It was one of the most contentious boycotts in recent years. The NAACP sued the Adam’s Mark hotel chain, charging that it had discriminated against African-Americans attending the 1999 annual Black College Reunion in Daytona Beach, Fla.

When the civil rights group launched a national boycott against the hotel chain, Adam’s Mark sued the NAACP, saying the company was being defamed and the NAACP was interfering with its business affairs. A judge dismissed the company’s motion for an injunction against the NAACP.

NAACP President Kweisi Mufume applauded the judge’s decision and pledged to boycott the 21-hotel chain “until it seeks to end all discriminatory treatment that may exist against its guests or employees, and until it publicly apologizes for the treatment of black guests at its Daytona Beach hotel.”

Five people also filed a class-action lawsuit, asserting that they were required to prepay the entire weekend and leave a $100 damage deposit before checking in; Blacks were directed to park in a remote lot a quarter of a mile away; African-Americans were not allowed to unload their baggage in the driveway; they were rented only basic rooms and African-American guests were required to wear wrist bands.

Significantly, the United States and Florida attorney generals decided to join the fray, siding with the NAACP.

Attorney General Janet Reno said at the time, “This kind of behavior is simply unacceptable. It is hard to believe that 35 years after the Civil Rights Act was passed by Congress, this type of discrimination still exists.”

Under pressure from the Clinton administration—and with no federal judge willing to support its position—the HBC Corporation, doing business as Adam’s Mark Hotels, reached a settlement with the Justice Department and the state of Florida. The agreement, signed two years ago, is scheduled to run through November 2004.

Although it never admitted to any wrongdoing—no wrongdoer does anymore—Adam’s Mark agreed to treat all of its guests equally. It agreed to not assign guests to rooms based on their race, to not increase security for one group event but not another, to stop requiring that certain guests wear wristbands or submit to extra security checks based on their race or the event.

The hotel agreed train its staff and top management, to advertise with Black media and to post anti-discrimination signs in prominent places on hotel property.

Now, the John Ashcroft Justice Department wants to say never mind.

In what is believed to be an unprecedented move, the civil rights division of the Justice Department has stated that it might consider letting Adam’s Mark out of its agreement early.

Ralph F. Boyd Jr., the conservative African-American whom Ashcroft appointed to the civil rights post, says that he is acting on his own. “The attorney general and his office have had no involvement in the case at all, either directly or indirectly,” Boyd said in a statement. “The decision at issue made by me in this case, which was to take no action, but only to monitor the situation for compliance with a consent decree, was my decision, and mine alone.”

Give me a break. No one needed to tell Boyd what to do to make Ashcroft happy. After all, Fred S. Kummer Jr., the CEO of Adam’s Mark parent company, has made no secret of his relationship with the attorney general. He contributed to Ashcroft’s failed senate campaign in Missouri; as governor, Ashcroft appointed Kummer to the University of Missouri Board of Curators and they were close enough friends that Kummer attended the wedding of Ashcroft’s daughter. That’s why he had no problem arranging a meeting last fall with Boyd.

Regardless of who made the decision, it is odorous.

It’s bad enough when companies discriminate against a person based on race, it’s somewhat of a victory when those wrongdoers agree to settle out-of-court and mend their ways, and it is unconscionable that the Justice Department is even considering cutting short the department’s agreement with Adam’s Mark.

Supposedly, Boyd is considering the move because he has been impressed by the progress Adam’s Mark has made since signing the consent decree. Still, that’s not a reason to break with department precedent and reward an offending company for doing what it should have been doing all along.