Politics or Prejudice? An Incident at the Temple Bar

Host to throngs of Harvard law students and professors looking to relax for a drink at day's end, the Temple Bar serves those who serve justice.

But according to about a dozen members of the Asian Pacific American Law Student Association (APALSA), the bar served them Tuesday before last with rudeness and disrespect.

Angered by a 25-minute wait to be seated, Susan Perng, a former co-chair of the group, authored a five-paragraph e-mail message recounting what had happened. She suggested a boycott.

Within two days, Perng's e-mail turned into an official communiqu of APALSA. Campus publications were notified. Law school student groups--including the student government--were ready to call for a boycott of their own.

But now, several members of APALSA have questioned the real cause of the charges--whether they stem from bad service or from mere politics.

"They've already been tried, committed and executed," Roger Severino, an APALSA member and first-year law student, said of Temple Bar. "It's a high-tech lynching."

Minute by Minute

When the 12 APALSA members arrived at Temple last Tuesday night, dressed as "rich Asian law students" according to one of the members, the bar wasn't very crowded--maybe a third of the tables were empty.

A group member asked Natalie, a bar hostess, to seat them. Natalie said the restaurant had a policy of reserving its tables for dinner customers only before 10:30 p.m. It was just past 9--so the new arrivals would have to wait.

The large group then waited fifteen minutes in the small foyer. According to interviews with several group members, bar employees checked the identification of the group's members.

Perng, the former co-chair of APALSA, said a "rude" male employee of the bar checked the IDs of some of her friends twice.

The hostess did not explain delay, group members said. When they asked her about it, Natalie rolled her eyes, turned and left, Perng said.

While the APALSA group waited for a table, Perng said, other customers arrived and were seated promptly.

Perng said that several law school students were seated without having to show identification and without specifying whether they'd be eating or drinking.

Christina A. Voros '00, a Temple waitress on duty that night, said the law school students were regular patrons and employees knew their ages.

Another couple entering after the APALSA party was "obviously" over 35 years old. A third small group wanted dinner, which would not require employees to check identification at the door, she said.

Bar co-owner Gerry Sheerin, that night's on-duty manager, said employees only check ID's at the door when customers plan to order drinks.

"Normally, the waitress checks ID's at the table if they'll be ordering food," he said.

Another reason Temple checked ID's of new patrons closely that night, according to co-owner Patrick M. Lee, was that the bar was sponsoring an event for Harvard undergraduates.

APALSA members said they could not recall whether or not they told hostess they intended to have dinner before being asked to wait.

But after the IDs were checked, Perng said, she told the hostess that members of the group had decided they wanted dinner, in addition to their drinks.

A member of the group pointed to an empty table in the back of the restaurant and asked to be seated there.

Sheerin said that the hostess told the group that the table in question only seated eight people--and so they'd have to wait for one that could accommodate a dozen.

Finally, 25 minutes after they entered the bar, the group was seated. Perng then asked to the see a manager.

Out of earshot to her friends, Perng told Sheerin that she was disappointed in the restaurant's treatment of her friends. She said she asked why the group was being treated differently.

In an e-mail message to the Crimson, Perng wrote that Sheerin said the group "looked young and that he was doing us a favor by seating us. He insisted that he did not have to seat us. He did not apologize for our wait or our different treatment."

Sheerin says that Perng charged him with discrimination during the exchange, though Perng denies doing so.

"I felt that they were very rude and haughty," Perng wrote in the e-mail. "The manager had the same rude attitude."

Sheerin admitted that he "wasn't as nice as I probably should have been, because I was upset."

Perng said the group then decided to leave.

They went to another bar, where they spent approximately $300 on appetizers and drinks, three APALSA members confirmed.

The E-Mail

The next day, Perng composed an e-mail message about the incident. She sent it to APALSA's new co-chair, Shan M. Chang.

Chang sent a copy of the message to the APALSA list and several campus publications, including the Crimson, adding a small, signed preface.

The e-mail message does not contain any indication that Perng authored it.

The message describes the Temple as "an institution that treats a large group of Asian Pacific Americans with suspicion and distrust, and which attempts in not so subtle ways to make us feel unwelcome." It then asks for support in a boycott.

Other law school students responded immediately in a torrent of forwarded e-mails.

Arlene Delgado, a representative to the Law Student Council (LSC), consulted with Council President Jay Munir about the message and then replied to Perng, affirming the Council's support of a boycott.

"In the least, we figured a letter on behalf of the LSC members to the Temple Bar ownership, declaring our lack of tolerance for such behavior and our intent to boycott Temple Bar from now on, would be a good place to start," Delgado wrote Perng.

But, for now, the council has not decided what action to take.

"We have composed the letter, but we haven't sent it. We haven't boycotted it yet, either. Right now, we're seeing what APALSA will do. We're willing to support them in whatever they choose," Delgado told The Crimson.

The Debate

Over the next few days, the incident escalated, causing internal problems within APALSA as well.

APALSA members began to accuse Perng of exploiting the incident to advance her political agenda.

In interviews with The Crimson, several said that although Perng wrote the original e-mail message, it was Chang who turned it into an official APALSA statement by affixing her name.

"It reads like a press release," Severino said.

Perng's executive board was more ideologically oriented than the new board, and had been pushing for APALSA to become more politically active, Severino said

"Recently APALSA has been more of a social organization. They were trying to make it more political at that [Tuesday night] meeting," said another member, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Severino said the two former co-chairs, Perng and Lincoln Pan, created the appearance of an official APALSA response to the incident, when, in fact, there is was no consensus that what happened constituted discrimination.

"I think there was some manipulation, certainly. The old co-chairs were running everything from behind the scenes," he said.

Daniel Choi '94, a vocal critic of leadership's handling of the incident, said he worries that APALSA made accusations without bothering to hear Temple's side.

"I think they are more eager to accuse racism than to find justice," he said.

The Meeting

Seeking to plan their next steps, APALSA's board called a public meeting last Wednesday night to discuss the situation.

Choi, who is not a member of the group, invited both Lee and Sheerin to attend.

The two did--and APALSA board members gave them 10 minutes to explain what they thought had happened that night.

As the owners answered questions, Neill Tseng, the forum's moderator, informed them that their allotted time was up.

They were escorted from the room.

Back in the meeting, Chang and Perng defended their own actions.

Responding to the charge that she sent out Perng's e-mail message too hastily and presented it as an official memo from the group, Chang admitted she "wasn't clear that it was an individual, not official, message. I made some mistakes process-wise."

"I didn't want to it to come out [as an official statement] and I apologize," she said.

Several students complained of the lack of communication between the board and the membership in the first days of the situation.

"I felt undermined that this charge had been made representing me, without my knowledge," one member told the board.

Before the meeting ended, the approximately thirty APALSA members in attendance passed two resolutions. One called for an official APALSA boycott. The other asked that formal proceedings against Temple be pursued through the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, the state agency charged with investigating charges of discrimination.

The group voted that the Temple Bar acted with "insensitivity" and "extreme rudeness."

Only one member, Sue Perng, voting to call the actions "racism."

For the Defense

Meanwhile, bar patrons are rallying in support.

Sienna R. Owens '00, who brought College seniors to the bar, is now organizing a petition.

Owens said signers of the petition affirm, in writing, "I am in full support of Temple....I've never experienced or seen racism or discrimination occur at either bar."

As of last night, Owens said the petition has garnered more than a hundred signatures.

And bar co-owner Lee said he recently requested a meeting with the APALSA leadership through a group executive, Irene Chan.

"I just think the thing that's best for us and for their group is to put the whole thing behind us," Lee said.

Chan declined to comment yesterday.

APALSA has not, as of yet, responded to Lee's request.