“As you may or may not be aware, the University has filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board that are directly related to these issues, including the question of whether it is a violation of Federal labor law for union representatives to involve students as a means of influencing the outcome of labor contract negotiations.  Because these legal questions have not yet been resolved, any discussion between you, as students, and us, as university officials, could jeopardize the contract negotiations that are now taking place.  For this reason, we must decline your invitation to meet.”

The following is reposted from Picketline: Social Justice and Democracy in Miami, a faculty blog about labor struggles at the University of Miami.

The janitors are asking UNICCO to agree to recognize a union if a majority of the workers sign cards saying that that’s what they want. This is a perfectly legal method of union recognition and is called a majority sign-up card check recognition process (or some abbreviation thereof). But it only works if the employer, UNICCO in this case, agrees. UNICCO has not agreed and it favors another method of union recognition, a secret ballot election run by the federal National Labor Relations Board. UNICCO signifies its preference for this method by its slogan: “Let ‘em vote.”

Isn’t an election preferrable to any other method? No. Democracy is based on free choice. Secret ballot elections are good only insofar as they promote freedom of choice (which they obviously do in many circumstances). In this case, however, they do not. Here are some reasons why NLRB elections are not preferrable to card check.

1) A recent academic study shows that workers are subject to a lot more intimidation by employers (and slightly more by pro-union forces) in NLRB elections than in card check. And there are many ways in which the mechanics of an NLRB election fall short of democratic standards. In particular, in an NRLB election, only the employer has access to exactly who and how many will vote; only the employer can hire or fire the voters, and raise or lower their pay; only the employer has unrestricted access to the voters, including the possibility of one-on-one anti-union meetings. By contrast, card check is usually accompanied by a declaration of neutrality by both the union and the employer.

2) Card check is more representative. In an NLRB election, the decision is made only by a majority those who vote. In card check, if a worker does not fill out a card, that is taken as a no vote. Hence card check requires a majority of all the workers to succeed.

3) Card check is actually the norm. The New York Times reports that last year, 70% of all private sector workers unionized were unionized by card check or related methods. UNICCO itself uses card check frequently. The SEIU estimates that of UNICCO’s 8,000 unionized employees, about 90% were unionized by card check or related process, only 10% by NLRB election. UNICCO puts the figure at 50%, but even on their figure, it can hardly be claimed that card check is unusual.

4) It is common for NLRB elections to be accompanied by huge delays. In many cases, after successful unionization votes in NLRB elections, it has taken up to five, six or even seven years before negotiations for a contract with the union began.

5) There is in congress a bill moving forward called the Employee Free Choice Act (S. 842 and H.R. 1696). If this bill becomes law, employers like UNICCO would be required to accept a successful card check process. The bill is currently co-sponsored by 40 senators and 200 representatives, from both parties.

6) The NLRB will not even hold an election until the existing unfair labor practice charges against UNICCO are resolved. There is no knowing when this will be.

7) 57% of the UNICCO employees at UM have said they want to be allowed to decide whether to unionize by the card check method.

Posted by faculty for workplace justice on April 7, 2006

Additional information about card check versus NLRB elections:

Not “let ‘em vote” but “let ‘em choose”: an article by Simon Evnine that ran in the Miami Hurricane on April 14, 2006.

Neither Free Nor Fair: The Subversion of Democracy Under NLRB Elections: a report that contrasts what NLRB elections look like in the real world with what happens in elections for public office.

University of Miami Faculty Blog: 2006 custodial workers’ strike

This semester has started out on a different path. A few students were contacted by a union organizer to talk about union organizing at Chatham. There is a three part issue, one part being the skilled trade workers desire to switch unions. The trade workers are currently represented by a union that doesn’t specialize in skilled labor. There are nine skilled trades workers employed by Chatham. Every single one of them would like to go to a union that specializes in representing skilled laborers. They have been trying to make the switch for five years.

There are two ways that the switch could be carried out. The easiest way would be for Chatham University to recognize the wishes of the workers and allow the workers to switch. The second way to make the switch would be for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to come in and hold an election among the nine workers. This process could take up to a year, during which, the workers would not be covered under any union and could lose their jobs.  The university is using democratic rhetoric about how the election is the only democratic way to solve this dispute.

Today, the workers and union organizers organized an action that several students attended to show solidarity with the workers and to witness the way in which administrators are interacting with the workers. In advance, the workers all signed cards that said they wanted to switch unions.  After their shift ended they all marched into a meeting, followed by the students. There were three Chatham administrators there: Frank Greco, Robert DuBray and Dawn. As soon as Greco saw the students enter the room he packed up all of his belongings. The worker spokesperson explained that all of the trade workers were present (except for one guy who had a death in the family) and wanted to switch unions. He put the cards on the table in front of Greco.
There were some heated exchanges where Greco said it was “wrong” to involve students. He said that the only democratic way to resolve the issue was to bring in the government for a vote. The union organizers asked Greco why he was refusing to budge, when other colleges and universities in the area had allowed their workers to switch unions when it was clear that the workers wanted to do so. Greco responded by saying, “We’re not every other university in Pittsburgh.” He proceeded to pick up his stuff and walk out of the room, telling DuBray and Dawn to follow. DuBray and Dawn looked extremely distraught, they were slow to collect their belongings and exit the room. Perhaps they secretly sympathize with the workers, or they were just caught completely off guard and were slow to act.

I’m 100% confidant that the workers are not being coerced for reasons that probably shouldn’t be made public at this point.

I’m constantly torn between advertising Chatham as a progressive institution where radical students will feel comfortable (I want more activists to come to school here), and exposing the insane stuff that Chatham does to oppress its students, faculty and staff. In a way, witnessing events like what happened today, radicalizes the student population. Administrators are feeding the very activism they wish to squash.

On November 29^th, I wrote the members of the campus community concerning some controversies that had recently embroiled the campus. In my letter, I urged that there be a cooling off period to allow a committee of faculty and staff to conduct an investigation of the controversies and issue findings and recommendations. I would like to express my gratitude to all the students and others who honored that request, in spirit and in letter, omitting meetings they had planned, and waiting for the findings of the Committee.

The Committee has issued its findings and recommendations in a report, which it shared with me this morning. Students, faculty and staff may read the report, “Final Report of the Faculty Committee to President Barazzone on the Recent Controversies,” on myChatham.edu under Documents, President’s Office.

I would like to thank the members of the Committee for the care, thoroughness, and fairness with which they conducted their investigation. Committee Chair Chris Michelmore, Karen Dajani, Emma Johnson, Prajna Parasher, David Phillips, Jean-Jacques Sene, and Lisa Weaver interviewed students, faculty members and staff, considered evidence that parties submitted, and sought out their own evidence as part of their careful and thoughtful investigation.

I also would like to thank the students, faculty and staff members who met with the Committee or provided information as part of the Committee’s investigation.

The Committee’s Report includes a brief narrative of the incidents leading to the appointment of the Committee, four key findings, and four recommendations. In sum, the Committee has recommended that: (1) a Commission on Multicultural Affairs be established; (2) a Community Ombudsman be appointed, (3) mediation be made available to students involved in these controversies, and (4) changes be made to the Communiqué’s operations to help better integrate the newspaper into the campus community.

Here is how I propose to address each of the four recommendations:

• Commission on Multicultural Affairs: The recent displays of incivility and intolerance on campus have been extremely disturbing, particularly in light of Chatham’s history as an institution that was founded for the inclusion of people who were excluded at the time. Because of our history, we have always been particularly sensitive to the need to create an environment in which differences of many kinds – including race, religion, sexual preference, national origin and culture – are embraced. Indeed, the new Strategic Plan that is being developed and that will guide the institution through its next decade, makes global and intercultural education, including diversity, one of the institution’s mission initiatives.

While I appreciate the Committee’s recommendation to establish a short-term Commission on Multicultural Affairs, I believe we need to address in a long-term way the goal of the Strategic Plan that ongoing intercultural and diversity education be a continuing definer of this institution. Therefore, I am going to empanel a university-wide Advisory Committee on Multiculturalism and Diversity to begin the task of understanding what we need to do to achieve an environment where differences are tolerated, learned about, and civility rules. The Committee will be chaired by Dr. Anne Skleder, Dean of Chatham College for Women, and will include four students (two each from the undergraduate and graduate student bodies), four or more faculty members (also drawn from the undergraduate and graduate ranks), and staff. Further details on the Committee’s charge and composition, including information on how students may apply to be on it, will be forthcoming in January.

• Community Ombudsman: Dr. David Phillips, Vice President for Student Affairs and Dean of Students, has agreed to serve as Community Ombudsman and will assume that role immediately. While this is in response to the request for a single person who can direct and initiate the handling of any concerns about intolerance or discrimination directed toward any student or other member of the community, you are reminded that procedures and contact persons do exist currently for the handling of complaints which you may also want to use and to which Dr. Phillips may well direct you. Thus, matters that occur in the academic arena could also be addressed to any of the College deans, or Dr. Laura Armesto, Vice President for Academic Affairs.

• Mediation Opportunity: The University’s mediation resources and personnel, including the Center for Conflict Resolution, will be made available to students who have been involved in the recent controversies. I encourage students to contact Dr. Jean Jacques Sene of the Center for Conflict Resolution to learn what resources and services are available. I join the Committee in encouraging those involved to try to understand the wounds of these encounters—on both sides—and praise you in advance for your courage if you choose to participate. We must seek actively to move beyond the difficulties of the recent past.

• Communiqué: The Committee’s comments on the need for a publishing function to help implement the mission of the paper, meaning its “purpose, ethics, accountability, as well as links to the community,” suggest to me the need for a publishing advisory board, one that represents a cross section of the community, rather than a single additional faculty advisor. Therefore, I intend to appoint a Publishing Advisory Board for the Communiqué, whose members will include one representative each from the faculty, the undergraduate student body, and the graduate student body, as well as the Vice President for Student Affairs and Dr. Tracy Johnson, Associate Academic Dean. The editor of the Communiqué and the faculty advisor, Professor Tony Norman, will serve as ex officio members of the Advisory Board. Lisa Weaver has agreed to chair the Advisory Committee, which will meet on a monthly basis and seek to address the mission of the paper, as addressed above, but not to interfere with the “independence necessary for a functional press”.

The past month has been a trying time for many members of the campus community. As students, staff and faculty begin dispersing for the holidays, I encourage each of you to heed the closing words from the Committee’s Report:

The strength of a community is its ability to value its members, acknowledge its shortcomings, and strive for improvements that will benefit individuals and the community as a whole.

When we return to campus in January, let each of us resolve to make realizing those goals our own commitment for the New Year.

In closing, I thank the Committee, and each of you who have been involved in bringing this recent history to a constructive conclusion which includes steps that I hope we can all agree will make us an even better University in the future.

Esther B.

Introduction

This has not been an easy time for the students involved in the controversies that prompted the creation of this committee. At the outset, the committee wants to commend both student activists and the Communiqué staff for their hard work, and their willingness to guide us through a thicket of difficult issues. While recognizing that mistakes have been made along the way, we greatly admire the engagement, determination, and professionalism that students have displayed.

Narrative

At the beginning of the fall semester 2007, some number of Chatham students attended what is known as a “bro party” at a CMU fraternity. Bro parties are one iteration of racially-themed parties. Short for “Ghettos, Bros and Hos,” they are gatherings in which people emulate Black culture at the same time that they deride it. The chair of the
Chatham Student Government Diversity Committee found this behavior to be offensive.
On November 1 she held a student forum to discuss such parties and explain why they were offensive.

On November 13, this student received a nasty, racially constructed letter sent anonymously through the campus mail. On November 16, the President’s office organized a meeting in the chapel to condemn both bro parties and anonymous letters. These two issues—bro parties and anonymous letters—formed the basis of a rapidly escalating confrontation between a self-generated student coalition and some members of the Communiqué staff over how to cover these issues. This confrontation was an inflammatory mix of personal animosities, disagreements about the meaning of bro party attendance and on-going tensions over access to the Communiqué. Both the substantive disputes and the personal anger were expressed at the Student Affairs round-table on November 28. That confrontation led to a meeting on the morning of November 29, organized by the coalition.

At that Thursday morning meeting, it became clear to faculty members present—both those who had not been involved and those who had long been involved—that the sense of personal assault had escalated to the point where the discourse among students was no longer productive. That led to the President’s request for a “cooling off” period and the creation of this committee.

The Committee has read all the materials sent to it by interested parties. We have interviewed students, staff, and faculty. We have tried to peel away the layers of accumulating issues and to separate substantive concerns, institutional concerns and personal concerns. On the basis of this admittedly imperfect and cramped process, we have arrived at the following conclusions.

Findings

I. Racially themed parties are racist. They may seem like harmless entertainment; they are not. In performing racial stereotypes, the participants adopt hairstyles, behaviors, dress and speech patterns that mock African Americans. This kind of entertainment, which rests on stereotypical performance of blackness, harkens back to nineteenth and twentieth century minstrel shows, in which white men lampooned African American culture. The minstrel tradition parodied black dress, dance, speech and song, likewise relying on degrading stereotypes. Let’s be clear: whether openly expressed through intimidating and harassing actions, overt denial of civil rights, or cloaked in the guise of entertainment, disgracing, demeaning and disrespecting an entire category of people is racist.

This does not mean that Chatham students who attended the “bro party” at CMU are racist. But it does mean that Chatham disapproves of that behavior. While Chatham University cannot stop attendance at such events on other campuses, those whose attendance becomes public knowledge should expect both community disapproval and the possibility that they will be perceived as racists.

As an educational institution, we embrace the on-going need to discuss the meaning of symbols and behaviors whose power and context are often not studied or fully understood.

II. Anonymous letters are cowardly and unproductive. As President Barazzone indicated at the chapel forum, they create an atmosphere of intimidation that is totally unacceptable. As individuals and as an institution, we condemn them.

III. Newspapers have both editors and publishers. In the case of the Communiqué, the editor and her staff run day-to-day operations with the help of their advisor. They determine format, recurring features and coverage. They determine what stories to cover, how to cover them, how much space to give them and where to place them. In the case of the Communiqué, the University is the publisher. As such, it sets the mission of a newspaper. That mission touches on purpose, ethics, accountability, as well as links to the community. Once the University, in concert with others in the community, sets the mission, it then steps back so as to allow the Communiqué to operate with the independence necessary for a functional press.

The institution was remiss in not more energetically exercising its publishing role. We left a new, understaffed paper and its off-campus, part-time advisor to struggle alone. There were missteps, but published editions of the Communiqué clearly indicate that its editor and staff, while exercising their right to shape the paper, have worked hard to provide fair and balanced coverage.

IV. The committee is disturbed by the breakdown in civility that has taken place on campus amidst the recent swirl of rumor mongering, innuendo, personal attacks, anonymous accusations, and threatening language expressed in public statements, private email communications, and on Facebook pages. The committee wishes to remind the community of the Chatham University Honor Code:

The standards of honor at Chatham require that all Chatham students residing on Chatham’s campus act with intellectual independence, personal integrity, all relationships, and consideration for the rights and well being of others. As citizens of the campus community focused on education, students must accept certain obligations that accrue by virtue of such citizenship. Individual rights are ensured to the degree that these rights require a respect for the rights of all within the community to the same extent.

The university is committed to creating an educational community that is inclusive and safe. We treasure the freedoms of thought and expression that protect difference of opinion and robust debate. We have standards of community behavior that prohibit racism, sexism, discriminatory harassment, or violence. These commitments may sometimes scrape against each other. When they do, every member of the community must both respect the right to express honest differences of opinion through civil discourse and reasoned debate and report unacceptable behavior to the proper institutional authority, be it the Conduct Board, the Vice President for Student Affairs, the Director of Human Resources, or the Office of Public Safety.

Insisting on one’s own rights while acknowledging those of others is a difficult balance to find and an uncomfortable one to maintain. But find it and maintain it we must.

Recommendations

I. Commission on Multicultural Affairs

The Committee recommends to the President that she establish a Commission on Multicultural Affairs composed of students, faculty and staff. It should be constituted at the beginning of the spring 2008 semester and report to the community by Spring Break. The task of the Commission will be to articulate an institutional and educational climate in which all feel safe and valued. This may involve changing, improving, enhancing or clarifying both institutional structures and processes and educational content and practices.

II. Community Ombudsman

While we affirm that students can and should refer Honor Code concerns to Conduct Board, we also recognize that this is difficult and should not necessarily be the first and certainly not the only institutional recourse for community members to resolve conflicts. In the short term, we recommend that David Phillips, Vice President for Student Affairs, be designated as the Community Ombudsman. The Community Ombudsman will be the temporary receiver and recorder of community concerns, and will refer these concerns to the proper institutional authorities as deemed appropriate.

III. Mediation Opportunity

Students directly involved in the events of the last month have endured pain, isolation, a sense of helpless frustration and anger. This is partly the result of strong people engaged in fierce disagreement; it is partly the result of misunderstanding; it is partly the result of the corrosive power of incivility.

The Committee recommends that the President make mediation resources available for those who would like to try to understand the wounds of their encounters. This is not an easy task and we recognize the courage of those willing to participate. We recommend that the President mobilize the resources of both Student Affairs and the Center for the Study of Conflict.

IV. Recommendations to the Communiqué

The Committee recommends that the Communiqué staff, should, in addition to the instructor of the news writing classes, have an on-campus advisor to act as mentor and advocate. The Communiqué should work to better integrate the paper into the campus community as a student organization. At the same time, the community needs to better recognize its obligation to actively engage with the paper both as readers and as responsible contributors. We strongly affirm that a student newspaper, like all newspapers, must strive to be an independent voice.

The strength of a community is its ability to value its members, acknowledge its shortcomings, and strive for improvements that will benefit individuals and the community as a whole. We hope this report reflects the committee’s commitment to the realization of these goals.

Submitted December 11, 2007

We, student activists, not only feel personally disrespected but also find it problematic that our administration responds with such contempt to student activism. To sum up an entire semester of activist work with “yada yada yada” is unacceptable. The way that we are continually belittled makes it clear that our work is seen as a nuisance and that administration would rather we remained silent about racism and other social problems in our community. We resorted to holding an emergency forum after weeks of communication with the administration about our concerns and months of anti-racist organizing. We worked all semester to educate the campus community about the unhealthy campus and national climate regarding race relations.

Racism and discrimination are woven into the fabric of the Chatham community. Prior to this semester, we saw Admissions remove diversity from our college publications and maintain a 100% white staff (it has been nearly one year since this criticism and nothing has changed in terms of staff demographics). We heard students complain about the lack of diversity in the faculty, wondering if the university believes we have nothing to learn from queers or scholars of color. We’ve watched students of color and queer students fight for their identities and concerns to be recognized and tolerated by our community. As second class community members and allies, we are forced to take up activism as a means of bringing about social and institutional change at Chatham.

If Chatham is truly committed to anti-racism, Chatham needs to acknowledge that racism is not only perpetuated by student individuals, but is also perpetuated by institutional policies. Some of these policies may include the way that job positions are advertised and the use of primarily white social networks to find people to fill positions. Admissions still remains a problematic aspect of Chatham. Homophobic members of our community are are so confidant in administrative homophobia that they have the audacity to condemn sexuality-related diversity initiatives. We heard from attendees of administrative diversity trainings that views expressed by their colleagues are disheartening. In the shift to University, a time when many new positions were developed and filled, Chatham opted out of creating a position to focus exclusively on diversity initiatives. Other schools our size have offices or directors multicultural affairs. Carlow has an incredible Director of Diversity Initiatives, Barbara Johnson. Smith College features their Office of Multicultural Affairs on their website and writes, “We want you to know that Smith College, a recognized leader in liberal arts education for women, has done more than ‘talk’ about multiculturalism. Smith has made a strong commitment to cultural diversity within its community.” We want Chatham to be able to say something like that. As it stands, we are not proud of Chatham’s place within U.S. higher education. At this time, the entire institution needs to be reevaluated. Chatham’s commitment to anti-racism should include a self study led by a qualified, elected committee (where students are involved in the selection process) to address institutional racism. An institution that condemns activism has no hope of achieving anti-racism or educating a student body who will stand up to injustice.

Student activism is in line with Chatham’s mission of preparing students to be active citizens in their community. Our mission statement says, “Chatham University prepares its students… to excel in their professions and to be engaged, environmentally responsible, globally conscious, life-long learners, and citizen leaders for democracy.” Student activists are not docile subjects, but rather “World Ready Women” leading our communities to challenge injustice. Student’s calls for increased skill-building opportunities in the classroom and through extracurricular learning opportunities help the university achieve its mission. The presence of student activism is evidence that Chatham does its job well insofar as it shows that women are taught to be leaders and change makers instead of followers.

The symbiotic relationship between the academy and activism cannot be overlooked. Many activists frame their cause and chose tactics based on knowledge and analysis of the issue produced in the academy. We believe that the classroom should be a place to learn about how institutions and social structures shape our lives. Scholarship of activism ought to be a part of our curriculum as it empowers students as vehicles for social change. In addition, faculty, staff and administration can be role models for student activists. For instance, student activists are proud to say that our president spoke on a panel about racial justice at the 2007 Summit Against Racism in Pittsburgh. Without tenure, however, our professors surely fear the consequences of being active political role models and incorporating activism into their curriculum. Lack of tenure also results in diminished agency for Chatham faculty, compromising free speech and political critique, which are hallmarks of academic inquiry. The administration’s current response to activism prevents the majority of our students from accessing an education that includes praxis, leaving the student body disempowered and unequipped for making change.

In the other direction, the academy is profoundly influenced by activist work. In a wide range of fields, scholars correspond with, interview, and travel to activists around the world. This could happen in environmental science, where scholars might get in touch with local activist organizations in order to get information about the effects of an environmental disaster on a population. Political scientists and other scholars read activists publications, listen to speeches and watch activist led political events in order to bring the activist’s political knowledge into the academy for analysis. Academics rely on organized activists to determine what is accountable knowledge production, as the knowledge produced in the academy ought to be useful in our communities. Activists take a much larger part in shaping the academy when new fields of study emerge out of social movements. We know that African American Studies, Women’s Studies and Queer Studies entered the academy through activism, namely by students and scholar activists.

There is a long history of student activists playing critical roles in social movements in the United States. One example of the power of student activism is the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), an anti-racist organization that emerged during the civil rights movement. SNCC utilized a diversity of tactics to achieve social change. One such tactic was Freedom Rides, where students took buses to the segregated South to participate in sit-ins in spaces designated for whites only. SNCC also helped to organize Freedom Summers where black students and white allies registered and mobilized black voters. SNCC later went on to become involved in the black power movement and protesting the Vietnam war. Another organization that played a pivotal role in protesting the Vietnam war was Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). SDS also employed a variety of tactics on college campuses including rallies, sit-ins, a student strike that shut down the University of Wisconsin for days, raids of draft offices and police confrontations. In 1969, radical students at Harvard took over an administrative building on campus, ejected the administration and camped out until they were forcibly removed by police the next day. There is a long history of students exercising power influentially and effectively in social movements.

In conclusion, Chatham should go further than issuing a statement that our community will not tolerate racism, because the past few months have shown that it tolerates racism very well though its silence and inaction. A commitment to anti-racism will involve institutional changes and recognition of the importance of activism. Chatham’s student leaders are participating in a large and powerful anti-racist movement that will transform social structures. If activists continue to be suppressed and reprimanded for organizing in response to injustice, Chatham will fail at its mission of preparing citizen leaders.

Signed,

The Coalition

This semester there have been overt acts of racism by a group of students on campus, some of whom also write our campus newspaper. After a student received racist hate mail in her mailbox, the president of our college held a campus wide forum where she attempted to make it clear that racism would not be tolerated on our campus. Of course, saying that without making any actual changes on campus or investigating reasons as to why our campus climate is so hostile, did nothing. A group of anti-racist students held a forum where we outlined the events of semester and demanded that the administration take action. We demanded an investigation of the campus newspaper, respect for student activism and an office of multicultural affairs.

The administration responded by forming a faculty committee to investigate the matters and make recommendations for actions our university should take. The selection process for the faculty committee was problematic, as the members were hand picked by our president without any student input. Our university stopped offering tenure a decade ago, so there aren’t many tenured professors at Chatham, and those who are not tenured have a significant amount of pressure on them to agree with administrators or remain silent. Furthermore, our most vocal faculty ally, who is an anti-racist scholar, was not permitted to be on this committee. I’m convinced that some of the faculty members on the committee know less about racism, privilege and other forms of oppression than members of the anti-racist student coalition. I sat in an interview yesterday where members of the faculty committee told me that in their opinion, the word “racism” was being thrown around. It seems as though they might be attempting to say that the problem on campus involves a two groups of students who don’t get along, not a culture of racism, homophiobia, discrimination and exclusion.

We recognized that in our interviews, the committee focused exclusively on the wrongs done by members of the newspaper staff, and not on any of our other concerns. Last night we decided to switch our focus to institutionalized racism and getting an office of multicultural affairs. We are going to emphasize our point that the problems with the campus newspaper are symptoms of a much larger problem on our campus that could be improved to some extent by the creation of an office of multicultural affairs.

We are researching the ways in which institutional racism and homophobia manifest themselves in our community. Gathering evidence of this is much harder than pointing to a hate letter or printing out emails. We are working on this presently.

We were also criticized for too “militant.” While we are constantly reevaluating our tactics and the way we are framing the issue, we are not going to stop putting pressure on the university until we see something change, aside from reprimanding the individuals who committed blatant racist acts. Our tactics thus far have involved holding an open forum, meeting with members of the faculty committee in pairs, rather than as individuals (like they wanted us to) and typing up a thirty page document explaining the events of the semester, background information on anti-racism, racially themed parties, student activism etc. Our coalition consists of ~25 students. We do not have any sort of formal leadership and come to decisions by consensus. We’ve experienced some internal problems and everyone is exhausted as finals are approaching, but we’ve remained extremely organized.

I don’t think that we are being too militant, SDS was militant. Faculty allies told us they had a good laugh when they overheard from committee members that we were militant. If we don’t see a true commitment to anti-racism starting next semester we are prepared to use other tactics.

Someone in our coalition said that they heard students at Mt Holyoke walked into the president’s office, sat down and refused to move until they got an office of multicultural affairs.

Thank you for reading this and offering your opinions and resources. We really appreciate suggestions and ideas. We’d also like to get in touch with student activists at other schools.

The meeting was about the bros parties that were called racist and the alleged racist hate mail Jessica Byrd received.

The truth is:

bros parties are not racist events – at least not the one that took place at CMU’s frat. Three of our staff members attended the party – they will write explanation letters about the event. Two black students attended the event – both of them will write letters to the editor about the event stating it was not racist – I spoke to both of them, they promised to write those letters. I am writing a news story on the 2 incidents, explaining bros parties, the alleged hate mail Jessica Byrd received – I am interviewing Esther, David Phillips, Jessica Byrd and Asia Mitchell, BSU President and whoever else needs to be interviewed – those 4 are the starting points. Next, we are writing a staff editorial on receiving those anonymous letters and Byrd’s involvement (starting a campaign to write those letters, telling the org’s members not to sign them – we have proof of this). We will mention certain accusations from the letters and prove them wrong. We will take a stand on anonymous letters, repeating Esther’s own quote in defense of Jessica Byrd’s receiving an anonymous letter that “anonymity presents a threat to our community.” Given the timing of Byrd’s receiving an anonymous letter, it should be a very interesting editorial. We will also address how come the bros party was labeled as a racist incident, while in fact it wasn’t. Lastly, Tony is going to write a piece on those anonymous letters, attacking his own students, who happen to be some of the smartest people on campus (that’s you!).

I want to make it very clear to everyone that these stories and the way we will deal with this is not to be discussed with anyone not belonging to the Communique. (Sitting at the cafeteria with two other staff members talking about this is not a good idea — you never know who’s listening).

Thanks,

________

Communiqué Editor in Chief