Private Pool Club Boots Campers

[Sheherezade]

Private institutions can have whatever rules they want.

I didn't know that. I'd be shocked to find that a private school didn't admit or interview minorities -- but I guess they legally have that choice? I guess that's the "same" as gender specific schools though.

I have a hard time realizing that these things still exist.

[Chrisada]

Not surprised at all. These things happen all the time. They usually just don't make it to the news.

[madeintaiwan]

Angie,
It is my understanding that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 only applies to public institutions and federally funded programs. Private membership clubs are exempted from the civil rights laws in order to keep their rights to privacy and freedom of association. Abigail would know more about this, but that was always my understanding of private "institutions" and their ability to do as they wish.

[Sheherezade]

As with everything in this country, "private" is debatable.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588111858449559.html

(Of course, that's why I love this country. Love to argue....even when not in the debate forum!)

[scarlett09]

This is all over the news here (obviously, because of where I reside).

I saw the first report of this on last night's news. I felt badly for these children who couldn't quite understand why they were being given the cold shoulder by the pool club members. The pool club and the day camp made an agreement in advance, so the pool club should have known what to expect (i.e., number of kids, staff, etc.) when the day campers arrived. And if it were an issue about rules of the pool club being broken, I'm sure that the day camp's staff were informed of the rules in advance.

The things that bothered me were two comments made by the pool club, one unofficial and one official, during the news segment. The unofficial one was that the pool club said they had "had African-American members in the past", which IMO means they don't have any currently and gives an air of "we said this so that we will appear more understanding and not racist". The official comment was that the day camp "would change the complexion and atmosphere of the pool club". Ugh - what an awful choice of words. Seriously, pull out a thesaurus.

The updates on tonight's news included the following:
Gerard College has opened their doors and pool to the children from the day camp.
And Senator Specter has issued a statement, something to the effect of wanting to get to the bottom of what has happened and that discrimination has no place in America. Not sure what he will be able to do, but at least the immediate problem for those day campers has been solved.

[GrayMatterWife]

I suspect a lawsuit is now in the works.

Can't sue the club for discrimination. It's a private club; they're allowed to discriminate. Best they've got is a breach of contract claim, which no attorney would take, because there's no money there, I'd think...

but then, people sue for anything and everything, cause laying or not.

[GrayMatterWife]

And Senator Specter has issued a statement, something to the effect of wanting to get to the bottom of what has happened and that discrimination has no place in America. Not sure what he will be able to do, but at least the immediate problem for those day campers has been solved.

Oh, super. Specter's all over it. He'll probably give a lot of confusing statements, pander ad naseum, then switch teams. hahaha.

[GrayMatterWife]

The nasty lady comment doesn't bother me as much as the comments by the pool workers and the club statement to the press. If it is a club rule, shouldn't that be illegal? I would think they could be prosecuted for discriminating by race.....or is that just my ACLU card talking?

Can't prosecute. Discrimination is not criminal. At most, an infraction of a club rule is a civil breach of contract. ACLU would have no standing to intervene on behalf of anyone, best I can tell. It's a private club. They care about what a state, not private, actor does, and they do First Amendment, not really 14th amendment, work. They would probably be on the side of the President, if the state were to seek to prosecute him on some trumped up criminal charge related to the statement. As despicable as the sentiment, the ALCU supports all forms of free speech.

I get your point, though. The whole think just stinks. It feels like someone should be accountable.

This is horrible. I feel sad for all of those kids who were excited about going swimming! From the way the article reads, it sure does sound like race was the reason and that is inexcusable.

However.....

I can't tell you how many times I have gone to a pool or a park or some other play place as a special treat for my kids and then the day care vans pull up. All of the sudden there are hordes of kids everywhere with (imo) inadequate adult supervision, and the family groups are immediately outnumbered. I have been on both sides of this, since I worked at a very chi-chi center during college, and I felt the same way then. It makes no difference to me what color the kids are.....if they are unsupervised and rude, I don't want to be around them, *especially* when I planned in advance to avoid the crowded weekend times to do something fun with my kids.

Just another perspective, although like I said before, it sure seems from the quotes like race was the issue here, which is abhorrent.

I totally agree. I feel for the kids who were excited to swim and now they don't get to. I think (hope) the club rep used stupid wording, and the race issue isn't the case -- but it may very well be.

To add to Sally's point about the day care / field trip issue, if I were a member of the club and had been sold a particular setting w/my membership (low volume, families, etc.) and then the club allowed a bus full of kids in to bring in some money, I'd be pretty darn ticked off. I can see that being the kind of craziness that you're trying to avoid when you join a club like that. But if race really IS the issue then they all should be ashamed -- especially the members.

[Sheherezade]

Abigail -

No comment on the WSJ article I posted about private clubs still being open to prosecution for discrimination? (It's part of the Sotomayor private club dust up....) It's at the end of page two of posts. Seems like lots of arguments can be made to stop a "private" club from discriminating.

[SuzySunshine]

Wasn't there an issue with this years ago during one of the pro golf tourneys in Georgia?

Augusta and they still don't allow women to play.

I know of a golf club in Kansas City that is still men only as well.

I do agree with Jenn and Lily about being ticked if I was a member of a private club and a bunch kids showed up - its annoying enough when you're at a public playground and no one watches them.

[GrayMatterWife]

Abigail -

No comment on the WSJ article I posted about private clubs still being open to prosecution for discrimination? (It's part of the Sotomayor private club dust up....) It's at the end of page two of posts. Seems like lots of arguments can be made to stop a "private" club from discriminating.

Angie: Sorry--I lost track of the thread. It's been a zoo week!!

My thought: The article's argument rests on the premise that if a club has very open and broad admissions policies, it should be subject to state action to enforce nondiscrimination against federally protected classes. What a collosally dumb idea. It will do the exact opposite of what is intended. Setting aside the questionable legal foundation and that fact that it dismisses the reality that the club remains private (not a state actor), if that argument were adopted, it would simply have the effect of making private clubs even more exclusive. They will simply retract their membership openings--or cease being the club that it intended to be, with its exclusive members leaving and reorganizing under another, small group. You CAN'T legislate a change in morality. We've tried it many times, and it never works. If you want to stop immoral discrimination, you must make membership in a discriminating entity socially undesirable--not by making the entity open to everyone. That won't solve the desire to disciminate. It will only make those who want to discriminate leave, and go somewhere else to discriminate.

When it comes down to it, there's unsufficient state interest in preventing private club discrimination (the legal standard). As long as the Government isn't paying for it and no Constitutionally protected rights aren't being violated, people should be able to congregate with whomever (and exclude whomever) they wish. And, there is no Constitutional right to be admitted to a private club; there's only a Constitutional right to being protected from the State excluding you from a club.

Re: Sotomayor: she overreaches. All the time. In that dull, agenda-focused way people who want to use the Government to accomplish nanny-state goals always overreach (and it goes BOTH sides of the political spectrum, by the way. This is not just a Dems' game!). That's why she is frequently reversed. And the whole this is ironic, anyway. She belongs to at least one discriminatory club (women-only). But no one seems to have a real issue with that, because it is an "OK" kind of discrimination.

People tend to think about discrimination backwards: instead of beginning with the premise that we are free to discriminate with limited exceptions (bearing in mind that not all types of discrimination are undesirable or based on immoral goals!), people often presume instead that we are not allowed to discriminate except for very specific, special exceptions (like only girls in the Girl Scouts). They scream, "But that's discrimination!" without recognizing that this accusation means little, because only state actor and Constitutionally violating discrimination is prohibited.

As the long currently is, private clubs are free to discriminate because there is insufficient state interest to prohibit the discrimination, and it doesn't violate the Constitution. This doesn't mean, however, that immorally reprehensible discrimination should be endorsed. We as individuals and corporately as a society to publicly disapprove of, for example, race-based discrimination by private actors, and subject such actors to moral shaming. That's why it is so important to call people out on participating (even passively, through membership) on stuff like this.

but, I think it is ridiculous to LEGALLY require private clubs not to discriminate against a federally protected class (race/gender/ethinicity, etc.). The only way to do that would be to contrive a state interest to protect. But there's really no such interest. We're not talking "separate but equal" treatment by a state actor here.

Eliminating immoral forms of discrimination through societal pressure will ensure that unacceptable forms of discrimination (race/gender, etc.) are eventually changed, but will not give the Government a long lead of its leash, to start inflicted other forms of "protected class" status upon us. For example, most people have no issue with only girls being admitted to the Girl Scouts. Therefore, there would be no public shaming into changing this practice. However, if the Government usurps the right to control who joins private clubs, it could start legislating against girl-only clubs--regardless of the fact that most people have no moral issue with it.

In short, I trust people to make appropriate social changes much more than I trust the Government.