公司的「回復」，裡面那句「「We mentioned bus riders would not encounter Chinese exchange student on our buses"簡直噁心到爆炸…
學校的公告，點贊。
我很愛我的母校University of Illinois，但同時也承認它近來面臨的一系列政治和資金問題，而缺少資金的結果就是招入了大量的國際學生，但是單從這一條來看並沒有什麼不好。我的男朋友的學校國際學生比例高達66%，也並沒有妨礙他們學校在所有世界排名裡面都在前十。不過資金問題帶來的其他問題，包括文科教授因為沒有funding而大量離校，項目縮減，課程減少等等是真實存在的。
上周我在見一個已經離校的教授的時候，她憂心忡忡的與我說，Krannert Art Museum已經很久沒有亞洲的展覽了，而他們的決定是換上非洲和拉美這些更加「政治正確」的展覽。在課程設置上，我們學校的藝術學院也已經兩年沒有能夠教亞洲藝術的教授，他們曾經有機會招聘一個，但是選擇了非洲和拉美方向的教授。「他們根本不在意學校里大量的亞洲學生群體，不是嗎？」我上周就這兩個問題寫信給了Fine Arts Department的Dean，但是至今沒有收到回信。這裡是他們的郵箱，如果你也想試試：kham@illinois.edu，pmortens@illinois.edu。
總結一下就是，他們家的宣傳裡面寫了「在我們的大巴上，你不會感到你在中國。」而他們的後續「道歉信」，我覺得叫做挑釁書更恰當一些，表達了他們對於UIUC招了大量中國學生的不滿，而其中「slap in the face」，"half the planet」等詞更是極其的挑釁。
我是沒有想到，在Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United Statesd等案子發生後的五十多年後的今天，還會有公司如此明目張胆的違反Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title II, 我就好奇他們是看著這個法條違反的嗎？
Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".
這裡簡單介紹一下Heart of Atlanta Motel這個案子。這個旅館坐落在喬治亞的亞特蘭大城，旅館主人明確表示拒絕黑人入住。當被起訴的時候他辯解說，聯邦法院不能用Civil Rights Act來判這個案子，因為這個Act違反了他行使第一修正案言論自由權利來選擇顧客，並強制要求他來給黑人顧客提供服務。而法院的回答則是，提供酒店住房給旅客是影響「interstate commerce（跨州商業貿易）」的一個部分，所以民權法案完全有管轄權，可以用來約束這種行為。（此處憲法概念有點複雜，就不展開來講了。）
在法律方面，我建議大家可以聯繫UIUC法學院的Federal Civil Rights Clinic（無論是在上這個clinic的學生或者是負責的教授），問問他們願不願意來考慮就這個情況提起訴訟。或者詢問法律方面應該做什麼。同時也可以找UIUC的legal service提交一下表格看看願不願意至少代表中國學生和Illini Shuttle法務做交涉。
總之這件事情真的是很氣，希望不要最後以他們假惺惺的再發個「道歉信」結束。
本文開放轉載，無需署名
另外轉一篇Xuanie學姐寫的英文版
Suburban Express does not know how to properly apologize because it never intended to
Suburban Express, a shuttle bus service that serves the University of Illinois community recently sent out a 「Welcome to December!」 email to its customers with Christmas Break Bus Schedules and a list of bullet pointed details attached, including the following:
「Passengers like you. You won』t feel like you』re in China when you』re on our buses.」
Whether this was intended to be a selling point that Suburban Express will make you feel like you are in America, surrounded by Americans (not to get into the finer points of Suburban Express』s idea of who would belong to the American race) when you are on their buses (because they don』t serve Chinese international students?); or this was intended to be a threat against Chinese international students that riding Suburban Express would be an experience that will constantly remind them that they are unwelcomed in someone else』s country, this line is offensive and threatening. I can understand why this upsets the Chinese student community at the university.
Suburban Express responded with the one page half-assed apology that they 「made the remark based on the fact that [their] competitor mostly handles Chinese international students」, this remark was not intended to be an offensive one, and seemed bemused that the remark was interpreted as 「a slap in the face of all non-Caucasians.」 Well, that was the supposedly 「apologetic」 part of the 「apology」, the rest of the page was filled with the innocent victimized rant that U of I, a state school 「funded by taxpayers」 and 「built on land granted by the people of the State of Illinois」, due to bad management, now has to 「sell [...] to the highest foreign bidder」.
I do not wish to get into the debate whether the university made the right strategic decision to admit more international students, or whether nearly 20% of U of I students are natives Chinese was a good phenomenon. I am just deeply offended by the 「apology」 offered by Suburban.
I have seen apologies staged as a damage-control performance, a demand for forgiveness disguised as an apology, and very rarely, an acknowledgement of the harm done to the harmed party. The Suburban Express』s apology was none of the above: it was a declaration that it has done nothing wrong, the fault was all with the university that has made the campus un-American. I applaud Suburban Express』s courage for defending the American-ness of the university (or should I say, the whiteness?), and their audacity to indicate that they are willing to exclude customers based on their national origin so that 「passengers like you」 could enjoy an authentic American experience to ride a shuttle bus—although it might just be a little bit more American to hitchhike a ride, it is the Midwest, after all.
Suburban Express ended its apology with a snarky remark that 「[i]n any event, [they] did not intend to offend half the planet.」
Well, only 18.3% of the world population are Chinese per Wikipedia. If Suburban Express wished to apologize, they should have done it properly; if it did not intend to and wished to be sarcastic and provoking, get the facts straight.
首先是很多人提到的公司網站上的wall of shame。很多人因為各種原因被這個公司拒絕上車（如，司機提前開走，只有電子票沒有列印版，從下一個站點上車等），聯繫了自己的信用卡公司取消了付款。他就會把這些人的姓名，電話，郵箱，甚至家庭住址公布在網站上，作為對 」不遵守他的規則做事的人」 的懲罰和警示。 除了這個頁面，在他們的網站上還有一個分欄叫Just for Fun。在這個分欄里有南方公園諷刺yelp測評用戶的片段，還有幫助朋友逃票的高中生乘客的視頻。網頁上公布了該乘客的姓名，高中，甚至是學校棒球隊成員的信息，還寫了 一句，「先看看這個小混蛋的視頻」。
在他的個人網站Dennis Toeppen"s Home Page上，他得意地公布了自己賣域名的收入，表示了這是一個成功的投資。就算被人告，除去律師費和賠償金，截至2013年自己的收益還是有將近80萬美金。如果當年他沒有被迫撤回那120封傳票，是不是也會在網站上公布炫耀說除去律師費，自己告學生的收益還是有2萬美金哦？
Christmas is approaching. Please buy tickets from our company so that one of our competitors will go bankrupt.
We guarantee the following things:
All passengers will not have the same experience as on Super Depress.
We will not sue you.
We will not send out 「Apology」 to you.
(There is no misspellings in the title because it is not an "apology", as we promised to you before.)
BankruptExpress sent a bullshit advertisement.
However, we don"t mean to insult anyone. We have to admit that we have different opinions on the way Super Depress is run. We believe a good company should serve everyone in need, regardless of race and national origin.
Unfortunately, one company has poor management since almost twenty years ago, which has led to a notorious solution: attract passengers and sue them to get the fines. 209 lawsuits were made between 1994 and 2013, according to wikipedia. Some of the defendants are U of I students. The high fines have added a heavy financial burden on the students.
We support a beneficial competition among companies. But we are extremely angry and disappointed to see the practice of targeting a specific country or company in the advertisement.
Under any condition, we did not plan to offend the regional company, but we did plan to warn the maker of any offensive advertisement.
Insincerely,
BankruptExpress
更新一下，這個公司是真的噁心。我先把抖機靈放在後面了。給大家看一下前無古人後無來者的：The page of Shame。。。（把一些乘客的信息發到網上，信息詳細度囊括全名，私人地址、手機和郵箱）
1、向伊利諾伊州人權部（Illinois Department of Human Rights）投訴。
《伊利諾伊州人權法》（Illinois Human Rights Act）規定，
「It is a civil rights violation for any person on the basis of unlawful discrimination to *** (B) *** Directly or indirectly, as the operator of a place of public accommodation, publish, circulate, display or mail any written communication *** which the operator knows is to the effect *** that any person is unwelcome, objectionable or unacceptable because of unlawful discrimination; ***」
首先，伊利諾伊州憲法和聯邦憲法都保障了人們獲得法律的平等保護（equal protection）的權利。Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 2; U.S. Const., amend. XIV. 平等，就是法律面前人人平等；一般情況下，個人既不會遭到歧視，也不會受到特殊優待。
「平等保護」這一法律理念在美國建國之初就存在了，但是真正深入人心還是在上個世紀五六十年代的民權運動之後。民權運動的鬥爭目標之一是廢除當時的「隔離而平等」的種族隔離制度。這一制度是由聯邦最高法院1896年普萊西訴弗格森案確立的。Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896). 章節附註四。
「隔離而平等」根本不是平等。1954年聯邦最高法院在布朗訴托皮卡教育局案中糾正了半個多世紀前的種族隔離制度，將平等保護的憲法原則實實在在的貫徹了下去。Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). 章節附註五。
民權運動（章節附註六）所推進的一個重要立法成果就是《1964年民權法案》（Civil Rights Act of 1964）。該法案的Section 201正是Suburban Express公司違反的聯邦法條，該條現在在《聯邦法典》里的引注（citation）為42 U.S.C. § 2000a。
該條的第一部分，
All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
《伊利諾伊州人權法》（Illinois Human Rights Act）5-102條則通過規定違反平等保護的行為來保護伊利諾伊州居民的平等保護原則的權利。
It is a civil rights violation for any person on the basis of unlawful discrimination to:
(A) *** Deny or refuse to another the full and equal enjoyment of the facilities, goods, and services of any public place of accommodation; (B) *** Directly or indirectly, as the operator of a place of public accommodation, publish, circulate, display or mail any written communication, except a private communication sent in response to a specific inquiry, which the operator knows is to the effect that any of the facilities of the place of public accommodation will be denied to any person or that any person is unwelcome, objectionable or unacceptable because of unlawful discrimination; ***75 ILCS 5/5-102.
兩者在place of public accommodation的反歧視的規定是基本一致的。但兩者對place of public accommodation的定義略有不同。伊利諾伊州的定義較為廣闊一些。這也是郭律師選擇首先向伊利諾伊州機關投訴的原因。
如果華人團體在聯邦法院提起訴訟的話，主要的依據就是《伊利諾伊州人權法》5-102條（B）款。75 ILCS 5/5-102(B). 這一案件將會是一個沒有直接判例法的新問題。相類似案例，除了陳諾同學援引的Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. U.S., 379 U.S. 241 (1964) 外，郭律師查到一個1984年聯邦最高法院的相似判例，Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984)。Roberts案填補了Heart of Atlanta Motel 案在第一修正案問題上的空白。
121 N LaSalle StChicago City Hall 4th FloorChicago, IL 60602CC: Anna M. ValenciaOffice of City Clerk121 N LaSalle StChicago City Hall Room 107Chicago, IL 60602CC: Commissioner Ginger S. EvansChicago Department of Aviation10510 W Zemke RdChicago, IL 60666December 6, 2017PETITION TO SUSPENDOR BAN SUBURBAN EXPRESS INCFROM O』HARE ANDMIDWAY AIRPORTSDear Mayor Rahm Emanuel,We are writing to ask the Great City of Chicago to ban Suburban Express Inc. (hereinafter the SEI) from O』Hare and Midway International Airports, and/or suspend the privilege of SEI to pick up passengers from these airports.On or around 11:30 am, Saturday, December 2, 2017, the SEI sent a promotion email via 「promotions@net66.net」 to subscribers of the email list, titled Christmas Break Schedule (hereinafter the Email). In the Email, the SEI uttered, 「Passengers like you. You won』t feel like you』re in China when you』re on our bus.」 This sentence bears discriminatory intent and exclusion of China messages against Chinese nationals and Chinese American. The general public was outraged by this racially offensive email.In response to the public outrage, on or around 1:58 pm, the same day, the SEI sent a so-called apology email via 「promotions@net66.net」 (hereinafter the So-Called Apology Email). In the Apology Email, the SEI libeled U of I that its mismanagement resulted in admission of large number of international students. The SEI wrote, 「[n]early 20% of U of I students are natives of China, and this high percentage of nonnative english[sic] speakers places a variety of burdens on domestic students.」 This So-Called Apology Email has no intention to apology for the discriminatory assertion they made earlier whatsoever. Moreover, the Respondent slandered in the quoted sentence that foreign students are burdenson domestic students. There is no truth in the So-Called Apology Email, and it further emitted discriminatory intent and exclusion of China messages.In response to those discriminatory messages, University of Illinois at Urban-Champaign has issued a statement to condemn SEI, and revoked their privilege to pick up passengers on the university property.[1]Those emails are not only morally wrong, but are also in violation of Section 5-102(B) of Illinois Human Rights Act, which reads,「It is a civil rights violation for any person on the basis of unlawful discrimination to *** (B) *** Directly or indirectly, as the operator of a place of public accommodation, publish, circulate, display or mail any written communication *** which the operator knows is to the effect *** that any person is unwelcome, objectionable or unacceptable because of unlawful discrimination.」775 ILCS 5/5-102(B).Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan』s Office announced on Monday, December 4, 2017, that it had launched civil rights investigation against SEI.[2] Chicago City Counsel Alderman Ameya Pawar 「wants the Aviation Committee to hold hearings on the incident that could culminate in Suburban Express being evicted from O』Hare.」[3] We stand with Alderman Pawar, and ask this great city to condemn these racist behaviors of SEI.The City of Chicago is a great harbor of diversity, where people of different color, race and national origins live and work together in pursuit of happiness and American dreams, where narrow-minded racism is notorious and discouraged, where minorities and majorities breath in the same air of freedom hand-in-hand as equals. The behavior of SEI is the opposite of the ideals that the Great City of Chicago stands on.We ask for investigations of such discriminatory behavior and pray the City of Chicago ban SEI from O』Hare and Midway International Airports, or at least suspend the privilege of SEI to pick up passengers from these airports during the investigation conducted by Illinois Attorney General.Signatures from communities, societies and the general public in support of this petition thereof,Chuck Guo[1] Website: https://studentaffairs.illinois.edu/statement-suburbanexpress; Date of visit: Dec. 6, 2017.[2] Website: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-met-university-of-illinois-bus-company-ad-pawar-20171204-story.html; Date of visit: Dec. 6, 2017.[3] Website: https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/suburban-express-controversial-ad-chinese-students-u-of-i-city-council-hearings/; Date of visit: Dec. 6, 2017.
In a statement provided to The Daily Illini on April 24, Suburban Express wrote: 「We carried about 100,000 passengers in the past year. Imagine what would happen on a day when we』re running 75 buses (as we did on three occasions this academic year) if 5% of the students decide to ride the wrong bus, ask for a bus to wait for them, claim they bought a ticket but forgot to BRING it, or in general ask for special treatment. Imagine the effect that all of this would have on the other 95%. It would be chaos.」
乘客選擇乘坐錯誤時間的車
乘客沒有攜帶紙質票據
乘客要求特殊服務
無一例外是一些無厘頭的起訴理由。根據 @曉漁 的回答，這其中也有不少空穴來風。
Suburban Express lawsuits reach 125 this year; conversation continues on Reddit
這是Suburban Express官網上一個叫"Page of shame"的頁面，專門用來列出和這家大巴公司有過矛盾的人的名字，住址和郵箱。關於此頁面，The Daily Illini曾在今年10月給出過報道（鏈接：Students on the Suburban Express 『Page of Shame』 speak out），而這篇報道的作者Olivia Welshans……很快就出現在了這份名單上。
Civil Right Act of 1964 和 Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964)都在聯邦的層面上禁止了以宗教，膚色，性別和祖籍國歧視並拒絕服務。多個答案已經詳細的解釋了這些法條，我就不闡述了。
先看這個，重點關注！！
伊利諾斯州的人權部門（Illinois Department of Human Right）的網站設立了投訴機制。下面是鏈接https://www.illinois.gov/dhr/FilingaCharge/Pages/default.aspx。 所以請各位有證據被該公司歧視的朋友前往該網站投訴（例如email副本的）。注意一定要在事發180天內向該部門投訴。
In Illinois Human Right Act, Article 5 stated, "It is a civil right violation for any person on the basis of unlawful discrimination to 1) Enjoyment of the facility, good, or service; 2) WRITTEN COMMUNICATION: As the operator of the place of public accommodation publish, circulate, display or mail any written communication which the operator knows is to the effect that any facility of the place of public accommodation will be denied to any person, or that person is unwelcome, objectionable, or unacceptable because of unlawful discrimination." In short, any entity include as "Place of Public Accommodation" violate the law if its operator discriminate, indicate by denial of service or sending unwelcome message, to any group base on region, ethnicity, color and so on. It is crystal clear that Suburban Express is deliberately sending unwelcome message to Chinese and any other individuals whose native country is China. However, in order to demonstrate Suburban Express violate the law, the company must be included as "Place of Public Accommodation" under the law. The law defined "a terminal, depot or other station used for specific public transportation" and "travel service" is part of public accommodation. Clearly, Suburban Express which provide public transport service is classify as Place of Public Accommodation under Article 5.
