Dear George,

I write regarding the confusion that followed a protest led by UVA's Staff Union (SUUVA) on November 21st. Much has been reported by several media sources surrounding this event.

This protest was generated due to UVA staff employee complaints received by the Union regarding the use of the n-word by a white medical center supervisor in the presence of her predominately African American subordinates. It is the context in which this usually offensive word was used that has brought about some University and community debate.

Some reports say the supervisor used the word to suggest that the use of the word "Redskins" (as part of the name of the Washington ball club) is just as offensive to Native Americans as the n-word is to African Americans. Some believe the use of this n-word in this context is proper; while others, in particular some UVA African American employees, say the word is offensive used in any context.

I am not writing to further debate this topic -- rather, to speak to this entire incident as a Union member who was involved in the organizing of this protest from the beginning.

Two weeks prior to the protest, SUUVA's president, Jan Cornell, made an effort to have this matter resolved between the Union and University officials without further disturbance. However, UVA refused to work with Ms. Cornell on this case, as it has done regarding employee concerns she's brought to them since SUUVA's conception in May of 2002. Finally, after the Union had waited more than a week, while continuing to receive complaints from offended UVA employees, members of SUUVA agreed to organize a protest, since apparently no action had been taken by University officials regarding this matter.

The organizing began and the media was alerted. Standard procedure dictates that media sources contact "the other side", in this case, UVA, for their comments surrounding the reported incident and scheduled protest. Once UVA officials were contacted by a number of media networks, attention was finally and quickly paid to this matter. Amazingly, within a few hours of the initial media contact, UVA top officials managed to conduct an investigation by separately interviewing all the subordinates involved in the incident, a meeting dynamic which is considered ineffective by labor experts, given the potential for employees to feel intimidated. The result was a formal letter of explanation by President John Casteen, a mere few hours before the scheduled protest. Had UVA acted with a fraction of this speed by working with Ms. Cornell two weeks earlier, much could have been avoided.

In my years of experience as a community Civil Rights and workers rights advocate, I have found that UVA consistently ignores pleas for help and action against racial acts and low wage employee concerns. Instead, they form lip service initiatives, such as the current diversity committees, that are run by individuals who are predetermined to deliver the administration's preferred remedies, rather than listening to and working with the people who are actually suffering from these adverse climates.

SUUVA is committed to bringing about positive change for "the people". We are not interested in cosmetic classroom exercises that will produce elaborate documents for years of analysis and ponder; rather, as we all saw on November 21, they are ready to act and demand change now.

I salute and support the Staff Union of the University of Virginia, and urge other University staff to join us, the broader community to support us, in our quest for justice for all the people whose labor UVA depends.

Dena T. Bowers (electronic mail, December 5, 2003)

UVA Staff Member

SUUVA Union Member

NAACP Area 11 Chair