As some of you may have heard, an incident involving CSA, FASA, and Studio 4 nightclub occurred two Saturdays ago. On behalf of the two organizations involved that night, we would like to share with you information about some of the injustices committed against us that night. We feel it is necessary for you as individuals and members of our community to know, as something like this could have happened to any organization, and very well may happen again. What follows is a condensed version of the night's events. The full story and important details of the night are attached and at the bottom of this email. It is a much more vivid account of what happened; please take a look if you can. We really encourage that you read the attached testimony to gain a better understanding of the whole situation.
On November 8th, CSA and FASA held a collaborative club night to celebrate their respective events, Celebrasia and Philippine Culture Night, resulting in the party "Illuminous". Turnout was a success; many members and friends of the organizations attended. However, poor business practices and discrimination surfaced at the end of the night, causing an altercation between the owners of Studio 4 and the two organizations.
CSA and FASA had been contracted to promote the party that night; the terms that were signed off on were that the two organizations would receive "50% of all cover charge revenue for the night." However, the owner had also cross-promoted with another entity, "Social Studies", and though the owner reassured that the cross-promotions would not alter the terms of the existing contract, he subsequently failed to adhere to his word and the contract. As the organizations came to collect their dues at the end of the night, he claimed that due to advertisement on behalf of multiple parties, CSA and FASA would only be entitled to payment for those they brought in. In the owners' opinions, CSA and FASA only brought in "50 Asians" as evidenced by tally marks on a clipboard from the club entrance. Their "official" count of total persons paying cover fees amounted to 111 people. The situation escalated to the point where the disagreement became physical, personal, and extremely unprofessional in the form of pushing, name-calling, and spitting.
It should be said that at the very least, there was a breach of contract and ethnic and gender discrimination in effect. It is unjust to assume that organizations centered on ethnicities can only have friends of the same ethnicity, and it is even more reprehensible to count people according to ethnicity at the door of any establishment. These are just a few of our concerns, and we are currently taking steps to address this issue on several levels.
As fellow A/PIA organizations and leaders on this campus, we feel it is pertinent to disclose this issue with you so that you may make informed decisions as an individual and/or as part of an organization. Neither FASA nor CSA will attend Studio 4, nor will we engage in future business dealings with them. This is not only about injustice, but about being taken advantage of and disrespected as individuals, business partners, and members of the A/PIA community.
Please pass the word along. Knowledge is the first step to awareness, and the consequences of failing to act against an injustice like this is a violation of everyone's rights, regardless of race or identity. If you have had similar experiences with Studio 4 management in the past, please get in touch with either UAAO, CSA board, FASA board, Steve or me. We would like to hear your stories and take a stand against injustice that unfortunately still exists today.
~Ashley
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Saturday, November 22, 2008
The Studio4 Story From CSA President
On the afternoon leading up to the club event, I heard that there was another event being hosted at Studio 4 on the same night that we had scheduled our event. I decided to call Reese in order to figure out what exactly was going on. He told me that he was starting a marketing group called “Social Studies” and that he knew that we had booked the club that night already. He then assured me that Social Studies would not affect the terms of our contract in any way and that it may even boost the turn out and we could potentially earn more money. He even asked me to help promote the Social Studies marketing group and let people know at CelebrAsia that people over the age of 21 would have their first drink on the house. That was basically my conversation with Reese and I, in turn, passed the message along to both CSA and FASA boards and told them that we did not have to worry about the event being promoted by Social Studies as well.
After the end of the event, we approached Jeff (Studio 4 owner) to collect our share of the night’s cover. According to the terms of the contract, Studio 4 would split the night’s cover with CSA and FASA; 50% going to the club and the other 50% to be split between CSA and FASA.
During our conversation, he continued to refuse to honor our contract and said he would only pay us for the fifty Asians that he thought were there that night (he had tallied the Asians on his clipboard as they came in). His reason was that we felt that Social Studies did all the work to promote the event. We reasoned with him some time about the fact that it doesn’t matter how many Asians came in and that even some of the board members brought in friends that were not Asian. We also reminded him of the terms of the contract and that it did not state that we would receive 50% of the gains from the cover of the Asians, but just 50% of the gains from the paid attendees. The conversation escalated into an argument because Jeff continually refused honor the contract and even began to call the FASA board members names. He then kicked all of us out of the club.
Outside of the club, Reese approached me and began to argue with me. Continually referring to the FASA board members as “skank ass bitches” and even spat at one of them at one point. He then threatened to shut down our organizations and even report us to the university to get us removed from school because of his pull on campus. During this, he began to back me against a wall and seemed as if he was about to hit me. My friend tried to pull me away and told me to “just leave because he was being jerk”. Reese then started walking towards my friend and threatening him for calling him a jerk. I wanted to prevent any trouble so I pulled Reese back and he then threatened to hit me because I touched him. I was trying to reason with him and tell him that I was worried that he’d hit my friend and I even told him that I prevented him from getting in trouble for getting into a fight at his own club. Reese backed me up against the wall again and at one point his security and my friends pulled each of us away and that is when I left the area.
After leaving, Reese called me around 3am and again threatened to shut down our organization because he felt that we disrespected his father because of our argument, but I told him that we did not mean to disrespect him and that we were trying to reason with him but he kept on calling us names and it escalated from there. He continued to threaten me and even said that he would find me and wanted to meet up with me to “settle this tonight”. He then said that if we were thinking about suing him that we would fail because of his pull on campus. At that point, I knew that the conversation would not go anywhere so I told him that I would call him when things calmed down. He called me about three more times that night, but I didn’t pick up the phone.
Sunday morning, I received a call from Jeff and we spoke more calmly about the incident and initially still only wanted to pay us for the “50 Asians” that were there that night. I kept telling him that he had to honor his contract and he eventually agreed to pay us our fair share. At this point though, we had already been threatened and offended beyond wanting to accept the money. Therefore, I told him that I would discuss his offer with the two orgs and get back to him.
~Steve
After the end of the event, we approached Jeff (Studio 4 owner) to collect our share of the night’s cover. According to the terms of the contract, Studio 4 would split the night’s cover with CSA and FASA; 50% going to the club and the other 50% to be split between CSA and FASA.
During our conversation, he continued to refuse to honor our contract and said he would only pay us for the fifty Asians that he thought were there that night (he had tallied the Asians on his clipboard as they came in). His reason was that we felt that Social Studies did all the work to promote the event. We reasoned with him some time about the fact that it doesn’t matter how many Asians came in and that even some of the board members brought in friends that were not Asian. We also reminded him of the terms of the contract and that it did not state that we would receive 50% of the gains from the cover of the Asians, but just 50% of the gains from the paid attendees. The conversation escalated into an argument because Jeff continually refused honor the contract and even began to call the FASA board members names. He then kicked all of us out of the club.
Outside of the club, Reese approached me and began to argue with me. Continually referring to the FASA board members as “skank ass bitches” and even spat at one of them at one point. He then threatened to shut down our organizations and even report us to the university to get us removed from school because of his pull on campus. During this, he began to back me against a wall and seemed as if he was about to hit me. My friend tried to pull me away and told me to “just leave because he was being jerk”. Reese then started walking towards my friend and threatening him for calling him a jerk. I wanted to prevent any trouble so I pulled Reese back and he then threatened to hit me because I touched him. I was trying to reason with him and tell him that I was worried that he’d hit my friend and I even told him that I prevented him from getting in trouble for getting into a fight at his own club. Reese backed me up against the wall again and at one point his security and my friends pulled each of us away and that is when I left the area.
After leaving, Reese called me around 3am and again threatened to shut down our organization because he felt that we disrespected his father because of our argument, but I told him that we did not mean to disrespect him and that we were trying to reason with him but he kept on calling us names and it escalated from there. He continued to threaten me and even said that he would find me and wanted to meet up with me to “settle this tonight”. He then said that if we were thinking about suing him that we would fail because of his pull on campus. At that point, I knew that the conversation would not go anywhere so I told him that I would call him when things calmed down. He called me about three more times that night, but I didn’t pick up the phone.
Sunday morning, I received a call from Jeff and we spoke more calmly about the incident and initially still only wanted to pay us for the “50 Asians” that were there that night. I kept telling him that he had to honor his contract and he eventually agreed to pay us our fair share. At this point though, we had already been threatened and offended beyond wanting to accept the money. Therefore, I told him that I would discuss his offer with the two orgs and get back to him.
~Steve
Housing Administration's decision on the YK Lounge
I wanted to let you know of a recent meeting I had with some members of the executive board of UAAO. In our conversation we realized the unique connection the group has to the YK Lounge in South Quad. Specifically, this group was instrumental in the creation of this space as a multicultural lounge and the safe space it creates for Asian American students on campus. As a result, we agreed that UAAO may hold its regular and mentorship meetings in the space. That means they may go beyond the current guidelines (4 per semester) detailed in the current lounge reservation policy. While they are being given a preference to use the space, UAAO also realizes that YK is there for the residents of South Quad and will work collaboratively and cooperatively should any scheduling requests arise in the future that are in the best interests of residence hall students.
Please make an ongoing reservation for Wednesdays 5:30pm-7:30pm and Thursdays 6:30-8:30pm in the YK lounge for the remainder of the academic year. If there are existing reservations that conflict with these times, please let the e-board know as soon as possible so that UAAO may make alternate arrangements.
~Trelawny Boynton
Associate Director of Residence Education
Please make an ongoing reservation for Wednesdays 5:30pm-7:30pm and Thursdays 6:30-8:30pm in the YK lounge for the remainder of the academic year. If there are existing reservations that conflict with these times, please let the e-board know as soon as possible so that UAAO may make alternate arrangements.
~Trelawny Boynton
Associate Director of Residence Education
Sunday, November 9, 2008
The election and coalitions
I'll be taking over for Claire this time.
As you all know, this past Tuesday was the general election. And as you all know, Barack Obama was elected.
Now there's been lots of talk about what this means, for us to have elected the first African American president. It's a big question, and I'm going to leave that discussion for more participatory channels. But it does open up a window for discussion of issues of race in the United States - specifically, how issues of race can bubble to the surface during such a contentious time as the election.
This year, as in several previous elections, UAAO worked with the Asian Pacific Law Students Association (APALSA) and the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF) on an election protection project. To give you a little background, AALDEF did this in 11 states this election, focusing on jurisdictions in which there's a substantial number of Asian Americans, especially those in which there's a high rate of limited english proficiency (LEP). In Michigan, these communities are Ann Arbor, Canton, Detroit, Novi, and Troy. In addition, AALDEF worked with the Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services (ACCESS) to bring this project to Dearborn and Hamtramck, communities with significant Arab American populations.
The election protection project consists primarily of exit polling - surveying Asian and Arab American voters as the leave the polls. This is necessary because we tend to be underrepresented in polls, and often excluded entirely when poll results are divided by racial groups - they tend to focus chiefly on white and black, sometimes including Latinos.
The protection part becomes necessary due to a combination of LEP and discrimination. Because many Asian American voters are less proficient at reading English, ballots can often prove difficult to use. Under the Voting Rights Act, voters are allowed to bring someone in to help them with the ballot; however, poll workers, sometimes unaware of this, try to prevent this. There's also the issue of racism and discrimination - for example, an elderly Chinese American voter may be rushed by the poll workers more than a white voter, or poll workers may make racist comments and intimidate Asian American voters. This is where AALDEF comes in.
So what we did was look out for these things, using our eyes and ears as well as our interactions with voters. If a voter reported a problem or if we noticed it, we got as much detail as possible and called it in to AALDEF - ultimately, they work to fix as many problems, case by case, as possible, as well as to fix systemic problems using our observations. And something we noticed was that simply by being visible observers, we helped influence poll workers' behavior for the better. To be sure, it would be ideal to end discrimination at the polls without having to be present physically, but in the United States, if you lose your vote, there's no getting it back. And this goes back to the central issue of how race becomes a factor in elections. Disenfranchisement occurs among Asian American communities due to relativekt higher incidents of problems with language access and racism.
I've been talking mostly about Asian Americans here, but there's lots to say about how this relates to Arab Americans. This is tied to my own experience with election protection this year - I worked at a pollsite in Dearborn, MI, the city with the highest proportion of Arab Americans in its population compared to any other city in the United States. How does this relate to Asian Americans?
Arab Americans' place in relation to Asian Americans has shifted; at times, they've been included under the label "Asian American", but conventionally, they're considered separate. And this isn't necessarily a bad thing or unjust - Arab Americans have different voting trends, face different issues, and have their own diversity and heterogeneity within the sweeping label "Arab American", as one of the voters I surveyed wryly pointed out to me. Despite these differences, however, there's at least one simple reason that led the Arab American community in Michigan to be a part of this effort - and this reason can be identified simply by looking at the organizations involved. Whatever the differences between Arab Americans and Asian Americans, AALDEF and ACCESS did partner up, because it was recognized by both organizations that their respective communities faced common problems on election day. This is, to put it simply, coalition-building.
Coalitions are a big thing with in A/PIA history as well as UAAO. The pan-ethnic Asian American identity has, at its heart, coalition politics - taking on this identity is at least in part a deliberate choice, a political act. And this election reminded me of that. It reminded me that although Asian Americans and Arab Americans may have vast differences - just as the different ethnicities under the Asian American label may have with each other - they banded together in an effort to combat injustice. It reminded me that coalitions are not a phenomenon of the 60s and 70s, but rather a way to empower ourselves and those around us - a tool for use in the struggles our communities faced decades ago and continue to face today, however those struggles may appear to us at this moment. And it doesn't have to be a fundamental identity shift, but can be as simple as working together.
- arthur
As you all know, this past Tuesday was the general election. And as you all know, Barack Obama was elected.
Now there's been lots of talk about what this means, for us to have elected the first African American president. It's a big question, and I'm going to leave that discussion for more participatory channels. But it does open up a window for discussion of issues of race in the United States - specifically, how issues of race can bubble to the surface during such a contentious time as the election.
This year, as in several previous elections, UAAO worked with the Asian Pacific Law Students Association (APALSA) and the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF) on an election protection project. To give you a little background, AALDEF did this in 11 states this election, focusing on jurisdictions in which there's a substantial number of Asian Americans, especially those in which there's a high rate of limited english proficiency (LEP). In Michigan, these communities are Ann Arbor, Canton, Detroit, Novi, and Troy. In addition, AALDEF worked with the Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services (ACCESS) to bring this project to Dearborn and Hamtramck, communities with significant Arab American populations.
The election protection project consists primarily of exit polling - surveying Asian and Arab American voters as the leave the polls. This is necessary because we tend to be underrepresented in polls, and often excluded entirely when poll results are divided by racial groups - they tend to focus chiefly on white and black, sometimes including Latinos.
The protection part becomes necessary due to a combination of LEP and discrimination. Because many Asian American voters are less proficient at reading English, ballots can often prove difficult to use. Under the Voting Rights Act, voters are allowed to bring someone in to help them with the ballot; however, poll workers, sometimes unaware of this, try to prevent this. There's also the issue of racism and discrimination - for example, an elderly Chinese American voter may be rushed by the poll workers more than a white voter, or poll workers may make racist comments and intimidate Asian American voters. This is where AALDEF comes in.
So what we did was look out for these things, using our eyes and ears as well as our interactions with voters. If a voter reported a problem or if we noticed it, we got as much detail as possible and called it in to AALDEF - ultimately, they work to fix as many problems, case by case, as possible, as well as to fix systemic problems using our observations. And something we noticed was that simply by being visible observers, we helped influence poll workers' behavior for the better. To be sure, it would be ideal to end discrimination at the polls without having to be present physically, but in the United States, if you lose your vote, there's no getting it back. And this goes back to the central issue of how race becomes a factor in elections. Disenfranchisement occurs among Asian American communities due to relativekt higher incidents of problems with language access and racism.
I've been talking mostly about Asian Americans here, but there's lots to say about how this relates to Arab Americans. This is tied to my own experience with election protection this year - I worked at a pollsite in Dearborn, MI, the city with the highest proportion of Arab Americans in its population compared to any other city in the United States. How does this relate to Asian Americans?
Arab Americans' place in relation to Asian Americans has shifted; at times, they've been included under the label "Asian American", but conventionally, they're considered separate. And this isn't necessarily a bad thing or unjust - Arab Americans have different voting trends, face different issues, and have their own diversity and heterogeneity within the sweeping label "Arab American", as one of the voters I surveyed wryly pointed out to me. Despite these differences, however, there's at least one simple reason that led the Arab American community in Michigan to be a part of this effort - and this reason can be identified simply by looking at the organizations involved. Whatever the differences between Arab Americans and Asian Americans, AALDEF and ACCESS did partner up, because it was recognized by both organizations that their respective communities faced common problems on election day. This is, to put it simply, coalition-building.
Coalitions are a big thing with in A/PIA history as well as UAAO. The pan-ethnic Asian American identity has, at its heart, coalition politics - taking on this identity is at least in part a deliberate choice, a political act. And this election reminded me of that. It reminded me that although Asian Americans and Arab Americans may have vast differences - just as the different ethnicities under the Asian American label may have with each other - they banded together in an effort to combat injustice. It reminded me that coalitions are not a phenomenon of the 60s and 70s, but rather a way to empower ourselves and those around us - a tool for use in the struggles our communities faced decades ago and continue to face today, however those struggles may appear to us at this moment. And it doesn't have to be a fundamental identity shift, but can be as simple as working together.
- arthur
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Viewpoint in the Michigan Daily
Here is UAAO's stance on Housing Administration's enforcement of their space use policy. This viewpoint will soon be published in the Michigan Daily, so read it here before it comes out.
One day after Michigan voters approved Prop 2 in 2006, Mary Sue Coleman addressed the University community, proclaiming, “diversity matters at Michigan.”
“If November 7th was the day that Proposal 2 passed, then November 8th is the day we pledge to remain unified in our fight for diversity. Together, we must continue to make this world-class university one that reflects the richness of the world.”
Yet in spite of such proclamations, the University of Michigan has proven to be an unwelcoming place for students of color. Space, specifically a central location in which members of minority populations can gather, is necessary for not only the empowerment of individuals, but also empowerment of such communities as a whole. The preservation of a safe space in which students of color are encouraged to meet and foster their individual identities and values is crucial to creating a campus climate where diversity is a lived state of being and not simply an abstract concept or cliché dictum.
The University housing administration has recently decided to enforce its policy of limiting the number of times per academic term and year for which an individual or organization can conduct an activity. While this policy applies to all residence hall lounges, it has the greatest impact on minority-cultural and multicultural lounges and the student organizations that have historic ties to those rooms.
United Asian American Organizations (UAAO) has had unrestricted use of the Yuri Kochiyama Lounge in South Quad for nearly a decade. Named after Japanese American civil rights activist Yuri Kochiyama, the space is the only space on campus dedicated to the Asian/Pacific Islander American (A/PIA) community and A/PIA activism.
While it is within university policy to regulate use of residence hall space, it is also stated university policy to "create and sustain diverse learning-centered residence communities.” (See “Living at Michigan Credo”) It is crucial that UAAO and other organizations like UAAO have unrestricted access (i.e. being able to hold standing meetings) to show that our mission is to unite and empower the A/PIA community. Furthermore, we want to embody and carry on the historical current left by Yuri Kochiyama's legacy of engaging in activism and promoting diversity.
In a post-Prop 2 world, the relationships between minority students, faculty, staff and overall campus community have been tenuous ones. To deny A/PIA students unrestricted space use perpetuates the university's refusal to acknowledge the needs of students of color and directly contradicts President Coleman’s claim that "diversity matters." While there do exist other facilities dedicated to Asian/Pacific Islander Americans, none are as centrally located as the Yuri Kochiyama Lounge. The importance of a centrally located space cannot be understated, as it shows a true commitment to putting diversity at the fore.
Limiting access to the YK lounge would not only be detrimental to the success of UAAO as a student organization, but would also be detrimental to the diversity and the value we place on diversity at the U of M. Just as the Yuri Kochiyama Lounge is not the only one where this policy is being enforced, UAAO and the A/PIA community are not the only ones being affected. As members of the A/PIA community, and hence a part of the minority community at large on campus, we also stand in solidarity with other groups whose space use is also being restricted. Just as Yuri Kochiyama organized across community lines, we will not consider this issue closed until all groups with long standing history with certain lounges have their unrestricted access restored
One day after Michigan voters approved Prop 2 in 2006, Mary Sue Coleman addressed the University community, proclaiming, “diversity matters at Michigan.”
“If November 7th was the day that Proposal 2 passed, then November 8th is the day we pledge to remain unified in our fight for diversity. Together, we must continue to make this world-class university one that reflects the richness of the world.”
Yet in spite of such proclamations, the University of Michigan has proven to be an unwelcoming place for students of color. Space, specifically a central location in which members of minority populations can gather, is necessary for not only the empowerment of individuals, but also empowerment of such communities as a whole. The preservation of a safe space in which students of color are encouraged to meet and foster their individual identities and values is crucial to creating a campus climate where diversity is a lived state of being and not simply an abstract concept or cliché dictum.
The University housing administration has recently decided to enforce its policy of limiting the number of times per academic term and year for which an individual or organization can conduct an activity. While this policy applies to all residence hall lounges, it has the greatest impact on minority-cultural and multicultural lounges and the student organizations that have historic ties to those rooms.
United Asian American Organizations (UAAO) has had unrestricted use of the Yuri Kochiyama Lounge in South Quad for nearly a decade. Named after Japanese American civil rights activist Yuri Kochiyama, the space is the only space on campus dedicated to the Asian/Pacific Islander American (A/PIA) community and A/PIA activism.
While it is within university policy to regulate use of residence hall space, it is also stated university policy to "create and sustain diverse learning-centered residence communities.” (See “Living at Michigan Credo”) It is crucial that UAAO and other organizations like UAAO have unrestricted access (i.e. being able to hold standing meetings) to show that our mission is to unite and empower the A/PIA community. Furthermore, we want to embody and carry on the historical current left by Yuri Kochiyama's legacy of engaging in activism and promoting diversity.
In a post-Prop 2 world, the relationships between minority students, faculty, staff and overall campus community have been tenuous ones. To deny A/PIA students unrestricted space use perpetuates the university's refusal to acknowledge the needs of students of color and directly contradicts President Coleman’s claim that "diversity matters." While there do exist other facilities dedicated to Asian/Pacific Islander Americans, none are as centrally located as the Yuri Kochiyama Lounge. The importance of a centrally located space cannot be understated, as it shows a true commitment to putting diversity at the fore.
Limiting access to the YK lounge would not only be detrimental to the success of UAAO as a student organization, but would also be detrimental to the diversity and the value we place on diversity at the U of M. Just as the Yuri Kochiyama Lounge is not the only one where this policy is being enforced, UAAO and the A/PIA community are not the only ones being affected. As members of the A/PIA community, and hence a part of the minority community at large on campus, we also stand in solidarity with other groups whose space use is also being restricted. Just as Yuri Kochiyama organized across community lines, we will not consider this issue closed until all groups with long standing history with certain lounges have their unrestricted access restored
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)