[haw-info] 2010 AHA convention in San Diego - two points of view on a controversy

[Jim O'Brien]

To members and friends of Historians Against the War,



As a service, we are providing two different messages regarding a
controversy over the American Historical Association’s convention hotel for
its January 2010 meeting in San Diego.  A boycott of the Manchester Grand
Hyatt had been called in July 2008 by a coalition of LGBT groups and the
hotel workers union UNITE HERE in response to the hotel owner’s having
contributed $125,000 in personal funds to the campaign to amend the
California state constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage.  In January the
AHA Executive Council and Business Meeting both considered a proposal to
relocate the 2001 convention and decided against it for financial and
logistical reasons.



Of the two messages that follow, the first is from Powell LaGange of UNITE
HERE, sent to members of the University of Cincinnati history department and
circulated on the Internet.  (The first part of the message, with specific
reference to the AHA, is included here, with a link to the full message.)  The
second is from Barbara Weinstein, a long-time member of HAW who was
president of the AHA in 2007 and was a member of the AHA Executive Council
through January 2009.



The HAW Steering Committee has not taken a position.  This message will
appear on the HAW blog (http://www.historiansagainstwar.org/blog/), where
any comments can be posted and read.







Dear History Professors of University of Cincinnati,



I am writing you to reach out for support on behalf of San Diego's hotel
workers and the LGBT community in regards to the American Historical
Association's (AHA) decision to hold its 2010 meeting at the Manchester
Grand Hyatt.  This hotel, the 2nd largest Hyatt hotel in North America, is
the site of a boycott called for by the LGBT community in San Diego, the
Hotel Employees Union (UNITE HERE), and has been sanctioned by the San Diego
Labor Council.



AHA Director, Arnita Jones, circumvented a proposed resolution signed by
hundreds of AHA members to relocate the 2010 meeting and has kept the
conference at the boycotted hotel.  Much of the reasoning behind violating
the boycott was to avoid a possible cancellation fee.  Spending money at the
Manchester Hyatt perpetuates injustice and discrimination here in San Diego.
The community has come together to ask groups to cancel in order to stand
with all those fighting against discrimination and for justice for San
Diego's hotel workers, women, immigrants and LGBT community.



Show your support by having your History Department pledge not to attend the
AHA convention unless moved to an alternate site and faxing the attached
pledge to AHA executive director, Arnita Jones at (202) 544-8307.



*[Powell LaGange’s full message, with more discussion of the boycott itself,
can be accessed at *

*
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=H-Labor&month=0908&week=b&msg=B67gfsVx7LME90jlW7mE/A&user=&pw
]*





========



Dear HAW members:



First, I want to emphasize that, to my knowledge, there were no violations
of AHA procedures (either in spirit or practice) in the way this resolution
was handled.  The Council discussed the original resolution at great length,
with Arnita Jones participating (ex-officio) in the meeting only to provide
information when needed.  After a great deal of debate, the Council
unanimously decided to propose an alternative resolution (which it has the
right to do), and this alternative resolution easily passed at the Business
Meeting.  As for why the Council decided to propose the alternative
resolution, basically we feared that we would lose a ton of money (more
about this below) if we withdrew from the Manchester Hyatt.  Since we would
have to pay the Hyatt a great deal of money, and the hotel would not have to
provide us any services, Doug Manchester might actually come out ahead from
our "boycott."  There is still the symbolic weight of a boycott, which we
recognized as significant, but we decided we could make an equally
effective symbolic protest through highly-publicized panels, exhibits, etc.
And the AHA would arrange for rooms at other hotels for those members who
preferred to stay elsewhere.  This is not an ideal resolution to the
problem, but it's one that we thought would allow us to register our
disapproval of Manchester's donation without bankrupting the AHA.



The AHA arranges conference venues many years in advance, with the objective
of getting the best possible rates.  So the contract with the Manchester
Hyatt was arranged years ago (before the AHA resolution urging the staff to
give strong preference to unionized hotels).  I have seen the contract and I
think it is very unlikely that we could avoid a massive cancellation fee (it
could be as high as $1million, though it would probably be somewhat less).
If there was any evidence of discrimination against LGBTQ customers by the
hotel itself, then we might have a chance to withdraw without a substantial
financial loss, but there isn't.  As one of the sites that DeGange lists
says, the HRC has listed the Hyatt chain as among the best in their policies
toward LGBTQ guests.  We may completely disagree with Manchester's decision
to donate to Prop8, but that was a private act, separate from the
policies and practices of his hotel, and that makes it much more difficult
to avoid the cancellation fee.  Because of his donation, I would avoid
staying there if I were going to San Diego on my own.  And if we were just
now making arrangements for the 2010 meetings, I would strongly urge
the AHA to locate them elsewhere.  But we have a longstanding contract, and
as we know from the case of the OAH's experience with the Adam's Mark
hotels, this sort of cancellation can bankrupt an organization.  And in the
Adam's Mark case, the hotel chain actually had a policy that the OAH was
protesting (rather than a private action by an owner)--and it still put the
organization in deep financial trouble.  So it is extremely unlikely that we
could withdraw in response to a private donation by the owner and avoid the
cancellation fee. (Actually, it's not a cancellation fee--it's a guarantee
to fill a certain number of rooms--but it amounts to the same thing).



To make matters worse, there are very few large hotels in San Diego that can
accommodate a meeting the size of the AHA.  You might note that the trial
lawyers, one of the few organizations to withdraw from the Manchester Hyatt
(and we have no idea what kind of advance contract they had, so it may not
have involved financial loss--not to mention it's a much richer
organization), moved their meeting to San Francisco, rather than to another
hotel in San Diego.  It's not that hard to find (bed)rooms for those who
don't want to stay at the Hyatt, but large numbers of meeting rooms
are another matter. This means we might have to break our contract with two
hotels, and somehow quickly find two very large replacement hotels in a
completely different city, and that could lead to losses of well over $1
million.  The AHA's entire endowment, when I last checked, was only a little
over $3 million, by the way.



In the meantime, an ad hoc committee has been actively organizing panels and
special events that will be publicized to the wider community.  I think it
will be very clear to anyone paying any attention that the AHA's decision to
hold part of its sessions in the Manchester Hyatt should not be interpreted
as an endorsement of Manchester's position on Prop 8.  Again, the argument
about not feeding his coffers is irrelevant since we would be forking over a
great deal of money no matter what.



As should be apparent, I'm urging HAW not to boycott the AHA meetings.  But
if holding HAW-sponsored sessions in the Hyatt really seems unpalatable, HAW
could request that HAW activities be located in the other headquarters
hotel, the San Diego Marriott.



Best wishes to all,

Barbara Weinstein
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://stopthewars.org/pipermail/haw-info_stopthewars.org/attachments/20090817/9112ba4f/attachment.html>