Folk Alliance vs. NAACP

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Aug 01 - 07:20 PM

Ron,

Thanks, but I'm neither upset or hysterical. The response I gave was perfectly appropriate to Dicho's provocations.

As to using the Klan analogy for anonymous posting in Mudcat, you couldn't be more inflammatory. To equate my or any other anonymous guest's contributions to the actions of the Klan is indefensible.

BTW, the Klan still wears hoods.

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Aug 01 - 07:02 PM

So it make life easier to following the argument to know whether for example these are contributions by separate people, or a second post by the same person. Like I just did here.

It's just that that kind of thing focuses attention on the messenger, rather than on the message. And the message, or rather the topic is what is of interest here.

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Aug 01 - 06:56 PM

Well it's not a particulary important thing GUEST - but three times on this thread so far there have been consecutive posts by GUEST following directly on GUEST.

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 13 Aug 01 - 06:51 PM

Guest - (if that is your real name!) You bring up some good points but relax! The only way to win supporters to any cause is to get them to trust you, not alienate people with abusive retorts.

As for the anonymous postings. It absolutely is important and has consequence. The Klan used to wear hoods to hide their faces. I think a lot of people mistrust or ignore voices they can't recongize. People who have the courtesy to stand up for what they believe in are more apt to taken more seriously then an anonymous crank.

Sorry guest, I don't mean to sound negative, but you have inadvertently clouded the real issue at hand.

You did a very important service to all of us by bringing this issue up here at Mudcat. Many of us may not have been aware of the situation. Thank you for making us aware!

Ron

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: Dicho (Frank Staplin)
Date: 13 Aug 01 - 06:47 PM

I sit 2000 miles away, so getting information is not easy. I don't believe that it has been covered in the local papers. The Miami Herald site only gives abstracts- the latest says that the $8 million suit review comes up in November. Certainly guest is not providing information on why the settlement was overturned. From what I can see so far, the FA is getting a bum rap from people with emotions but little thought. If the other guest "From Florida" is correct in his comments, perhaps the Adams chain has a legal position. There is little point in further posting since guest (who started this) has shown that he cannot present rational, factual arguments.

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Aug 01 - 06:16 PM

You may assume anything you like McGrath. The number or identity of guests posting here is of absolutely no importance or consequence in this thread. Everyone seems to be doing just fine discussing the issue without knowing who is whom, and focusing instead on the issue we are all interested in discussing here.

And the reason you felt it necessary to bring up that contentious issue again here was...?

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: catspaw49
Date: 13 Aug 01 - 06:12 PM

Still somewhat short on facts and long on supposition and innuendo, but it is a fact that Adam's Mark has had two violations of CRA64 and the current picketing (here too) is well documented, legal, and defined.

Whether anyone else has an ulterior motive or whether riots occurred is either supposition or a personal view of reality. News reports do not document "riots." There was some trouble, but was it a riot? Really? Not important to the issue of whether AM was once again in violation of CRA64. That alone is enough to make anyone consider what staying at an AM means, like Denny's, Dairy Mart, or others.

The question is the position of the FA on the issue and taking unilateral action without consulting with the membership. Look at the roots of the FA and the people who started it. If it has wandered so far from those roots and the membership still values them, is it past it's usefulness? Quite possibly. Perhaps it's time for a change in leadership. Perhaps it's time for a new organization. I certainly don't have answers here, but failing to support the NAACP and continuing to support AM is certainly telling.............but again, I too can only guess.

I am bothered by the lines saying "we MUST have a conference to survive" and that "no other arrangements can be made and we're worried about the money.".....words to that effect. Every one of those is an overcomable condition and if the attitude is that bucks are more important than rights and non-support of an actionable business, than I would conclude that the FA has forgotten where it came from. Taking a stand for a belief is never easy nor is it anything but costly......always been true.

Could be that the folks in the FA are less interested in issues than they once were. Time for a new organization, perhaps, for those who still are. If the argument is "Gee, the FA still does a lot of good and we'll fold this time to keep it alive,".........then it's roots are already dead.

Spaw - Commie Pinko

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Aug 01 - 05:58 PM

I don't know anything about this from this distance, but sometimes maybe there's a role for an ignorant outsider.

I wouldn't have thought that $300,000 is all that much. Even on financial grounds I'd imagine that, if the effect of going ahead with this conference is to alienate a whole mass of members and patrons and so forth, that's likely to be even more destructive. Doing that is the kind of thing that destroys organisations - financial crises are the kind of thing that can waken them up and give them renewed vigour.

The National Folk Festival in England had to be cancelled this year, because of the Foot and Mouth epidemic. These things happen. I'd have thought the sensible thing for the Folk Alliance would be to cancel, and throw efforts into organising a fund-raising benefit or benefits to cover the cost.

And I know you're a litigious lot in the States, but why should there be any court case about it? The booking is cancelled, there's a penalty to pay, presumably covering the cost involved in renting the facilities, less the money which the company will presumably make by letting some of them out to other people. How it that different from any of us cancelling our holiday bookings because we've changed our minds? Or go the whole hog, don't cancel the renting, just cancel the conference and nobody goes. And of course, if the management of the FA (great initials) don't want to do that, presumably a lot of the members will do that themselves anyway.

(And I don't want to make a thing of it, because it goes round in circles - but I make it 15 posts by GUEST plus the one that started it. Is it correct to assume that there is one GUEST so far on the thread? Or 16? Or something in between.)

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Aug 01 - 05:31 PM

No, guest is not a flamer. Flame baiting by Dicho was met with strong language by guest.

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Aug 01 - 05:20 PM

Guest Russ,

And do you suppose its any coincidence the only defense the FA makes of their action is that the cost of doing the right thing is prohibitive for them? ;-)

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: DougR
Date: 13 Aug 01 - 05:20 PM

So. GUEST is a flamer.

DougR

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Aug 01 - 04:46 PM

I'd like to hear from the likes of Pete Seeger, Arlo Guthrie, Tom Paxton, Si Kahn, Odetta, Linda Tillery, Kim and Reggie Harris, etc. on this issue.

Ossie Davis and Ruby Dee are on record as supporting the boycott. Their son, Guy Davis, is a Folk Alliance member. I'd like to hear his position.

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Aug 01 - 04:16 PM

Dicho,

It appears you are more interested in being a confrontational and antagonistic, than in educating yourself about the "facts" about this boycott. Sitting back and taking cheap shots at other posters for not presenting "facts" while you refuse to get off your sorry ass and go educate yourself about the issue is pure laziness, indolence, and utter bullshit. It also means that your opinions in this thread are worthless, because you have no knowledge or information to contribute to the discussion.

There is all kinds of information on and off line about the case and the history of the lawsuits.

Yes, lawsuits PLURAL. The NAACP was joined by the U.S. Department of Justice and the State of Florida, both of whom filed separate lawsuits against Adams Mark regarding this case, saying that the hotel chain violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (public accommodations law guaranteeing every citizen the right to use equally hotels, parks, restaurants and other public places).

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: GUEST,From Florida
Date: 13 Aug 01 - 04:04 PM

I'd like a show of hands of all those who were in Florida for the Black College Reunion. It turned into a riot and many hotels/motels were property damaged. That is why hotels are choosing to NOT participate in the activities. Had it been called the "White" College Reunion or "Jewish" College Reunion, and the results been the same, the Adams Mark, et. al., wouldn't be renting to them either. I am neither a bigot nor a conservative, but facts are facts.

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 13 Aug 01 - 04:03 PM

Laying it on the line for principal is not easy, convenient, or cheap. Never has been. There are always good practical reasons for avoiding the issues. Thank god for the people who have been willing to pay the price.

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: Dicho (Frank Staplin)
Date: 13 Aug 01 - 03:49 PM

Sorry about the double click

it's okay, that's what joeclones are for:-)

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: Dicho (Frank Staplin)
Date: 13 Aug 01 - 03:48 PM

The statement by the Folk Alliance posted by DebC seems satisfactory to me, at this time. Finding a suitable site at reasonable cost, especially at this late date, is unlikely. The action by the NAACP in reinstituting the boycott occurred after the negotiations for the site. I would still like to see the reasons why the Court judge threw out the settlement. Was the award unjustified? Did the Florida papers report any information about this decision?

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Aug 01 - 03:41 PM

At a panel discussion on "Music and Politics" at the Folk Alliance 1999 conference, several panelists and audience members agreed that the folk scene had become too insular and musically conservative.

I would hope that at least some of those folk performers with FA associations, who are also known for having a strong social conscience, will come out in opposition to the executive committee's decision. Steve Earle, who gave such a passionate performance on the above mentioned panel, immediately springs to mind. But there are many others.

Let us hope that enough pressure can be brought to bear on the FA executive committee by the membership, well-known folkies, and conference sponsors concerned with losing business, that they will change the decision to hold the conference at Adams Mark, and violate the NAACP boycott.

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: Tedham Porterhouse
Date: 13 Aug 01 - 03:30 PM

I stand corrected. Thanks.

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Aug 01 - 03:27 PM

Tedham,

It doesn't appear to me that one must be a FA member to join the mailing list. This is from the Folk Alliance's listserv page:

Folk Alliance List Serve

Folk Alliance hosts a list serve for its members and other interested people. To join the list, send an email message to [e-mail] and write:

subscribe folk-alliance

by itself in the message body. (To receive the digest version of the list, write 'subscribe folk-alliance-digest'.).

To leave the list, send a message to to same address and write:

unsubscribe folk-alliance

in the message body (or unsubscribe folk-alliance-digest').

There is a web-accessible archive of the messages from this list at http://archives.his.com/folk-alliance .

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: GUEST,Toledo
Date: 13 Aug 01 - 03:17 PM

Could we stay on topic, and leave Guest identities out of it? They have nothing to do with the subject being discussed, or the quality of the information being provided by guest(s).

I've followed the links provided in the guest messages, and every one of them is legitimate.

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: Dicho (Frank Staplin)
Date: 13 Aug 01 - 03:10 PM

Guest seems to be short on facts.

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: DougR
Date: 13 Aug 01 - 03:04 PM

Kat: Do you suppose "guest" has a name? He/she successfully avoided addressing your suggestion in his/her reply.

It would seem to me, were I a member of FA, that I would want to know a lot more about this situation from the FA than is contained in that press release to members before I cancelled attending anything. I would want to make direct communication with the leadership of the Folk Alliance to find out what is going on.

The NAACP has perfomed a tremendous service for minorities in the this country through the years, but that does not mean that it is "right" in every instance.

DougR

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Aug 01 - 02:46 PM

This type of behavior isn't limited to this instance or to the FA. Sing Out, that long-time left-wing bastion, is using a scab printer because union shops charge too much.

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: Tedham Porterhouse
Date: 13 Aug 01 - 02:33 PM

Guest,

The archive address that you gave is for a World Music discussion group that's hosted by the Folk Alliance.

The address for the Folk Alliance e-mail group is http://archives.his.com/folk-alliance/. I think you have to be a member of the Folk Alliance to subscribe.

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: Tedham Porterhouse
Date: 13 Aug 01 - 02:26 PM

One of the problems with the Folk Alliance is that while its an organization of "grass roots" kind of people, it operates in a "top down" kind of way. Its major decisions are often made behind closed doors with little or no input from the membership. Decisions are presented as final.

Even members of the FA Board of Directors are often out of the decision-making loop. A former board member that I know told me that the board had no input into such issues as to where to hold the conference.

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Aug 01 - 02:22 PM

Here is the address of Folk Alliance's mailing listserv archive:

http://archives.his.com/fa-worldmusic/

The most recent message on the archive is last Thursday.

It is quite simple to join the listserv to voice your opinion about this decision, and read what list members have to say about it.

Folk Alliance also has regional conferences which can be boycotted. One can also write to the sponsors of the FA conferences, and express their views.

There are also a number of excellent media outlets for expressing points of view within the folk world--think in terms of your local radio programs, newsletters, etc. who might also give people a forum for discussing the issue.

I think its important to involve local NAACP folks in the conversation too.

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: Dicho (Frank Staplin)
Date: 13 Aug 01 - 02:12 PM

Breaking the contract would also mean that there would be a court fight over the contract, which could end up costing much more than the $300,000 if the Folk Alliance lost. Obtaining a suitable site at this late date not only would be expensive, but would probably entail losses from attendance more costly than boycott by folk individuals at the current site would. None of the postings explain why the $8 million settlement was thrown out. Was the award, and the case of the complainants, considered unjustified? I am sure that the FA organizers and their legal consultant have considered the problems involved. Knee-jerk reactions do not help.

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: katlaughing
Date: 13 Aug 01 - 02:04 PM

Thank you, Ted.

Guest, just a question. If you are a member of the FA and you could post on their website, would you let them know you were a member by adding you name, so that your message had more impact? Just curious.

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Aug 01 - 02:04 PM

Sinsull, I didn't mean to twist your words.

We don't all share your apparent belief that FA is such a valuable organization that it should continue to be supported (and sustained by its membership, grant monies,etc) in light of such a decision as the one they've taken in this instance.

Because an organization's mission is to support folk music, doesn't mean it is automatically deserving of support,even without this sort of controversy.

Not everyone in the folk world is an enthusiastic supporter of FA.

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Aug 01 - 02:00 PM

I think members should be given the opportunity to express their disagreement with FA leadership on the FA website, atthe very least.

This was a highly presumptuous move on the leadership's part--shows they aren't very connected to the membership. You'd think they would have at least polled the membership to see what kind of backing they had for such a controversial decision before making this announcement.

Good God, the pickets only started over the weekend, and FA already had press releases at the ready on Monday morning?

That tells me they always intended to go on with the conference, regardless of what ANYONE said, did, etc.

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: SINSULL
Date: 13 Aug 01 - 01:57 PM

You are twisting my words. "Honor the contract in view of the financial loss. If the boycott were to cost the Folk Alliance its very existence, breaking the contract is not an option. Going ahead with the conference and working with black groups to put the issue "in their (Adams Mark Hotels) face" is an acceptable alternative.

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: Tedham Porterhouse
Date: 13 Aug 01 - 01:57 PM

Kat,

I will be sending a message to the FA today about my decision. This issue just surfaced yesterday on the FA e-mail group and I already know of several other people who will not be attending the FA Conference in Jacksonville because of this issue.

I think it will be very telling for the future of the FA when some of the high profile FA members who were active in the civil rights movement make themselves heard on this issue.

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Aug 01 - 01:55 PM

Here is Adams Mark's response to the NAACP court victory last Friday:

http://www.adamsmark.com/news26.htm

My 1:32 p.m. message should have read:

"Folk Alliance could send a powerful message, not to mention get some incredibly positive press which could have a much more beneficial effect on the organization in the long run, by cancelling the conference for 2002, in solidarity with the boycott. "

And I think Tedham's message above illustrates that point.

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: katlaughing
Date: 13 Aug 01 - 01:50 PM

Fair enough, Tedham. Thank you. That does change my mind. I do think the boycott is the ethically right thing to do and to support. If the org. can handle losing the money on the contract AND its members will stand up for it and support it in THAT action, then I say more power to the members who follow their conscious and do not attend.

Question, though? Have you let them know why you will not be attending? Is there a grassroots movement among memebrs to do so and really get behind such an effort? seems to me that would be the way to get them to change their minds.

All the best,

kat

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: Tedham Porterhouse
Date: 13 Aug 01 - 01:42 PM

kat,

I've decided to support the boycott and that means this will be the first FA Conference in nine years that I'll have missed. Therefore FA will be minus my $350 registration fee. And I'll think long and hard about renewing my membership, that's another $60.

I know that my thinking on this is not unique among FA members. It seems to me that FA is looking at a $300,000 loss because of a stupid blunder, or a possible mass defection of members on an issue of principle.

I think the organization would be in a better position to rebuild if it acted on the principles that have underlied the folk movement for many decades.

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Aug 01 - 01:37 PM

Sinsull,

With all due respect, if you chose to attend the conference, even while staying and eating elsewhere, you would be breaking the boycott.

Is it worth it to break an important boycott like this, just to "honor a contract" with a racist hotel chain?

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Aug 01 - 01:32 PM

I agree Tedham Porterhouse. And I'd sure like to see "proof" of their losing $300,000 if cancelling this far in advance. Money shouldn't be the deciding factor in this case, principle and ethics should be.

But that isn't the point. Folk Alliance could send a powerful message, not to get some incredibly positive press which could have a much more beneficial effect on the organization in the long run, by cancelling the conference for 2002, in solidarity with the boycott.

By choosing to go ahead with the conference, I think the organization has just signed it's own death warrant as an effective folk music organization anyway.

CNN.com is already reporting that one United Negro College Fund banquet being given by a small college in Memphis (I think) scheduled at the Adams Mark there for the end of August, has been cancelled. Ruby Dee and Ossie Davis had been scheduled speakers, and they have said they won't attend any functions at Adams Mark Hotels.

If other small organizations with events booked for the coming weeks can decide to take the financial hit on principle, why not Folk Alliance, who has six months before the conference is scheduled to convene?

What a crock Phyllis Barney! Do you think we all fell off the peach truck yesterday?

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: SINSULL
Date: 13 Aug 01 - 01:31 PM

This is a tough one. I personally have not set foot in a Denny's since their racist behavior a few years back. I personally would boycott this chain for recreational or business travel. If I were attending this conference, I would arrange to sleep and eat elsewhere but would support the group's decision to honor its contract in view of the financial loss the cancellation would incur.

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: GUEST,PeteBoom (at work)
Date: 13 Aug 01 - 01:27 PM

Good point, Sorcha, if GUEST would cough up the 300G's that would release FA from its contractual obligations I bet they'd be willing to find an alternative location.

At the same time, demanding that AM admit they, as an organization, did something worng is HIGHLY unlikely. They may admit any number of things up TO that, but not that the organization as a whole did anything wrong. (Remember the Denny's fiasco a couple of years ago?)

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: katlaughing
Date: 13 Aug 01 - 01:26 PM

Granted, Tedham, they should have done some homework, but what would you have them do about the $300,000? I would think losing that kind of money would spell the end of the Alliance? It would be a grand gesture and one which is morally right, but the world literally does not function in black and white...too many gray areas. Use it for an op to teach, get in their faces, make them uncomfortable, put them on notice and let the whole world watch.

kat

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: Sorcha
Date: 13 Aug 01 - 01:19 PM

I just figured that since Guest is so up in arms about this that it would send FA the bucks to cancel their contract. I seriously doubt that calling the Centers of Color people Uncle Toms is going to help much of anything.

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: Tedham Porterhouse
Date: 13 Aug 01 - 01:18 PM

I have vivid memories of being 21 years old in 1963 and being one of many thousands gathered on the mall singing along to the likes of Peter, Paul & Mary and other folksingers before Dr. King made his legendary and inspiring "I have a dream" speech.

I remember folksingers being at the forefront of the civil rights movement, of leading marches and boycotts. Now, they prepare to have a convention at a hotel under boycott by the NAACP. FOR SHAME.

Phyllis Barney makes the excuse that the boycott was not in force when the Folk Alliance moved the 2002 conference to the Adams Mark Hotel. However, the incidents that led to the boycott occurred in 1999 and were the subject of an earlier boycott by the NAACP long BEFORE the Folk Alliance booked this facility. That should have presented the Folk Alliance with a bright red flag.

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Aug 01 - 01:17 PM

kat,

I believe that was already decided in favor of the NAACP. This too, is from their website today, and as I understand it, is in relation to the suit you cite above:

Q: Why did the judge who heard the case in federal district court rule in the NAACP's favor?

A: The judge rejected the Adam's Mark hotel's attempt to stop the NAACP's boycott, saying that the chain's request for an injunction would unconstitutionally restrict the NAACP's First Amendment right to free speech in an incident in which substantial evidence exists that racial discrimination did occur.

Q: Was Adam's Mark involved in any other incidents regarding racial discrimination before the NAACP, the U.S. Department of Justice and the State of Florida filed suits in 1999?

A: Yes. From 1991 to 1999 they were found guilty in two lawsuits of based on based on racial discrimination claims.

End quote

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: katlaughing
Date: 13 Aug 01 - 01:14 PM

It seems to me they are trying to make the best of a bad situation. $300,000 for a folk group is nothing to just blow off. I hope thoough that they can work something out with the NAACP to make it a really educational opportunity. Despite the boycott, I think it would be fitting for members of the NAACP to attend, a sort of "get in their face" kind of thing which could really focus attention on the nefarious deeds of the hotel chain. Exposure is the only thing which might make such things change.

It is regretable that they are already locked into that site for the conference, but unless a philanthropist steps in and offers to back them for their loss, it would be bad managing to lose those funds.

kat

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Aug 01 - 01:10 PM

No--DebC did NOT just post "facts." She just posted the Folk Alliance's justification for ignoring the boycott. Those aren't facts at all.

And they use the most predictable means of "defense" for choosing to ignore the boycott: trotting out a group of Uncle Tom's to take the flak for them.

Despicable. Absolutely despicable.

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: jeffp
Date: 13 Aug 01 - 01:08 PM

Thanks, Deb. You must have posted while I was writing. From the Alliance's release it appears that things are not as cut-and-dried as Guest's posting made it out to be. Hence my request.

jeffp

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: katlaughing
Date: 13 Aug 01 - 01:07 PM

Here is the latest press release from the NAACP site. It seems the hotel chain doesn't want NAACP picketers around its hotels.

July 27, 2001

NAACP STANDS BY ADAM'S MARK BOYCOTT IN FACE OF LAWSUIT BY HOTEL
Constitutional precedent says NAACP has right to boycott the lodging company

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) today said it stands by it boycott of the Adams' Mark hotel chain in the face of a lawsuit filed Friday by the HBE Corporation, owner of the Adam's Mark hotel chain. The suit is an attempt to prevent picketing by the NAACP at its hotels and to force the civil rights organization to halt its political boycott of the chain that was announced earlier this month.

NAACP President and CEO Kweisi Mfume said: "This lawsuit is a blatant attempt to stifle the voice of the NAACP and others engaged in legitimate public criticism of this company's discriminatory practices, and we will vigorously defend against it. The mission of the NAACP is to speak truth to power, and we will not be silenced by this heavy-handed attempt to shut off public debate. The First Amendment was designed to protect against just this kind of censorship."

Federal and state officials and various citizens, along with the NAACP, have accused the hotel chain of racial discrimination. Although the hotel chain is currently operating under a consent decree entered into with the Department of Justice, it has refused to date to publicly acknowledge its wrongful conduct or to settle the remaining discrimination actions against it.

The lawsuit, filed in federal district court in Baltimore, names as defendants the NAACP, NAACP Board Chairman Julian Bond, and Mfume. Adam's Mark said it intends early next week to ask the Court for an injunction prohibiting the NAACP and its members from picketing its establishments or otherwise calling for a boycott of the company's facilities.

Mfume said, "The lawsuit filed today can be traced directly to complaints regarding Adam's Mark hotel chain's discriminatory practices toward African Americans, including particularly its treatment of guests at its Daytona Beach,

Florida hotel during the Black College Reunion weekend in 1999."

In 1999, the NAACP, the Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, and three private law firms filed a lawsuit on behalf of several guests at the Daytona Beach property. The plaintiffs allege they were forced to prepay for rooms and amenities; wear non-detachable, neon-orange identification wristbands; and enter the hotel through barricades staffed by a heavy police presence. The plaintiffs also allege that the hotel refused to allow its African American guests to unload their luggage in its covered entryway and refused to rent to them anything but the most basic rooms, reserving its better rooms for employees and police officers staying at the hotel.

After the guests filed suit, the Florida Attorney General moved to intervene on the guests' side, and the U.S. Department of Justice filed a separate lawsuit of its own arising out of the Daytona Beach incident. In March 2000, the St. Louis-based company agreed to settle these lawsuits and would have paid out over $8 million and implemented anti-discrimination programs and training, but the federal judge hearing the case declined to approve the proposed class-action settlement. Since then, Adam's Mark has refused to support the settlement on appeal and has refused to proceed in good faith to settle the State of Florida's and the guests' case, which remains pending.

Adam's Mark did, however, enter into a settlement with the Department of Justice that resulted in the court's entry of a consent decree. Although the hotel agreed to undertake certain training of its employees and to be subject to monitoring for compliance with the terms of the decree, Adam's Mark refused to admit that it had committed discrimination or to apologize for its conduct.

Earlier this month, the Florida Commission on Human Relations concluded that there was reasonable cause to believe that Adam's Mark had unlawfully discriminated against African American guests during the 1999 Black College Reunion. The announcement by the Commission, coupled with the failure of Adam's Mark to negotiate in good faith a settlement of the lawsuit brought by the NAACP, prompted the NAACP to renew its earlier call for economic sanctions against the chain on July 11, 2001.

The hotel company responded by threatening to sue the NAACP if it did not call off the boycott and, although the NAACP pointed out to Adam's Mark that its protest is fully protected by the Constitution, the hotel company today filed suit.

"The Adam's Mark lawsuit flies in the face not just of long-standing Supreme Court precedent," Mfume noted, "but also in the face of the very purpose and meaning of the First Amendment to our great Constitution. Instead of trying, through a meritless lawsuit, to shut us up, Adam's Mark should stand up, squarely admit that it has done wrong, publicly apologize to those who were the victims of its discriminatory conduct, and explain specifically what it is doing and will do to correct its behavior. That is what we have sought, and what the hotel company so far has refused to do."

The United States Supreme Court repeatedly has upheld the right oforganizations like the NAACP to engage in non-violent economic boycotts as a means of political protest. Some twenty years ago, in the NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. case that grew out of a racial dispute between African American citizens

and white merchants, the Court unanimously held that "speech to protest racial discrimination is essential political speech lying at the core of the First Amendment." The high court further ruled that those who engage in non-violent picketing and other forms of communication as part of a boycott may not be punished, or held civilly liable, for doing so.

"Until Adam's Mark publicly acknowledges responsibility for its wrongdoing and comes to terms with the plaintiffs in the pending discrimination lawsuit, Mfume said, "the NAACP will continue to call on all persons and organizations who support the principle of equality under the law to stop doing business with the Adam's Mark hotels."

Founded in 1909, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) is the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization. Its half-million adult and youth members throughout the United States and the world are the premier advocates for civil rights in their communities and monitor equal opportunity in the public and private sectors.

###

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: Sorcha
Date: 13 Aug 01 - 01:04 PM

I believe DebC just did. Seems to me like everyone concerned is working on the problem.

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: jeffp
Date: 13 Aug 01 - 12:58 PM

So, do you have any facts to supply? Or can you point us to anyone with the facts?