and personal interviews I have conducted. It is important to note that in the first major racial discrimination suit against the Adam's Mark (Helms & Ey v. Adam's Mark: 1994) a jury found the hotel and its owner and management guilty of having fired Dewey Helms, who is African American, because of his race and for firing Helm's supervisor, Bruce Ey, who is white, for refusing to carry out the order because he knew it was racially motivated. The plaintiffs were awarded punitive damages totaling $4,800.000. The amount was reduced in January 1998 after a lengthy appeal process. Nevertheless, the Appellate Court upheld the guilty verdict against Kummer, the St. Louis Adam's Mark, and the HBE Corporation. Its rendering, in E.E.O.C. v. HBE CORP. 135 F. 3d 543 8th Cir. 1998, is telling. The Appellate Court upheld that the Adam's Mark in St. Louis maintained an environment that was "hostile" to blacks, and "that hotel managers showed bias against African Americans, sought to exclude them from management positions and all but the lowest level positions at the hotel that were visible to the public, and sought to banish music and other atmospherics traits that they associated with African Americans" [548]; that black employees at the hotel were routinely underpaid in comparison to whites; that Kummer did not want his hotel to become "too dark" [too many African Americans] especially at Chestnut's, the hotel cafe near the entrance to the hotel [550]; that Kummer used "codes" to discriminate against black employees, informing management that any position that began with "the" was for whites only, such as "the hotel manager," "the personnel director," etc.; that Kummer stated on numerous occasions that he did not like blacks and that he often used racial epithets to describe them and Jews [550-552]. The court concluded: "These actions, many years after the laws forbidding racial discrimination became widely known, support a finding of outrageous conduct and an award of punitive damages." [558]. In current litigation against the Adam's Mark, 6 of the chain's 21 hotels, have been identified as special bastions of racism. The two at the top of the list are the Adam's Mark in St. Louis, Missouri, and the Adam's Mark in Daytona Beach, Florida. The actions of the Florida hotel are particularly appalling to me. I am African American and also, as you might have noted, a Floridian. We have already passed on to your office a laundry list of abuses that the 1,200 African Americans suffered at the Daytona Beach Adam's Mark during the Black College Reunion in April of 1999. I have carefully examined the complaints that African Americans made against the Adam's Mark Hotel in Daytona Beach during the reunion, and can only think of words such as reprehensible, beastly, and demonic to characterize the treatment they suffered. One of the complainants describes it best when she accuses the hotel of engaging in racial terrorism. The terrorism included: a requirement that blacks wear bright orange wrist bands that identified them as guest of the resort, a requirement not made of whites also staying there; higher room rates for the blacks who were also required to pay the entire cost at the time of reservation and in cash; security deposits of three hundred dollars for the room mini bar and telephone privileges; barriers being placed to prevent the black guests from using the driveway leading to the front entrance of the hotel; blacks were denied garage and valet privileges; the removal of furnishing such as couches, chairs and lamps from the lobby of the resort on the day Black College Reunion attendees were expected to arrive; the removal of room amenities such as pictures; and the suspension of room service. One would think that the abuse could not sink to a lower level but it did. Sworn testimony will be corroborated in court by individuals in the kitchen area who witnessed that many of the African-American guests were served second-hand food. The African Americans who attended the Black College Reunion and who stayed at the Adam's Mark subsequently joined with the NAACP in filing a class action lawsuit against the hotel, its management, and ownership. The evidence was so powerful, the actions of the hotel so vulgar, and the hotel owner so unrepentant, that the U.S. Department of Justice investigated the complaint and also joined in the suit. The Department of Justice issued the following in its Complaint for Injunctive Relief, The United States of America, Plaintiff, v. HBE Corporation, d/b/a Adam's Mark Hotels, Defendant (16 December 1999): Title II Violations. "8. Defendant, acting through its officers, employees, and agents, has engaged in policies and practices which deny to persons, on account of race or color, the full and equal enjoyment of goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of its hotels and the restaurants, bars, lounges, or clubs located therein. 9. Defendant, acting through its officers, employees and agents, has carried out such policies and practices of racial discrimination by, among other ways: a. applying different and more onerous terms and conditions to non-white persons at its hotels with regard to such things as prices for goods and services, provision of services, and requirements related to security, identification and reservations, than those applied to white persons; b. offering and renting to non-white persons less desirable hotel rooms than those offered and rented to white persons during comparable stays or special events; c. segregating non-white persons in rooms in less desirable locations than those offered and rented to white persons; and d. implementing policies and procedures to exclude or limit the number of non-white clientele in its hotels and the restaurants, bars, lounges, or clubs located therein. 10. The conduct of Defendant described in paragraphs 8 and 9 above constitutes a pattern or practice of resistance to the full and equal employment by non-white persons of rights secured by 42 U.S.C. 2000a et seg., and the pattern or practice is of such a nature and is intended to deny the full exercise of such rights." This was the first time that the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division has filed a suit against a hotel chain nationwide. "We are talking about very egregious practices," said Bill Lann Lee, Assistant Attorney General. Lee added: "The federal government will not tolerate this type of behavior." The statement that Attorney General Janet Reno issued is compelling: "This kind of behavior is simply unacceptable. It is hard to believe that 35 years after the Civil Rights Act was passed by Congress, this type of discrimination still exists." Even the State of Florida, which is not exactly known for its willingness to fight for civil rights compliance, took firm action against the Adam's Mark and joined in the lawsuit. The Florida Justice Department's investigation of the complaints and the hotel chain concurred with what the U.S. Department of Justice also found through its investigation: "The inferior treatment of black guests was part of a corporate-wide policy implemented by Fred S. Kummer, president of the resort's parent company, and that the policy was designed to discourage or eliminate events which attract a large number of African Americans." Florida Attorney General Bob Butterworth said in a press release after filing the motion in U.S. District Court in Orlando: "Black patrons of the Adam's Mark resort were singled out and treated like second class citizens. Not only were their civil rights violated, their rights as consumers were trampled. The disgraceful behavior of the Adam's Mark cries out for action on all fronts." I have been in contact with the national office of the NAACP for clarification of its position. The national office is understandably cautious in the statements issued and in press releases regarding the Adam's Mark Hotel because of its active suit against the hotel. What they are willing to say and make perfectly clear is that it is misleading for anyone to suggest that NAACP President Kweisi Mfume in his press release of December 16, 1999, is in anyway suggesting that it is okay to do business with the Adam's Mark. The salient point in Mfume's press release statement is this: "We are tired of giving our dollars to businesses that treat us as second-class citizens. The time has long passed when the African-American community will continue to economically support businesses that provide substandard services and a hostile environment. Provided with the facts, our membership and the African American community can make an informed and intelligent decision as to where to apply their economic support." Mr. James Morgan, President of the St. Louis Branch of the NAACP, has no such reservations in his condemnation of the Adam's Mark and only praise for those groups and individuals who refuse to do business with the hotel. He conveyed to me in emphatic terms his appreciation to those who have decided not to patronize the Adam's Mark Hotel in St. Louis and elsewhere. He went on to say: "Because the Florida State Conference of the NAACP is presently engaged in litigation against the Adam's Mark Hotel, the national has not called for a boycott of the Adam's Mark but I personally would not attend any function or conduct any business with that hotel chain until this matter has been resolved. I would go even further and say that anyone that continues to do business with the Adam's Mark Hotel supports the racist acts that they have been accused of." The City of Clayton, a St. Louis suburb, turned down HBE's proposal to build a new hotel complex after questioning the chain's record of racial and sexual harassment charges, according to Gregory Freeman of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (12/21/99). This is powerful evidence to support Mr. Morgan's claims of the sorry record of Adam's Mark and the level of opposition to its practices. The statements cited above, whether taken together or separately, do not require a rocket scientist, a lawyer, or a historian to recognize the side the NAACP is on regarding the question of whether or not organizations and individuals should give their patronage to the Adam's Mark Hotel. Moreover, we of the Organization of American Historians should not need the NAACP to have to tell us what is right or wrong and what course of action we should or should not take. Nor should our organization be willing to place its black participants in an environment where it can not ensure that they will be treated equally. I have been a member of the OAH for nearly thirty years and have heard and read its many inspiring words and messages of progress and commitment to social justice and equality. This is that moment of truth when our organization must bridge the gap between rhetoric and practice. To do otherwise will bring into serious question the commitment of our organization to civil rights. President Montgomery and members of the Executive Council, the villain here is Mr. Kummer and his Adam's Mark Hotel Chain and HBE Corporation. Let us not have the Organization of American Historians tainted with the brush aimed at the Adam's Mark and its ownership. This, however, is not an issue on which the OAH can be inactive or halfhearted. This issue calls for our organization to be unequivocal in its opposition to racism, in its intolerance of discrimination, and in its unwillingness to compromise and do business with racists. I am hopeful that the information provided in this letter, along with the other information sent to you earlier, helps to give you a fuller appreciation of the magnitude of the problem and the course of action that must be taken. Sincerely, Robert L. Harris, Jr. Dear OAH, Based a quick reading of what you've posted about this controversy, I think I like the third option of holding the meeting and turning it into a forum for protest. That would probably pack more punch and be more realistic given the organization's resources. I was looking forward to coming before, just because I'm a little out of touch with my colleagues, being at a small state school with little support for research. Now, I'm REALLY looking forward to coming to be part of this fight. Carl Weinberg Dear OAH Officers: I call your attention to the closing statement inviting membership input: "The OAH exists to promote the professional needs, development, and interaction of historians and to improve public awareness of our country's history. That mission cannot be fulfilled in a setting where racial discrimination threatens its members or the communities in which they conduct their teaching and research." The second sentence does not necessarily follow from the first. In fact, the first sentence contains the major reasons for going forward with the conference as planned. By holding the meeting the professional needs and development of historians can be addressed. Research and other findings can be presented and critiqued. This makes possible the development of historians. By holding the meeting historians can interact, providing them with the opportunity to share ideas and build relationships that are necessary for the health of any professional body. By holding the meeting historians can educate each other and the public on the need for racial equality and publicize the discriminatory record of the hotel. By cancelling the conference no one's professional needs and development will be addressed. By cancelling the conference historians will be denied the opportunity to interact and share ideas and research. By cancelling the conference the OAH will be throwing away a rare teachable moment in addition to losing nearly half of its financial resources. By cancelling the conference the OAH is opting for the least creative solution to the challenge. St. Louis is the place to take a stand and turn a professional conference into a forum on the need for America to continue the struggle for racial equality. And what better place to start than in the meeting rooms of a hotel under indictment for racial discrimination. In the 60s the Freedom Riders made history by going to where the problems were most acute; they didn't sequester themselves in public facilities away from the problem areas. In this instance, nor should we. Tom Osborne Dear OAH folk, I support the position of Bob Harris that the OAH meet its contractual obligation (and not allow the hotel to resell the rooms), but decline to patronize the hotel's services. I support, and might participate in, informational picket lines or other forms of nonviolent protest. The OAH might consider printing some form of button announcing its opposition to discrimination, selling the button to convention participants at a nominal charge, then give the proceeds to a worthy cause, such as the NAACP lawsuit. This is too important an occasion on which to take a stand to justify cancelling the OAH meeting. Doing that would only be running away from the problem and letting those we oppose hold the field. Such a proposal has the flawed logic of William Lloyd Garrison's call for the North to secede from the Slave South. We can do better, and we can do better in St. Louis. Roland Guyotte From: The Committee for a New Convention Site(CNCS) Re: Disassociation with Adam's Mark by February 29, 2000 The Committee for a New Convention Site(CNCS, pronounced cynics*)asks the OAH to move all activities related to the convention out of the Adam's Mark Hotel, including: registration, panels, vendors, meetings, interviews, and any other OAH-sponsored events. Furthermore, CNCS asks that the OAH not encourage members and participants to stay at the Adam's Mark. If the OAH takes the above actions by February 29, then CNCS will encourage participation in all OAH events. At the same time, CNCS is committed to organizing and carrying out protest action against Adam's Mark and hopes that the leadership and others in OAH will stand alongside us in those protests. Should OAH not meet the February 29 date for disassociation with Adam's Mark, CNCS will encourage non-participation in OAH activities and commit to the planning and staging of organized demonstrations at Adam's Mark. In the event of a settlement, the terms, meaning, enforceability, and punitive power of that agreement will determine CNCS's course of action. We are pleased that OAH has made considerable progress in the right direction, but it has not gone far enough. We are desperately hoping that OAH will not become the issue. We are doing everything that we can to protect OAH against undue harm should OAH take the moral high ground and refuse to do business with Adam's Mark and Fred Kummer. All of us are aware that Adam's Mark is the real problem, and we want to continue working with OAH in exposing and correcting the past and present wrongs committed by Adam's Mark and to prevent such unjust practices in the future. Sincerely, The Founding Members of "The Committee for a New Convention Site"(CNCS) Beth Bates, Wayne State; Michael Gomez, NYU; Robin D. G. Kelley, NYU; Mark Naison, Fordham; Jeffrey T. Sammons, NYU; Donald Spivey, University of Miami; Timothy Tyson, Wisconsin-Madison * CNCS(Cynics)is, as the Greek philosophical school of the same name, committed to a view of virtue as the only good and that its essence lies in self-control and independence.
Doesn't the Contract contain any contingency provision for no-penalty cancellation for actions on the hotel's part that violate human or civil rights? Since the Kummers will profit substantially from the $1.2 million that the Episcopal Church cancellation will give them, I would hate to see the OAH line their pockets more--in essence to reward racist behavior as never before. The MAIN CONCERN is that, despite all the good intentions to hold anti-racism sessions, etc., any protests or picket lines set up at the hotel will factionalize the membership, limit attendance at sessions, and perhaps also alienate exhibitors. We face the prospect of having a convention hotel that is the center of nothing but controversy, with members who booked at the AM harassed for getting in bed with racists. Think of the poor assistant professor who is giving his/her first conference paper, spends alot of funds to get to the meeting, and then has no audience. I think it is better to cut our losses NOW, even if it means finding an alternative site for sessions, telling the membership to lodge wherever they choose, or in the worst case scenario, cancelling the convention altogether, and fighting the Kummers for the half million--making national news by the UNEQUIVOCAL stand on principle. Money should not be the priority of this organization; our principles should. Once we lose our sense of moral duty because of practical concerns, we are doomed as an organization devoted to the life of the mind. Lost money is recoverable; lost principles and damaged reputations are usually not. Fred Fausz (it's going to be a mess from what I'm hearing and the OAH will NOT escape with its reputation intact if the meeting is held at the Adam's Mark--and what about Eve's Mark?) A number of local African American leaders are at present cautiously supportive of holding the meeting--but that will quickly change once the heat is turned up and the lights of media cameras come on. Let's not have the OAH on HardCopy and Nightline and Dateline on the wrong side.
Date sent: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 I think it would be a serious tactical error to attempt to cancel either the Annual Meeting or the hotel arrangements unless hold harmless contracts are entered into with the chain and frankly that does not seem to be a viable option. I have already made my reservations with the Adams--Mark and do not intend to change them unless the meeting is canceled or moved. By the same token I will not be hanging out in their bar or eating at their restaurants. In short I am looking for a middle ground. My own suspicion is that the NAACP and Justice Dept lawsuits will make it very difficult for the hotel management to reach an effective and meaningful compromise with the OAH because of the implications of wrongdoing that would attend such an agreement and the distinct possibility of severe punitive judgments. That is to say I don't think either party has a hell of a lot of latitude for negotiation. I realize this doesn't give you guys much guidance. I hope it does indicate that I realize that rocks and hard spots do exist and good intentions won't make them go away. G.L. Seligmann This is a follow-up to the earlier message I sent on this topic. I think it is a good idea to discuss this problem at the OAH business meeting and I would probably vote for a condemnatory resolution subject of course to its wording. However, the organization would be opening itself to a great deal of fundamentally valid criticism if it permitted representatives of the NAACP to speak and did not allow the other party invited access to the meeting.
I agree that we have to go ahead with the agreement, but encourage every action possible between now and the end of the convention to dramatize our displeasure, using all the political and scholarly weapons at our disposal. Jane De Hart I am sure that I am not alone in expressing sincere uneasiness with the prospects of crossing picket or protest lines if indeed the OAH does go ahead with the meeting. If members of the OAH community, the NAACP, St. Louisans, and other parties picket and protest outside the doors of the Adams Mark Hotel and on the steps of the Old Courthouse across the street, how can I in good conscience cross that line? As a presenter I feel that I am between a rock and a hard place. I have never crossed a union picket line, so now what do I do? It just sounds like we all want our cake and to eat it too. Some things are worth standing up for on principle, regardless of financial costs. I say, send a strong moral message: No conference unless the hotel abides by the criteria set forth by the OAH, NAACP, and the Justice Dept. Thank you, Kate Clifford Larson Personally, I think it is unbelievable that OAH is even considering cancelling its meeting in St. Louis due to the charges that the Adams Mark Hotel has been accused of discrimination. There isn?t a major corporation in the United States that has not been accused of such activity. This is especially true of hotel chains. Which hotel are you going to use? Corporate American is not pure. This shows the development and changes happening in America. I will charge that, even though I have no evidence of such, that the OAH was discriminatory toward black historians until it became trendy to have as many in the organization as possible in the past 30 years. Also, the institutions in which most members teach are guilty of the same charges and have as many racism complaints in those institution's EEO offices. Check with your university's office. If OAH cancels its meeting in St. Louis because of these racist allegations, and allegations are all they really are, I will cancel my membership with OAH. We should be in the middle, not on the left or right of any issue. Let the justice system do what it is supposed to do and let us as historians do what we are supposed to do. We are not, and should not be, a social conscience organization with the intent to "fix" America. We are historians, we look to the past to make a better future. Leave the "fixing" to those organizations that are charged with those ideals. Michael J. Manning Strategy for the St Louis meeting. I like David Montgomery's suggestions. Try to hold as many meetings as possible away from the hotel; have all parties etc in other venues; print a restaurant list for walking from the Hotel. The OAH membership can contact other hotels in the area. We should meet minimal obligations as per contract; it was in good faith on our part. Cancelling would benefit AM; underwhelming it would be a better plan. Donald G. Mathews Dear Mr. Regoli and OAH board members, My initial reaction to this news was to cancel the meeting. Upon reflecting on the financial windfall that Adams Mark would receive--a reward for racist behavior in one sense--I believe that Option 3 is the most appropriate response for the following reasons. 1. As educators it is entirely appropriate for OAH members to use this opportunity to educate all involved--including ourselves and the public at large--of the issues involved. 2. To meet our contract obligations while also boycotting auxiliary services will punish Adams Mark in a very real way that the other options will not. Unfortunately, the "bottom line" is often the most effective way to change such institutional behaviors. In addition, I suggest that all future contracts include a cancellation clause that would protect OAH if such a situation should happen again. Thank you for your diligent work on this important matter. Scott Philyaw Because the OAH stands only to LOSE by cancelling its 2000 meeting at the Adams Mark, without any commensurate GAIN in its stand against racism, and because the hotel chain stands only to GAIN both economically, and in terms of not having a public confrontation with anti-racist forces, I recommend that the OAH
Emma J. Lapsansky . . . I have just read the Adams Mark statement on your website, and I have begun to rethink my position, so you may want to publish my second thoughts as well as my first thoughts. I find their argument to be persuasive, and I'd want it verified before we make our move. I guess I'd like us to have a strategy in place (and I think some variant of the one I suggested seems reasonable) But in fairness, I would not like to jump to conclusions until all sides have been heard.
Dear OAH, I am appalled by the idea that the OAH, based on mere allegations, would accuse a corporation of a crime which it has not yet been proven it committed. Surely, discrimination is an action that should not proceed without comment, but this is alleged behavior, not proven fact. Also, we are a historical organization, not a court of law--if we decide, based on unproven allegations that one party is guilty, aren't we falling prey to the same mentality we condemn? Shouldn't historians be more careful before jumping to conclusions? Shouldn't we wait for more evidence? I am also appalled by the tone of the OAH document ("Some argue that this strategy allows Adam's Mark to profit from its racist deeds at the organization's expense.") What racist deeds? Allegations, yes, deeds, not really known yet. Also, is the OAH a civil rights organization? The money I pay in dues goes to support a history organization, not to support the NAACP or numerous other civil rights groups. What's next? Must we support every aggrieved minority group who has ever been slighted by a city? How can we in good conscience meet in the United States anymore since we once were (and still are, according to the OAH) a thoroughly racist society. I advocate meeting in the middle of the ocean on a deserted island--that way we wouldn't offend anyone and the majority of influence we are having as an organization on historical matters (not contemporary politics) would increase. Certainly scholarship has a contemporary cast to it and political involvement is crucial to our role as public scholars and historians. But the issues you support are one-sided and geared towards a political persuasion (the NAACP under Kweisi Mfume is not without political bias) which some of your members find objectionable. Mr. Mfume, at one time, did not allow a newly elected African-American Republican, J.C. Watts, to meet with or join the Congressional Black Caucus. Where was the OAH protest then? Why should I believe Mr. Mfume now? Should I support his racial healing efforts in attending the Million Man March several years ago, a march if organized by whites, would have been condemned for years as a sign of incipient fascism. Or does it have something to do with the fact that certain groups are a protected class worthy of involvement but certain groups are not. Given the ideological bias prevalent among most academic historians, and the OAH, that is really the issue. To conclude, I find discrimination of any sort (against any individual, not just racial groups) to be detrimental to democracy. Can the OAH, in its race pandering to the NAACP, really say the same? Sincerely, Gregory L. Schneider Regarding the OAH meeting & Adam's Mark Hotel: As an OAH member, I prefer the option of holding the conference in order to prevent losing the organization's money in what would appear to wind up being a futile dramatic gesture. I would, however, strongly support the notion of not patronizing the hotel's restaurants and bars and making a point of discussing the racism issue as part of the conference. Elizabeth Jozwiak, Ph.D. Thank for the communication regarding the Adams Mark Hotel. Although I cannot attend the annual meeting this year, I support the suggestion that the meeting be held as planned, but that the focus be on racial discrimination. This strategy will force the hotel management, for at least one week, to confront the public on this issue. To cancel would be far too devastating financially and as some have pointed out, result only in financial gain for the hotel. This way, perhaps the OAH will make an important statement that the Adams Mark stakeholders will have to hear! I joined the organization years ago because of its stand on women in the profession, and I now applaud the OAH leadership for its determination to confront this unfortunate example of contemporary racism. Yvonne H. Baldwin, Ph.D. Holding the meeting with protests seems the best bet though I am sure that many of us on the program (and others) could live without attending or with a formal cancellation. At some point down the line, another question needs to be addressed--the competence of the OAH leadership elected in the past few years and permanent staff. How could an organization so concerned--some might say obsessed--with issues of race have signed this contract in the first place without checking out the hotel's reputation? Did anyone bother to check with OAH members in the St. Louis area? Is anyone now paying closer attention to the hotels to be used next year or five years from now? Leo P. Ribuffo . . . Let me add one point. Even though holding the convention or not has essentially no impact on tenured faculty like myself, I hope that whatever decision is made takes into account the interests of junior faculty and grad students on the program, for whom an appearance may make a difference in terms of jobs, promotions, raises, etc.
In reference to the OAH email about cancelling the St. Louis convention locale because of alleged "racist" practices of the conference hotel, here is my feedback... Of course, you are assuming that any corporation or other entity that refuses to admit alleged incidents of racism--often broadly defined to include anything and everything--is in of itself an example of racist behavior. I would have thought that the AHA debacle of a few years ago would have taught American historians a few things about contracts and the rule of law--e.g., innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. But, in the spirit of the Star Chamber, the AHA and the OAH have their own morality that is superior to all other mortals and, of course, beyond reproach. Anyone who disagrees with you must be a racist, reactionary enemy of the people. I foolishly renewed my OAH membership after a several year lapse. I had hoped that the organization was capable of devoting itself to the study of history. But, alas, moral posturing and meaningless gestures are the order of the day. You can cancel my membership. I wish I could get a refund. Sincerely, Dr. Kenneth J. Heineman
To Whom It May Concern, I write on behalf of myself and my colleague Joel Silbey. We believe that the OAH should allow the justice system to run its course. The Adams Mark Hotel management should be presumed innocent until proven guilty; and has the right to refuse to sign a consent decree. We make no assumptions about guilt or innocent in this matter, and see no reason why the OAH Convention should not proceed as planned, with no changes in the panels, and no extra sessions on racism, which, in our judgment, will, more likely than not, contribute little to the controversy. We are dismayed at what appears to be a rush to judgment by the officers of the OAH. Sincerely, As someone--indeed, a former vice president--who urged the AHA to move the 1995 convention from Cincinnati, and who then contributed money to help compensate for the penalties the AHA had to pay, I encourage the OAH not to break the contract with the hotel. This would be cutting our own throats. As Lee Formwalt's statement has indicated, the OAH (of which I am a life member) would incur huge financial penalties and the hotel would not suffer. The Cincinnati case was somewhat different in that the city, not the hotel, was the issue; and the city would clearly have benefitted from all the money spent at the convention. I however encourage the strongest possible protests at the convention, including all of the measures outlined in the statement. There is another also: can blocks of rooms in other nearby hotels be found to house convention-goers? I have not yet made a reservation for the convention, and I just learned that the Radisson is now full so that I may have no choice but to stay at the Adam's Mark if I wish to attend the convention. Mary Beth Norton colleagues, as a former 20 year resident of st. louis, i say with lots of background and firm conviction that the third strategy--to hold the meeting and use it as a forum on racism--will be the best way to save the organization AND address the problem. by being there we can focus local attention which will help keep some pressure on the hotel after we leave. if we don't go, the attention fades away too fast. we get much more bang by being there and dramatizing--esp. right at the old courthouse--the issue than by cancelling and creating lots of problems and shining little light on the issue. all the boycotting, speaking, etc., that can be done during the conference will aid the issue and the hotel will make the $$ whether we're there or not--so let's go and make them pay with our vocal presence that they cannot cover up!! as a final note, presumably, this episode will instruct the way the organization goes about setting up future conferences. keep up the fight! catherine forslund OAH Leadership: I think we should still hold the meeting at this hotel while condemning their behavior and attitudes. It would too greatly damage the OAH financially to cancel these contracts. Better still would be to hold the conference, especially with these special sessions, and ensure that this hotel and its management understands what anti-racist civil rights organizations are all about. This is an opportunity for the OAH to practice what its historians have been preaching for 30 years, that is civil action against social injustice. Let's go there, hold our originally planned and special sessions and make these racists highly uncomfortable with our tolerant, liberal, multicultural ways. Hal Friedman Dear folks, As a member of a panel that decided we had to withdraw rather than contribute in any way to the hotel, I certainly understand the feelings of those who urge the OAH to break its commitment. On the other hand, it seems to me the OAH's interest is different in many ways than our interest. We can as individuals choose not to spend our future money (registration) at that hotel. But the organization has in some sense already spent that money, so the question for you is should you spend more money, which would itself benefit the hotel, to break the contract, or is there another way? Personally, I would advocate that the OAH keep its contract, but that it make a formal statement in support also of those who chose for moral reasons to stay away. The more who stay away, the less the hotel benefits from the conference. (And the OAH could also explicitly encourage participants to stay elsewhere, which would further hurt the hotel). The hotel then makes the smallest possible amount from the contract, and the OAH has averted as much bad feelings as possible by not forcing those who don't attend to feel they are in some ways opposing the OAH. In fact the OAH could offer to post on its website the presidential and plenary addresses for those who feel they could not attend. This conference would have fewer attendees, but we would all know and understand why. Those who do come I think should be encouraged to protest racism and discrimination in as many and as explicit ways as possible, just as you have suggested. That might also include posting signs in rooms of cancelled sessions that not only announce the cancellation but the reason for it. We on our panel did not make our decision to withdraw lightly -- we were reluctant to seem to be opposing the OAH, and fearful that our decision might be seen as a criticism of David Montgomery. We intend neither. We have the greatest respect for both, and recognize that he and the organization have very different obligations than we do, as well as different opportunities. The presidential address can be relocated outside the hotel, but we can't relocate all the panels without moving the meeting, which is precisely what the OAH cannot do. So we on panels don't have that choice. Neither, though, do we have the obligation of a previously signed contract. So we see no contradiction between the OAH holding the conference and our not participating. (Some of us are planning to attend, and stay elsewhere; others of us not to attend at all. The issue for us all was our formal participation, since our panel would be held in that hotel.) But, to repeat, I think it would be very helpful if there were a public acknowledgment that those who choose to stay away are also pursuing a legitimate strategy, and that the OAH welcomes all expressions of anti-racism, even those that weaken this particular conference. And that the OAH will try to make available for those individuals the central addresses of the convention. The danger is not that historians who stay away will think less of the OAH or David Montgomery -- I have seen not even a hint of that in any of the discussions I have seen. The danger is that things might polarize further if it seems like the OAH is taking one "side" and the boycotters another. If the OAH can make clear that all these choices are on the same side, and folks must follow their conscience, I think we'll weather this storm just fine. Let me close with my fervent wish that the owners do the right thing on Feb. 8! You are all in an incredibly difficult, no win situation. Everyone knows that. And your integrity and commitment comes through clearly, even to those who wish you had made a different choice. It's just sad we're in this situation at all. So much for the new world of the new millennium! Good luck. Best wishes, Cheryl Greenberg Dear Members of the OAH board: I strongly urge the society to reconsider holding the meeting at the Adam's Mark Hotel. The AHA made the right decision, whatever the financial consequences, when it moved to Chicago, and the OAH should do the same. Some things are more important than a balanced budget. Respectfully, John Carson I wasn't planning on attending the conference this year so perhaps my opinion is not as valid as those that are, but I do not think that the organization should not face financial ruin and let a racist corporation profit from it. I believe that the best approach would be to honor the contract, not spend any money there that one doesn't have to, and then use it as a vehicle to highlight the persistence of racism. I would urge the OAH, however, not to perpetuate the black-white binary of racist behavior but to make the point that other groups, Asian Americans, Latinos, and American Indians, face racial discrimination on a daily basis. Sincerely, Ernesto Chávez As an OAH member on and off for more than twenty years, I have real concerns for our organization at this juncture. I first attended the OAH Convention in Los Angeles as an young MA student at a small college. That convention demonstrated for me what, at its most developed form, was this vocation for which I was training. It has been thirty years and I have never forgotten it. At that time, informal segregation was still breaking down in the southern California area. The Pasadena Unified School District was desegregated by court order in 1970. I still had to use white intermediaries to rent apartments for me in Orange County, California because I was (and am) African-American. Segregation and discrimination was still as prevalent in the 1970s as it seems to be today. I hate it and I am convinced that my colleagues in the history profession of whatever race, hate it too. A strong stand against the offending hotel chain, a press conference demanding change, and retailoring of the pending convention to address as historians especially can questions of race and discrimination in America past and present are all appropriate. But cancelling the convention or financially crippling the OAH, by paying the offending hotel chain a $425,000 bonus for its crimes; these are not appropriate or prudent responses to this situation. As a black man, I cannot think what colleagues who have threatened to withdraw their presentations and/or boycott the convention are contemplating. We have to do our work in an imperfect world. At its best, our work will make the future better, but there can be no strike against reality. Discrimination--the denigration of people of color, women, and working-class people--is a part of that current reality. It will not be resolved by what amounts to a kind of secondary boycott: an action which in essence is an attack on our own organization, the OAH, to show our disapproval for the actions of the corporate innkeeper to which the OAH is locked in contract. With all due respect to those who differ with me on this question, I think that fundamental social change comes, when it does, when people put their lives on the line. The cancellation of (a university funded) roundtrip ticket to St. Louis and a hotel reservation, while an admirable minor symbolic statement against discrimination, is really nothing more than that. Harold S. Forsythe To the OAH Executive Committee, I am scheduled to present a paper at this year's conference in St. Louis. While my fellow panelists and I have not reached a formal decision about withdrawing, I personally don't see how any arrangement with the hotel would be truly satisfactory. If they agree to cooperate with the Justice Dept., it doesn't make the hotel all that more appealing. Before the OAH meets with the Adams Mark representatives next week, I would like to add one comment about the economic implications of cancelling the contract. I fully grasp the painful irony that the hotel will benefit if the OAH were to withdraw. It is unsettling to think of giving hateful people $400,000 for doing nothing as well as giving them the opportunity to make more money by renting out their space to another group. However, I urge the OAH leaders and others concerned with this predicament to keep the withdrawal in a larger context. Although the OAH's withdrawal would be an individual action, it would also constitute participation in a boycott. The hotel would benefit financially if the OAH withdraws, but hopefully the OAH's action would encourage others to boycott--even under difficult circumstances--and therefore to inflict greater long-term damage. We must remember that the intention of a boycott is to achieve long-term gains, even if it means suffering short term losses. Plus, the OAH can walk away with a clear conscience. When Eleanor Roosevelt renounced her membership in the DAR over its refusal to allow Marian Anderson to perform, I don't think she quibbled about the organization getting to keep her dues money. Hers was an example I think the OAH should follow. Some might say that the dollar amounts make this an unfair historical analogy, but is it much of an exaggeration to say that $400,000 (or even a million) is almost as a small figure in the hotel's total chain-wide revenue as one woman's DAR membership dues? Sincerely, I recognize the seriousness of this situation; yet boycotting on a one-shot deal will not solve anything. Hold the meeting there, and figure out things to do to embarrass the hotel (within the law), and to make clear that (1) the OAH will _never_ recommend meeting there again; (2) will recommend to _all_ members and affiliates and the AAUP (why _NOT_ a censure list of hotels; and (3) go ahead with the contextualized anti-racist plans. The best way to deal with racism is not to take the high moral ground and threaten boycott -- we do NOT have the economic clout even southern blacks had in the 1950s. We need publicity; we need thinking people; we need wit and sarcasm; we need humour--these are the weapons that will help us overcome this sort of thing. Thank you. If you wish to put this out to all on the list, feel free. Geoffrey S. Smith Although I agree with the activists who don't want to seem to support Adam's Mark, I also think cancelling the conference may play right into their hands. Please continue to hold the conference. I will not be able to attend but as one of those public school teachers committed to teaching about our country's difficult past and present I want the message that racism should not continue to be heard throughout the land. By cancelling the conference, a one or two day story will appear in the St. Louis papers and the hotel may minimize the seriousness of the events. Instead, by continuing the conference as planned but moving as many single events and speakers as possible, OAH members can serve as a thousand voices to spread the message. In addition, small locally owned businesses in the neighborhood of the hotel will benefit more than usual and the community of St. Louis may help the OAH members to explore more of their city than conventioneers normally do. This along with close assistance from the NAACP leadership can serve to increase the coverage of this case. Until this notice, I had not heard of this case and I'm sure this is the same of many other members. As was the case with Denny's several years ago and in Birmingham years before, companies tend to respond better when not only more attention is given to events but also when they face economic pressure as well. Holding the conference with these understandings can serve to extend the pressure along both these fronts and I extend my support for this option. Diane Brooks-Shery
Dear OAH Leadership, A few days ago, I read about the Adam's Mark-Racism dilemma with great frustration, but today I had an informal chat today with Lee Alcorn, President of the Dallas Branch of the NAACP. I came away from that conversation energized about this issue, but I am not convinced that the most effective way for the OAH to deal with Adam's Mark at this juncture is to break our contract and engage in a legal battle. Before I suggest an alternative, let me say that I support the contention that the OAH should take a stand. My argument is primarily about tactics and what constitutes resistance, and thus I join with all those who call for some action and I reject the position that the Organization can remain apolitical on such matters. I surely do believe the OAH should pressure the Hotel to let us out of the contract and to sign a consent decree with the Department of Justice. I suspect these efforts will fail. In this event, I would support the Organization if it chose to break the contract. But, I believe it will do more damage to Adam's Mark reputation and more good in the cause for racial justice to make the Annual Meeting a forum on racism in American (and to highlight Adam's Mark Hotel particularly bad record), then it will for the OAH to walk away. If we do keep the contract, we must invest the effort and funds necessary to organize multiple forms of protests including petitions, boycotts, marches, new round-tables dedicated to this issue, and more. I think you should start by creating a "protest" committee and contacting the local chapters of civil rights groups in St. Louis. Perhaps the OAH could organize a march immediately following the Presidential address. I can imagine David Montgomery giving his talk and then leading several hundred historians from the podium to the streets where we could join the citizens of St Louis in a candlelit march from the hotel to the courthouse where the Dred Scott case began. If properly staged, national media might flock to record the event. If you want to strike at Adam's Mark, I believe you must do it through the national news media, through ongoing boycotts, and through public acts of defiance. I don't believe we cannot stand up to Adam's Mark lawyer for lawyer because they already have us in a losing position according to that game. Let's expand the rules. Act courageously and you'll have my sincere support! Patrick J. Ryan Thanks for fighting this fight on all our behalf. I have sent your e-mail to my sixteen colleagues in the history department. Many of us will contact Adams Mark and advise them to consent to the decree. Our best, Sarah Watts You assume the Justice Department is right and the Adam's Mark is guilty without benefit of a trial. A consent decree is just a ploy to avoid a trial(and often the result of government blackmail). The justice department has an awful record of running over the rights of both individuals and corporations. I would oppose canceling the meeting. Michael Jarvis This past weekend I attended the Teaching Workshop in U.S. Women's History, held annually at UCLA and open to those who teach U.S. women's history in Oregon, California, Arizona, and New Mexico. We discussed the OAH dilemma with respect to the scheduled meeting at the OAH in St. Louis. We reviewed the information we had available and voted 21-0 that the OAH should cancel its convention and publicize the cancellation widely. If the OAH decides to cancel, all members should send the registration fee to the organization. Having related the formal finding, I should also indicate to you the rationale for it. All present were outraged at the conduct of the Adam's Mark Hotel chain. They believed the hotel's actions in Florida to be egregious and deeply offensive and that the organization would be complicit in its actions if it met in the St. Louis hotel. Again and again, people also stated that they "could not cross a picket line." Some were also persuaded that the example of the OAH would promote other cancellations (which would ultimately be very costly to the hotel). Karen Anderson Dear OAH, Well done. The plans for the conference that I read on H-Announce will be more effective and far more disruptive to the hotel management than cancellation. I especially like the sessions and press conferences. There is no reason why the Organization needs to suffer while the hotel's misconduct remains unchanged. Don't forget to call C-SPAN in time for David Montgomery's address. I can tell you now that he'll bring the house down. Steven Stoll Twenty years or so ago, in common with a number of other scholarly organizations, the OAH was boycotting states that had not ratified the Equal Rights Amendment. That is, they were boycotting them until it came time to hold the annual conference in Reno, which had offered an especially lucrative deal. I protested the decision to go to Nevada to Joan Hoff, who was then the Executive Secretary, arguing that this would be insulting to female members, both because of Nevada's anti-ERA stand, and because of the degradation of women that is part and parcel of the degradation of women that is part and parcel of the gaming experience, broadly understood. Hoff basically dismissed me, which I guess she could do since she was female and I was not. In any event, my protest was simply not to attend the Reno Convention. One doesn't actually NEED to go to the annual meeting. You may think you do, but just work in your office, meet your students, and go about your daily work. The time will pass, and you will awake the morning of April 3 and find that you are still alive and it is just another Monday. To me, then, the best way to protest the carelessness of the OAH, which is really at issue here, is to just not go. That is certainly a better answer than trying to have your cake and eat it too--marching around for a hour or so carrying a picket sign with David Montgomery, and devoting the rest of the time to schmoozing with the historical elite. David Danbom, Life Member Dear OAH: As a paid-up member who wants his membership fees put to good use, it grieves me to say this but I think we should be prepared to cancel and absorb whatever costs arise. The cost to the integrity of the organization will be greater if we go through with the conference in a racist institution; and the publicity redounding to the organization's benefit and Adam's Mark's detriment will be so much the greater if it involves a sacrifice on our part. Both on principle and on tactical grounds, it is crucial that we be prepared to cancel. Unless one goes into a negotiation with a strong position -- which, in this case, means being prepared to cancel -- one has no basis from which to negotiate. If we decide in advance that we are going to hold the conference at the Adam's Mark hotel, no matter what, we may as well not try and negotiate. We would be sending David Montgomery into a poker game with a losing hand, hoping he will somehow bluff his way to a win. Only by being genuinely prepared to cancel can we have any realistic hope of a positive outcome. The postponement of the negotiating session on February 8 is a sign that moves are afoot. A strong position by the OAH may be all that it takes to push Adam's Mark to settle the case. If the membership backs the OAH negotiators to take a strong position we might well contribute to a victory in the anti-racism litigation, and get to hold our conference in the hotel. As well as tactics, there is a principle at stake. A speech such as the proposed plenary address countering discrimination at Adam's Mark will be so much hot air if we do not put our money where our mouth is. I would be ashamed to listen to such a speech; I cannot imagine anything more inconsistent than denouncing the very place where one is meeting, having failed to take the option of cancelling or meeting somewhere else. The fact that such a proposal has been mooted is a sign that our leadership's backbone needs some stiffening. This is a situation where the negotiators need to hear from the members that they have the leeway to do some tough negotiating on the principled position. Unless we back our negotiators in this way, we must expect that they will walk out of the negotiations empty-handed. Tactical concerns and our organization's integrity point the same way: cancel or move the conference unless the hotel signs the consent decree. Respectfully, Patrick Hagopian
David Montgomery President, OAH I have been reading with growing dismay a wide variety of reports about the upcoming convention, currently scheduled to be held at the Adam's Mark Hotel in St. Louis. While it is no doubt true that the Adam's Mark is the central "villain" in this piece, I'm concerned that we not lose sight of another part of the story. The reports I've seen mention, among other things, a multi-million dollar racial discrimination judgment made against the St. Louis Adam's Mark Hotel in 1994. This information strongly suggests that if the OAH staff, officials, and/or members had made the appropriate inquiries into the hotel's policies when the contract was signed in 1996 or at any time thereafter, we would have learned all we needed to know about the Adam's Mark hotel chain. Significantly, we might have done so in plenty of time to sever relations without having to pay the enormous fines we now face. For this reason, it seems to me that OAH members (like me) as well as OAH staff and officials bear some share of responsibility for the current mess. So I would like to say that: Although I'm sorely tempted to join the growing boycott movement, I will hold off doing so at least until reports of the February 8th meeting are available. If the OAH decides to pull out of the Adam's Mark Hotel, I will pledge $250 to help offset the costs involved in doing so. I would strongly recommend that the OAH follow the lead of the American Studies Association and join the NAACP's Economic Reciprocity Initiative, making regular use of its Hotel Industry Report Card service in choosing future convention sites. (For more information, see http://www.naacp.org/economic-development/). And that the OAH look into purchasing cancellation insurance for future conventions. Needless to say, I am very grateful for all the hard work the OAH leadership is doing on the issue, and I wish you and the rest of the OAH delegation the very best in your negotiations with the Adam's Mark this week. Since you've asked for feedback before that meeting, I'd like to add the following:
Peggy Pascoe Thank you for your email and your request for feedback re the Adam's Mark situation. I strongly support a boycott, or if the conference goes forward, boycott actions like not patronzing the hotel's bar or restaurant, and the holding of as many OAH events as can be accommodated off-site. I think OAH members attending should at least wear an armband or some similar symbol that tells the hotel adminstration and other patrons of the hotel that they are aware of the hotel's record on race, and do not approve of it. Perhaps such armbands could be made available to those who attend the conference as part of registration materials, to be worn according to each participant's choice and conscience. The OAH as an organization should make it clear in as high-profile a way as possible that the policies of the Adam's Mark are unacceptable and repugnant. I am also sensitive to the fact that the conference is a place for people, including young PhDs just entering the profession, to interview for jobs, meet editors and publishers, etc., in addition to the obvious conference work of papers and panels. If at all possible, candidates should not be put in awkward positions of having to, say, cross a picket line to go into the hotel to interview. I am not say there should be no picketing--I'm saying that search committees and editors should try to arrange meetings in neutral spots outside the hotel, if possible, and to be respectful of candidate's views and feelings on this issue. I also think this is an opportunity to have a joint press conference with the NAACP and any local black leaders/organizations in St. Louis. I laud David Montgomery for making this issue the topic of his keynote address. I want to note also that I happen to be an Episcopalian, of the liberal wing of the church, and that the Episcopal Executive Council has officially recognized the racism of the Adam's Mark chain as a moral-social justice issue. The Presiding Bishop Frank T. Griswold and the Council have cancelled plans to hold convention at the Adam's Mark Hotel in Denver, with a penalty of cancellation of $1.2 million that the church can ill afford. The council members stated that they had no choice, that not going ahead with planned arrangements was "the most appropriate response in light of the church's commitment to eradicating racism in the church and society." Suffragan Bishop Frank Turner of the Diocese of Pennsylvania, who is African American, supported the council's decision and stated that "It would be a terrible, damaging image if the church were to go there under these conditions." If the OAH prepares some kind of group letter or statement condemning the civil rights violations of the Adam's Mark chain, I would very much like to sign it. Yours sincerely, Barbara Bair, Ph.D. It would be the height of folly to destroy the OAH over this issue. We must also remember that this is the last job chance for scores of graduate students whose future employment by interviews may well depend upon our regular meeting. Also what about the prize winners cheated of their moment in the sun? And the business meeting itself? We should meet as usual, discuss how best to protest, and let our displeasure be known to the hotel managers but not to the point that they have a right to ruin the OAH economically. That makes no sense and anyone suggesting it better be prepared for the consequences. It is simply not an option. We must also consider the financial effect on the book exhibitors, many of them underfinanced university and academic presses. Is it at all fair or just to them to pull out when they have books to sell, authors to reach, and an investment of time and money in the booths themselves to protect. Bert Wyatt-Brown
Unless this matter is settled to the satisfaction of the OAH prior to the meeting, I would encourage the following:
Eric Schneider Instead of last week's message, please post this one instead: No way should we have a meeting there. The financial consequences are regrettable, but that's the thing about principles -- they are forged in hardship. I have done a lot of contracts in my professional responsibilities outside of academe, and ALWAYS have a section that says something like: [vendor providing services, i.e., hotel] warrants that in providing services AND IN THE OVERALL CONDUCT OF THE CLIENT'S BUSINESS, vendor shall be in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, rules, [etc.] and ON REQUEST, VENDOR SHALL FURNISH CLIENT [OAH] APPROPRIATE ASSURANCES OR CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE. . . Key phrases in caps; if we had some language like this in our contracts we would have an out with Adams Mark, because they could not furnish a certificate of compliance with federal civil rights law. So, if this is not an out this time, let's take a look at all future contracts to make sure this bind does not arise again. It's pretty steep tuition -- $425,000 for the lesson -- but at least we get something out of it. Matthew W. Roth The discrimination suit against the Adams Mark doesn't surprise me. My feeling is that to cancel the contract only reward them and hurts us, and leaves us less able to fight effectively where we are strong and where we are needed. I think the goal is to ensure that they make as little profit as possible on the OAH, which means no patronizing bars restaurants, room service, laundry etc, the myriad little ways hotels ratchet up their take on thoughtless guests. This requires that each individual member modify more or less rote behavior rather than simply taking stands and signing petitions. By all means do no more business with them, and us the OAH presidential address to denounce their behavior, keeping in mind that the suit is still presumably ongoing, and those on trial, even loathsome behaving corporations, are innocent until found guilty (if for no other reason than to keep from poisoning our own minds). Thank you. PS I have heard much more about the substance of the allegations of their hotels behavior. the behavior was appalling and almost unbelievable, except that such incidents are all too often business as usual. I still feel that to abrogate the contract would be wrong because it rewards them and it's clear that the company doesn?t care a whit about civil rights, or (apparently) bad publicity. I think members should feel free to cancel at the last minute to keep from reselling the rooms, or if they go to St. Louis raise all sorts of hell about the chain's attitudes. Charles McGovern I read with great interest the disturbing news concerning the Adam's Mark controversy. Whenever discrimination exists, individuals, institutions, and governmental agencies should take steps to overcome it. However, in the various versions of the difficulties found in the OAH's recent e-mail communication to its members, the second word in the OAH's account--"allegations"--must govern all decisions made by the OAH in this controversy; all other words in the OAH's account, in the DOG's account, in the NAACP's account, and in the Adam's Mark account are subordinate to this word. That reality should guide all decisions taken by the OAH's Executive Board in this controversy. Several facts sustain my position on this matter: First, an allegation is always just an allegation until proven otherwise, especially in instances in which the accused claims innocence. This truth lies at the heart of the principle of "innocent until proven guilty." (I have served on too many juries to take this principle lightly, and I hope members of the Executive Board share my sentiments.) During the past decade many governments that maintained that accusation was tantamount to guilt have faded from the surface of the earth. One reason for their virtually uncontested demise is the fact that the people in these countries knew in their hearts that accusation is not tantamount to guilt. These people knew that their governments and actions taken by their governments were arbitrary, capricious, outside of valid law, and essentially unjust--and therefore illegitimate. Practically no one was willing to die to defend these governments and even fewer were willing to kill others to defend them. I have been a member of the OAH for too many decades to believe that the Executive Board of that venerable organization would ever plunge to the level at which allegation is deemed to be tantamount to guilt. If it does plunge to that level, it will be ipso facto illegitimate and subject to legal proceedings. Second, failure to be governed by the term "allegations" produces early in the 21st century a version of an early 1950s disease, McCarthyism. I am old enough to remember the flap created by the speech Senator Joseph McCarthy made in early 1950 in Wheeling, West Virginia, a speech in which he claimed to have the names of communists working in the federal government. Although recent publications dealing with the VENONA project and dealing with newly released materials from Soviet-era archives have demonstrated that Soviet spies did penetrate federal agencies, Senator McCarthy never uncovered any such spies. He did, however, succeed in smearing innocent people, ruining lives, and casting an oppressive pall over the country. His actions were capricious and destructive, and it is possible that those allegations made against the Adam's Mark chain will be judged to be both unprovable and highly destructive. Let's let judicial processes reveal the truth of the allegations, and then if action is warranted the Executive Board of the OAH can take it. (Would the Executive Board of the OAH even think of switching the locations of plenary sessions or canceling the conference altogether if some organization accused corporate officers of the Adam's Mark of engaging in child molestation, or practicing infanticide, or torturing animals, or supporting Hillary Clinton, or murdering the elderly? I don't think so.) Failure on the part of the Executive Board to allow the judicial process to determine the truth of the allegations before taking action may well subject the Board and the OAH to justifiable criticism, ridicule, and lawsuits. A hemorrhage in membership would follow. Third, when I registered for the upcoming OAH conference, I did so in good faith. Having never visited an Adam's Mark hotel, I was eager to attend sessions in it. The recent e-mail from the OAH indicated that five plenary sessions have been moved from the Adam's Mark hotel to other locations. Moreover, the e-mail noted that the topic of the Presidential Address has been changed in such a way as to focus attention on racism. I have chaired and served on Symposia Committees, and I know that sometimes last-minute changes in the nature of the sessions must be made due to such factors as illness, wretched weather, and even death. However, I have never been party to a symposium or conference at which sessions were moved to new sites, etc., or the topic of a major address was changed due to mere allegations. I am not familiar with Missouri law, but I am quite certain that bait-and-switch practices are outlawed in virtually every state. It is highly likely that some members of the OAH and others registered in good faith and selected their lodgings with the understanding that certain sessions would be in the Adam's Mark hotel. If any such person arrives at the conference and learns that sessions originally slated to be in the Adam's Mark have been switched to another site, trouble could result. For example, a person with physical disability might find it difficult to get to the new location. Similarly, some elderly people might be dissuaded from attending sessions at the new locations, even if shuttle buses were available. Furthermore, if an individual did decide to attend a session at a new location, walked toward it, and got hit by a vehicle, big trouble would brew up, trouble that could undermine the organization. If it is not too late, I strongly urge the Executive Board to return to the Adam's Mark those sessions that have been moved elsewhere. Similarly, I urge David Montgomery to give the original version of his Presidential Address and not allow the topic to be driven by unproven allegations. Switching sites and changing topics of a speech benefit no one, other than perhaps those applying the pressure. Switching sites or changing a speech, however, will trigger something predictable: a swarm of allegations in future years made by all kinds of organizations. In short, I strongly urge the Executive Board and others in positions of leadership within the OAH to focus on the second word--"allegations"--in the e-mail the OAH sent to its members. I hope that word will heavily influence the Board's discussions, decisions, and communications. If mere allegations determine the sites of sessions and topics of speeches, then I have a proposal. Schedule four additional sessions: one devoted to the meanings and ramifications of the word "allegation;" another on the vitally important concept of "innocent until proven guilty;" another on "bait-and-switch" laws; and one on neo-McCarthyism. I ardently hope that everyone involved in this controversy will do what is fair, just, and true and that the controversy will be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties involved. --James Davis
Dear Dr. Montgomery:
|