Should We Boycott the Downlow?
If you're a student, I'm sure you've received the following email:
Human trafficking is horrible and is a major issue in the US and around the world. However, is boycotting a business that requires a liquor license and leases space (with the attached license) from someone who has been convicted and completed his sentence a legitimate way to address this issue? Most retail clothing companies that are popular among law students use or have used child labor, sweat shop labor, etc. Based on this logic, shouldn't any company that has engaged in this process be boycotted indefinitely? Shouldn't we, by transitivity, also not take money from these companies? Or work for firms who will be using fees for representing these companies to pay associates? Does it make a difference that the guy's been tried, convicted and served his time?
Hi everyone,
As many of you have heard, tonight's Bar Review will be taking place at the Down Low on Shattuck. However, many people are unaware that Lakireddy Bali Reddy, the landlord of the Down Low, is a convicted sex trafficker. In 1999, a passerby saw Reddy and a group of his employees trying to put the unconscious body of a 17 year old girl in a van. The girl had suffered from carbon monoxide poisoning while living in one of Reddy's apartments. She later died at Alta Bates hospital.
Through this event, school newspaper reporters at Berkeley High uncovered Reddy's criminal activities. Over a 15 year period, Reddy and his family brought an estimated 500 men, women, and young girls (the youngest was 13 years old when she was trafficked) from India to the United States using H1-B visas, convincing them that they would be working as computer programmers in the US.
Instead, Reddy used the immigrants as slave labor for his restaurants and apartment buildings, and used at least three girls as his own personal sex slaves, including the deceased 17 year old girl. During autopsy, the medical examiner found that the 17 year old girl was pregnant with Reddy's child.
Reddy accepted a plea bargain with the Alameda County DA's office for sex trafficking and served 8 years. He was released from prison in 2008. His adult sons were also charged with aiding in sex trafficking. The Reddys own 1,100 apartment units in Berkeley (under names like Reddy Realty, Raj Properties, and Everest Properties), as well as Pasand Restaurant. They are also the landlords of Down Low, so money from Bar Review will go directly towards the Reddys' rental fees.
We wanted to raise awareness about this because many people do not know of these horrifying crimes that took place right here in Berkeley and because the Down Low is a popular spot for Bar Review. We are involved in an effort to raise awareness of human trafficking/modern slavery, and will soon be putting on a week of events centered around anti-trafficking efforts. More information will be released soon.
Thanks for reading. We hope that you will forward this email on to others.
Trafficking weakens legitimate economies, breaks up families, fuels violence, threatens public health and safety, and shreds the social fabric that is necessary for progress. It undermines our long-term efforts to promote peace and prosperity worldwide. And it is an affront to our values and our commitment to human rights.
-Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State
Human trafficking is horrible and is a major issue in the US and around the world. However, is boycotting a business that requires a liquor license and leases space (with the attached license) from someone who has been convicted and completed his sentence a legitimate way to address this issue? Most retail clothing companies that are popular among law students use or have used child labor, sweat shop labor, etc. Based on this logic, shouldn't any company that has engaged in this process be boycotted indefinitely? Shouldn't we, by transitivity, also not take money from these companies? Or work for firms who will be using fees for representing these companies to pay associates? Does it make a difference that the guy's been tried, convicted and served his time?
Labels: Legal Culture
posted by James at 6:00 PM
50 Comments:
Someone please answer this, why should a tenant be held responsible for their landlord's conduct?
Probably the same reason that the most effective way to show your disdain for an offensive TV program would be to boycott the advertisers in the commercials. Advertisers pull their ads and the TV station loses money. Seems lie the hope is that the Downlow theoretically says, "We're not doing business with you anymore because our customers don't like it." They move next door, their customers end their boycott, the landlord loses money.
I remember my undergrad boycotting Spring Break in Myrtle Beach when the NAACP called for an economic boycott b/c they put the Confederate flag back up at the capitol building. The boycott hurt the businesses and tourism and they pressured the government and the flag came down.
It's hard to see an end of this particular boycott b/c the only way to win is if this guy is run out of town or bankrupted or something. But he sounds pretty horrible and I'd be willing to join these folks in trying to hurt his pocketbook. Societal disapproval is a sentence he can't really get out of in 8 years b/c jails are overcrowded.
Problems- There is no similarly vacant project on Shattuck Ave.
If they leave, they will be in breach of contract, so they will have pay enormous damages to a sex trafficker. So in a way, you may actually be supporting sex trafficking by not going.
When they leave, someone will gladly take their spot, there is no vacant properties in such a prime location.
Thus, your boycott is at best doing nothing and at worst supporting a sex trafficker.
Congratulations!
@6:35: If I understand your comment correctly, by not holding Bar Review at Down Low, the business owner will suddenly go out of business?
If the Down Low does not go out of business, than you have done nothing to harm the organization you are boycotting. You are only harming the tenant who had nothing to do with this.
@6:35: The boycott is definitely doing something. It is raising awareness about human trafficking here in the law school community, where many people remain unaware that human trafficking is happening in our own neighborhood.
It is also about making a statement that the Berkeley Law school community will not support a known sex trafficker by holding events at the Down Low.
How long should he be boycotted before he's been appropriately punished?
Boycotting the Down Low over it's landlord's behavior is like refusing to hire Boalt grads because the dean dands to be overpaid.
Since when is a boycott so aggravating to people, or perhaps more to the point, why are so people shedding so many tears for the Down Low? It's a free market: consumers can make their choices based on those considerations that are important to them. And it is an ongoing business decision for the Down Low to rent property from this guy. If trafficking is an important enough issue that some consumers would rather not spend their money in a way that helps a known trafficker, that's their choice. Whether or not that economic pressure/incentive is significant enough in magnitude to ultimately make a difference may matter to the boycotters or it may not, but it is still well within their right to exert that pressure if they see fit. Nobody's calling for this guy to go back to jail, but I think his history makes it unsurprising that at least some people will feel that he has not paid enough of a price for his actions or fear that he may be continuing some of the same practices that got him in trouble in the past (or at least pushing the line of illegality). If reading the information people are putting out there about this guy is not enough to deter you from going to Bar Review, then GO, and don't worry about the fact that to other people it may make a difference. That's your right just as it is theirs.
According to 6:35 and others on this thread, consumers basically shouldn't ever try to exert their buying power in a way that motivates change of the sort that is important to them. You either don't get basic economics or you feel like such a small drop in the bucket that, frankly, I feel bad for you.
7:16, you're not wrong, but what this really demonstrates to me is that it continues to be incredibly difficult to be a convicted felon in this country regardless of the fact that he's served his time and must still be on parole.
And so I just wonder, from those advocating the boycott, how much is enough? Are we saying he can never adequately repent/pay for what he's done? If not, what else should he experience to atone for the conviction?
7:16, you are the only one who does not understand economics.
There are two scenarios- Down Low leaves and Down Low stays
If they stay, you have harmed no one except the Down Low economically, they still pay the same rent.
If they leave, they pay damages for breaching their lease which will more than cover the minimal costs the landlord incurs to rent out prime real estate again.
In neither scenario do you harm the landlord economically, you only harm an innocent third party. Please go learn basic economics.
The tenants who own the down low aren't entitled to anyone's money. They're a business, and they make decisions that affect their ability to succeed. I don't go to mcdonald's because the food is shitty, and I won't go to the down low because I don't want my money to end up in the pocket of a sex trafficker. In neither case do I feel guilty for "harming" them.
And my choosing not to go doesn't have to be contingent on whether it'll have a desired impact. I vote, but I don't have any expectation that my vote will change the outcome of a particular election. I recognize that this is a separate question from whether makes sense to encourage a boycott, but I view it as a personal decision based on the facts as they've been presented. It's a pretty easy one, at that.
There's also the scenario that Down Low loses business now and determines to not renew their lease later. A boycott would not work on the eve of the lease renewal date. If customers let the Down Low's owner know that doing business with this guy is hurting their business now and they can decide if it's hurting it bad enough to make them move when they have the opportunity. And it might make it less-profitable for the landlord.
As for when he's been punished enough, this guy appears to have been responsible for the rape of several children and the death of at least one. I think I don't want to be even indirectly profiting killers and child rapists at any point. These are two particular classes of felons that I don't think has ever really paid their debt to society.
Why don't we just have every bar review at Kips?
7:25, in your rush to oversimplify, you managed to leave out the single scenario most relevant to the current situation. Please see the 7:39 post to round out your understanding of the possible outcomes.
James, I do think you raise an issue of fundamental concern regarding convicted felons continuing to face condemnation even after serving their prison sentences. While in most cases I tend to side with your point, I think what separates this situation from others for me is the overwhelming feeling that this is exactly the type of criminal activity where I worry that the full facts/extent of that activity did not emerge at his earlier trial (though I concede being unable to back that up with anything more than a gut feeling). That said, I certainly understand the sentiment that he has paid his price as determined by his criminal system.
Serving a prison sentence means that the state has discharged whatever claim they have to punish you. I feel absolutely no inhibition about declining to associate myself or my business with criminals—whether or not they have completed their sentence. Prison isn't a magical place that transforms you into a cool guy if you just stay there long enough. Reddy is a shithead. If he owned the DL, I wouldn't want to patronize it.
But he doesn't own it. The attenuation makes this "boycott" seem a little silly (although I always found it ironic that "alternative" social justice bar reviews were usually at the Down Low).
I have a better idea: boycott the Down Low because it's a shitty bar. A shitty bar that often charges a cover for even shittier music.
But for the love of God, please don't switch any bar reviews to Kips.
Not that I ever go to bar review...
7:39's scenario is just still favorable to the landlord, as normally lease renewal rates are lower than market rates. No building on Shattuck has ever stood vacant and there's no reason to believe this will be a magical exception. Thus, the landlord will probably charge a higher market rent if the tenant leaves. For all you naysayer's I look forward to having a couple extra drinks in your honor.
Kips is, without a doubt, the best bar in Berkeley
On the issue of whether the landlord has been punished enough after going to prison... in my opinion, no. He only plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit immigration fraud, two counts of transporting a minor in foreign commerce for illegal sexual activity, and one count of subscribing to a false tax return. Nothing for the rape of minors, which happened in part because the girls who were raped did not understand that he wasn't entitled to do this to them, and would not have been the best witnesses. The only reason why he has finished his sentence has nothing to do with him having "paid his debt to society." And how much of his current property resulted from his criminal activities? I have no idea. But based on what he did, I would indeed avoid any property owned by him, even if he is only the landlord.
Maybe it is a knee-jerk liberal reaction, or however one would like to characterize it, but I think that if people don't want to support a business in one of his properties, that's their choice. It might be that the tenant gets a lower price because of the stigma attached, so fewer people want to rent there knowing that they will have to deal with that as part of their business. Who knows? Or maybe people just forgot about this unsavory history and are doing business as is. Which is, in my opinion, a little sad, as I don't think this is the type of thing that should ever be forgotten.
7:48, We may be soul mates. Agreed, every bar review at Kips.
Agreed about Kips, the night always ends up there anyways, why not just start there?
Nooooo.... many of us have sworn solemn oaths never to go to Kips again.
Man, if there's anyone to quote on the importance of taking real action to not support human rights violators, it's the U.S. Secretary of State.
I know this one dude with an anti-kips vow who refused to go to kips one night even though all his friends and his wife went. What a douche . . .
If we can't agree whether to boycott the Down Low over human trafficking, can we at least boycott it because Jesus it's horrible?
But Kip's is worse, holy shit. Seriously, the place's defining characteristics are carpeted floors, underage douchebag clientele, and being close to campus. There's no way that you could actually try to be good and still, somehow, make a more miserable hole of shit. I've been to better places in fucking Tijuana. By accident.
Beetle Drake wins the thread.
Count me among those who think that it's stupid to punish a tenant for the criminal conduct of a landlord.
James raises interesting points. I often think about the inconsistency of what garners support among the "social justice" community at Boalt, particularly as the level of analysis moves from the general to the specific. For example, it is social justice-y to support programs that help individuals with felony convictions reintegrate into society and obtain gainful employment. It is also social justice-y to boycott the Down Low because patronizing it helps an individual with a felony conviction.
The obvious potential flaw in my logic is the possibility that people neatly fall into one camp or the other, but I suspect there is plenty of overlap.
Support for only the individuals with felony convictions that we don't think are that bad? Or just support for felons in the abstract?
Alum here. Can someone please explain why the sender of this email was freaking Hillary Clinton? Or was that a N&B joke?
There's an angle here that's been left out.
On previous occasions, bar reviews (or at least other big Boalt events) have been scheduled and canceled at Down Low. People know about this, in other words.
But the people who scheduled bar review didn't give a damn. Even if you're the most anti-boycott person out there --- I'm on the fence, personally --- you have to concede that that's unsettling. The whole point of bar review is to have an evening where all of Boalt Hall hangs out together, and feels comfortable hanging out together. If there were a venue that even 5% of my classmates felt strongly against on moral grounds (for WHATEVER reason), it'd be a jerk move to schedule events there...
Finally, to all the people screaming YOU DON'T KNOW ECONOMICS at each other, I think you've left out what's plainly the most likely effect of a boycott: tenant moves out (either breaking lease or at end), and the landlord is forced to lower rent (because of risk associated with property) to below-market rates.
8:14 - The email was sent by students. Hillary Clinton was quoted at the end. In the original version, students' names followed the Clinton quote.
I think Micah S. has the most right-on comment here. Boycotting a particular business because you disagree with the owner's beliefs or actions isn't always done with the intention of actually bringing the business down. I never shop at Urban Outfitters -- not because I have any delusions that the loss of my money will have any effect on their profit margin, but because I don't want the dollars I give them to support their anti-gay and religious right agenda. Sometimes a boycott does force a business to change their practices -- and awesome, in those situations! But it's just as legitimate to boycott a business as a smaller, personal protest -- because I want my money to support things I care about and not support things I find reprehensible, regardless of the ultimate outcome for that business.
I also think it's important to note that the tone of the email was in no way "Everyone boycott Shattuck Down Low forever!!" It was intended to spread information so we can make our own, informed decision as consumers.
People that groan about Kips are the same people that bristle at the thought of going to bar review anyways.
Isn't any indictment of Kips essentially an indictment of the entire institution of higher education?
And what's more American than educational opportunities available at public universities?
Thus, any attack on Kips is an attack on America itself. Well, I, for one, am not going to sit here and let you anti-fun nerds attack America.
*storms out of the room*
kips is superior - it's family owned and operated.
I had a little facebook thread about this that quickly devolved into extreme appeals to emotion (for example, "would you eat at a restaurant where your mom was raped!?!?!?"), but I feel like there is one point that drives me crazy: when the letter authors (and facebook commenters) say that the money is DIRECTLY going to Reddy. Isn't this an example, par excellence, of money indirectly going to Reddy?
It's like saying that when I pay taxes, I'm directly funding the Egyptian violence. No. It's indirect. I bet that a lot of these people live in his apartments and have tenuously justified being just as bad as Shattuck Downlow.
All of this reminds me of the episode on Batman the animated series, where Harley Quinn is released from prison and tries to start over, but everyone's expectations for her led her to fall back into a life of crime. All I remember was that she was rollerskating and had some hyenas pulling her. We need more of that...
Where was I?
@ Dan#2 - the email said the funds from the bar (aka the business) would go directly to Reddy's rental fees, which I doubt is a debatable point. if people want to send out info. to help others make an informed decision about where their $$$ is going, it doesn't bother me. though i don't even remember reading the word "boycott" in that initial email anyway.
regardless, the guy hasn't had too hard a time starting over. the family's worth $70 million and his sons and other family members have kept running the properties, collecting rental fees, etc. these are the same sons who helped bring the victims over - they got no jail time...no even community service. reddy still has his mansion up in the berkeley hills and is still making bank. some people obviously feel like he hasn't really paid his debt to society and its their prerogative to take their business elsewhere, just as it's yours to spend your $$ as you like.
anyway, i think it's helpdul
Personally, I think the Downlow is great. The taste of poor raped womens' tears is a great addition to any cocktail.
Eh, I think the effect of boycotting the DL because of Reddy's past is too tenuous. Why not boycott all restaurants that Reddy eats at? Maybe when all his restaurants go out of business he'll leave town because he has nowhere to eat! Maybe boycott Berkeley in general. When the city goes to balls, maybe then he'll leave!
The guy has $70 million... if his tenant defaults, he'll just find another tenant. Maybe he'll offer the next tenant a 10% discount. Either way, the effect on Reddy is very minimal, and the effect on the innocent owner of the DL is very large.
I also think it is awfully hypocritical of people to boycott just Reddy. Obviously the wrongs he committed were among the worst type of wrongs, but where is the line drawn? What about husbands that have been charged with domestic violence? How about people convicted of voter fraud? Are you going to boycott everyone that has ever sinned, or is there a standard that we adhere to here?
If you want to boycott someone for any reason at all, you are more the welcome to, and I don't blame you whatsoever for trying to get people to join you. But until you are willing to take steps to SERIOUSLY* deter someone from staying in town, you look awfully silly.
* I think if Reddy woke up to a fresh dump on his doorstep everyone morning, he'd be gone in a fortnight.
The funny thing is the majority of those of you going into Biglaw will be in some way defending heinous despicable acts of the most wealthy against the most vulnerable, so hopefully people boycott your services for the rest of your lives.
Kips and Down Low are two shitty sides of the same shitty coin.
So much for progressive students really caring about the rights of criminals and truly caring about rehabilitation. Maybe now they will understand the sentiment behind all those criminal law/criminal procedures cases they hated so much.
Unchecked liberalism without a modicum of self-examination. LSAT scores and GPAs don't say a thing about intelligence.
For what it's worth if it is helpful in informing anyone's opinion: As a "double-Bear" who was here in Berkeley at the time, I recall the Down Low was in business in it's present location before Reddy was arrested. The place was open when I moved here and that was at least a couple of years before the Reddy scandal.
When I moved back, I was surprised to see a lot of Reddy businesses still in town with the same name.
Lots of opinions here, but I haven't heard anyone mention the most obvious solution to this problem: Zeb. After. Dark.
It's amusing to me that so many people are eager to defend this guy's chance to start over. I remember reading in the papers that he violated his sex offender registration terms less than a month after he was released and then went totally off the radar for a while before coming back here.
I'm all for giving second chances to criminals that have served their time and have made efforts at rehabilitation, but this guy's a while different category of criminal who hasn't exactly made any efforts to make it up to the community.
I heard mashing it up at Zeb After Dark will get you boycotted.
to 8:40am-
I think you're jumping to conclusions. No one intentionally tried to organize a bar review at The Down Low knowing all of the incidents outlined in the email. No one was trying to be a jerk in scheduling events there. In fact, an email sent to relevant parties discussed and apologized for the lack of awareness and thanked those parties for raising the issue.
Hmm, I guess Berkeley students have found another way in which to solve all society's problems through a symbolic boycott.
"The funny thing is the majority of those of you going into Biglaw will be in some way defending heinous despicable acts of the most wealthy against the most vulnerable, so hopefully people boycott your services for the rest of your lives."
The funny thing is that many of us going into criminal law or any other area will be defending heinous despicable acts of the poor against the poor, so hopefully people boycott all of us and we all default on our loans.
Personally, I was glad to find out that the landlord renting to Downlow is a scumbag. I didn't know - now, I do. Here's a stinger for moron faux-libertarians -- now we are a more informed market! I am not going to go there any more to put pressure on the tenant to leave - I have increased my utility based on having more information. Sex trafficking is disgusting and horrible and anyone associated with it should be severely punished.
Surprisingly, I think that we should boycott Downlow AND stop hurling petty (trite) insults at each other as we each go our separate ways to attempt to pay down our ridiculous debts.
Post a Comment
<< Home