Letter to the Washington Tennis Education Foundation

Dear WTEF,

I am writing to share my concerns about the actions of security personnel at the gate of your Citi Open event this week. As a regular Citi Open patron for the past ten years, I have generally received courteous treatment and a warm welcome when presenting my ticket at the gate. Today, however, I met a surprising amount of resistance on my way into the event.

I would like to contrast my experience today with that of last Saturday, when my friend and I attended the first round of qualifying matches at the Citi Open. As we did again today, I cycled to our 3 p.m. appointment at the ticket office via Colorado Ave NW and Kennedy St NW, while he took the bus and walked. Neither of us in possession of a car, and I needing both hands free to steer the bike, we carried backpacks with our sunblock, reading material, and other equipment for activities following the qualifying matches. On that first day of the event, once our tickets were scanned, the security staff waved us right through the gate.

Thinking that the same scenario would play out today, we tried to make our visit an all-afternoon affair, packing this time Frisbee and hacky-sack, picnic lunches, full water bottles, and extra reading material for at least a 4-hour visit starting at 12:30 pm. This time, though, the same backpacks we had worn to the event on August 1 now failed the security inspection, due to language barring multiple compartments and multiple straps.

My friend and I drew the attention of the security staff to this discrepancy in the enforcement of prohibited items, and we eventually got to talk with Mr. Bowers, supervisor of the CES personnel in charge of event security. Mr. Bowers dodged our question about why the policy enforcement had been tightened between the qualifying days and today. He simply pointed to the line on the list of prohibited items clarifying which features of our backpacks made them off-limits, and said we were welcome to take them "back to [our] cars" for the duration of the event. When we insisted that we came by bike or public transit, and it would be inconvenient to return home where the security of our belongings could be guaranteed, he took issue with our "attitude" and threatened to involve the Park Police to effect our removal from the facility.

Mr. Bowers reiterated this appeal to a local law enforcement agency when we inquired as to the authority responsible for drafting the rules on prohibited items, which appeared on a printout with no date, no byline, and no National Parks imprint. The relevant line on this printout, if interpreted literally, would bar the admission of bags with even two compartments ("multiple" = "more than one"), some of which were waved through by the same staff who held back me and my friend. Interestingly, the contents of our bags, if transferred to a single compartment sack, would have passed cleanly through security once the water was poured out of the Nalgene bottles.

To its credit, the ticket office was staffed by a well-meaning gentleman who offered to hold our backpacks for safekeeping. We thanked him for his offer but opted instead to have our ticket purchases refunded, rather than be parted from our supplies of food, hydration, and sun protection for the hottest part of the day.

This episode highlights three areas of miscommunication that I hope you might remedy when choosing a security provider for the 2016 Citi Open and its sequels.

• Policies must be enforced consistently from the start of the tournament to the end. Prejudicial enforcement, as in allowing a woman's purse with separate zippered compartments but not a topologically-identical backpack accompanying a man--when the rule refers only to number of compartments but not overall size--is simple discrimination.
• No assumptions about the mobility preferences of patrons should enter the language of personnel charged with enforcing security policies. If the staff are going to implement policies so as to disadvantage a certain class of patrons, e.g., non-motorists or opponents of single-use bottled water, then the Citi Open might as well make these assumptions and the associated revenue streams explicit, without couching the intended targets of discrimination in subtle language about bag compartments or exclusivity deals with American Summits. Perhaps the intention is to ensure that patrons exhibit more the refined uniformity of Wimbledon guests and less the motley style of vagabonds or walkabouts. If so, Citi Open might just take a page out of the Wimbledon playbook and spell out the dress code, rather than leaving its patrons to read between the lines for acceptable attire.
• Authorship of all rules and regulations should be clearly stated, indicating whether the policy comes from the National Park Service, WTEF itself, or the private security firm contracted by WTEF. Calling upon the Park Police to enforce a private security firm's rule, for example, would extend the former's mandate beyond that envisioned by its congressional charter.

Thank you for hearing my perspective on these matters. I hope to resume my enjoyment of live tennis matches at your facility in the years to come.

Back to Recycle Bin