Cheesesteak Shop Owner Defends Policy

[TJ Phaserman 2]

PHILADELPHIA (Dec. 15) - A small sign that initiated an English-only ordering policy at a famous cheesesteak shop was likened to signs of the Jim Crow era during a public hearing over whether the policy was discriminatory. The shop's owner said the posting was never meant to be offensive. Joe Vento, the owner of Geno's Steaks, defended his policy before the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations, which filed the discrimination complaint.

 

"This country is a melting pot, but what makes it work is the English language," Vento told the commission during a hearing that lasted more than six hours Friday. "I'm not stupid. I would never put a sign out to hurt my business."

 

In October 2005, Vento posted two small signs at his shop in a diverse South Philadelphia neighborhood, telling customers, "This is AMERICA: WHEN ORDERING 'PLEASE SPEAK ENGLISH."' He testified that he posted the sign because of concerns over the debate on immigration reform and the increasing number of people from the area could not order in English.

 

Camille Charles, a sociology professor at the University of Pennsylvania, said Vento's signs harken back to the Jim Crow era when "Whites Only" postings were prevalent. She cited huge growth in the foreign born, Asian and Latino population in the area surrounding Geno's from 1980 to 2007.

 

"The signs give a feeling of being unwelcome and being excluded," Charles said.

 

After extensive publicity over the sign in June 2006, the commission began investigating whether Vento was violating the city's Fair Practices Ordinance. That law prohibits discrimination in employment, public accommodation and housing on the basis of race, ethnicity or sexual orientation.

 

In February, the commission found probable cause against Geno's Steaks for discrimination, alleging that the policy discourages customers of certain backgrounds from eating there.

 

Vento arrived at the hearing carrying a bouquet of red and white roses. He met some resistance outside the meeting hall, with some protesters carrying signs reading "No Hate in Our Town."

 

About 100 people were in attendance when the meeting started, but only a few dozen were left when testimony concluded shortly before 8 p.m.

 

Before the testimony started, Vento's lawyers called for the case to be dismissed, citing the lack of prior notification about the commission's witnesses and the lack of a complaining party. But the three-member panel said the hearing operated under a different rules than a criminal trial.

 

Vento's attorneys also called for the case to be dismissed because, they said, the commission's chairman signed a complaint against Geno's which was later altered without his knowledge.

 

Vento was his usual gregarious self when he testified, waving his arms as he told of starting his steak shop in 1966 with just $6 and developing it into a multimillion-dollar business. He turned serious when speaking about the signs, saying the reason he posted them was twofold: He was making a political statement, but also wanted to keep the line in his fast-paced business moving.

 

"The case should, without question, be dismissed," Vento attorney, Shannon L. Goessling, said in her closing statement. "There is a legitimate business purpose for this sign."

 

Paul M. Hummer, an attorney for the commission, said in his closing argument that the sign is not about political speech. He said the sign was about "intimidation" and that it suggested business from certain individuals was not wanted.

 

That sentiment was echoed by commission witnesses during the hearing.

 

Ricardo Diaz, a Latino community advocate, called Vento's sign and its display of an American flag and eagle a "mingling of messages."

 

"I definitely felt it was targeted at us," Diaz testified. "I cannot go order there in good conscience."

 

The hearing was held at the Arch Street Meeting House, which was given to the Philadelphia Quakers by William Penn in 1693. The building is billed as a symbol of "tolerance, equality and peace."

 

The three-member panel said no ruling was expected for at least two months.

[GhostofMajorHayes 10]

Interesting story. Thanks for posting it. I have to agree with the shop owner here. He should be able to 1) make his lines more efficient especially during high volume days 2) make it easier to fill orders thus not having mix ups due to not fully understanding a foreign language and 3) be allowed to run his business free of bureaucratic intimidation, provided he is not segregating his restaurant into a "whites only" area and an area for "non whites". I don't think he has done that here, therefore the "Jim Crow" argument doesn't apply.

 

 

 

I want anyone reading this to understand that I am not a racist. I am an American. I personally believe that our combined history and common language unite us as a nation. When my ancestors came to this nation, some of them did not speak English. They learned to speak it. I do not believe,imo that we as a nation should accomodate people that are unwilling to learn our language. I do believe that new immigrants and resident aliens should learn to speak English and in many major cities there are community programs(many are free) that offer such programs. The non-English speaking segment of American society is no better than the immigrants that came here before. If they plan on living here they should plan on learning to speak English, the oportunities are their for them to learn free of charge. Besides, learning to speak another language(especially the one spoken in your new country) only enhances your chances of securing better employment.It would only benefit a person. Besides, although i speak another language fluently,that doesn't mean that other Americans will. It may sound harsh, but it is my opinion.

Edited December 16, 2007 by GhostofMajorHayes

[Kor37 9]

I have no problem with what the shop owner did. If you are going to come to the United States to live, then the very least you can do is learn the language. We should not have to cowtow to illegal aliens who come over here to take our jobs and send all their money back to Mexico.

[He Who Shall Not Be Named 2]

To me it isn't about race or nationality or even language, it is about efficiency. In a major metropolitan city like Philadelphia you could easily have a population that speaks about a hundred languages. Expecting a minimum-wage cashier to be able to speak that many languages is just plain unrealistic.

 

Mmm, cheesesteaks!

[Theunicornhunter 2]

I will go further to say - there shouldn't be "free" programs to teach English free of charge to either legal or illegal immigrants - they should pay for their classes.

 

I used to be a literacy volunteer tutor and then they had me work as an ESL(English as a second language) tutor; she was here legally and worked but I could see the mentality that she expected everything for free in this country- a free tutor, free education, free this - free that; because she lived with her parents and was getting pretty much everything free she probably had more discretionary spending money than I did - who was working for free to teach her English. I also felt like she expected me to do all the work - she wouldn't practice on her own during the week. That is one thing - if you're paying for something you put more of yourself into it.

 

If I go back to tutoring it will be for basic literacy - not ESL. If people are willing to volunteer their time - that's their choice but I feel the students would take it more seriously if they paid for it. Now, if an employer wants to hire non-Citizens then they should pay for the English classes.

 

I suspect the shop owner will lose although I agree with everything he said. American citizens should not have to pay more to operate their businesses so they can provide services in other languages.

[youbroughtheryouRiker 2]

HayesGhost...no argument from me. I agree completely

[Charface 0]

I'll order in English, but they had better be able to add some jalapeños to my cheesesteak!

[mj 7]

Well, certainly it is not in any way equivalent to Jim Crow, and it is not hateful.

[GhostofMajorHayes 10]

HayesGhost...no argument from me. I agree completely

 

 

 

Great minds think alike :lol:

[trekz 7]

"This country is a melting pot, but what makes it work is the English language," Vento told the commission during a hearing that lasted more than six hours Friday. "I'm not stupid. I would never put a sign out to hurt my business."

 

In October 2005, Vento posted two small signs at his shop in a diverse South Philadelphia neighborhood, telling customers, "This is AMERICA: WHEN ORDERING 'PLEASE SPEAK ENGLISH."' He testified that he posted the sign because of concerns over the debate on immigration reform and the increasing number of people from the area could not order in English.

 

END ARTICLE QUOTES --------

I suspect I am in the minority here in not liking this signage, but I think tolerance and understanding are important in living in a melting pot country like the US. I disagree with the statement made by Vento that he would not put a sign out to hurt his business, because I suspect this sign keeps some people out of his store. Some of his regular customers may agree with him, but will he attract lots of new customers if an "increasing number of people" from THAT area could not order in English?

 

If I had been writing the sign, it would have read thus: "WHEN ORDERING, PLEASE SPEAK ENGLISH TO HELP KEEP OUR LINES MOVING. WE VALUE ALL OUR CUSTOMERS AND WANT TO SERVE YOU ALL EFFICIENTLY. THANK YOU!

 

You are telling the customer WHY it is helpful to speak English, while assuring them they are of VALUE to you. You say Please AND Thank You. I understand his sign was a political statement, but it's wording imo is intolerant and unfriendly to some customers, and that does seem potentially to indicate some discrimination.

Edited December 22, 2007 by reindeertrekzonnewsnow

[youbroughtheryouRiker 2]

Valid point... the only snag with that though is what are the odds that a non-English speaking customer would understand all of that? I agree that it wouldn't have hurt to be more diplomatic, but I do think that it really wouldn't have helped either... and no I wouldn't make a bilingual sign explaining the why and wherefore; that would be antithetical.

[He Who Shall Not Be Named 2]

Actually I think his wording was the best possible. Those who don't read English wouldn't be offended by it since they don't know what it means. Those who can read it are probably saying "Right on!" and might even give him repeat business as a result.

Edited December 22, 2007 by Lt. Van Roy