The future of private clubs.....
Jul. 16th, 2009 01:47 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
poltr1By now, many of you have heard about that swim club in/near Philadelphia, PA that initially accepted, and then refused, children from a local day camp because they were black. While the pool has invited them back, the day camp has declined to take them up on their offer. I've also heard talk of a potential lawsuit.
What concerns me is that the swim club is a private club, and few of the news outlets have mentioned that fact. While I personally wouldn't be a member of such a club, I think they have the right to determine their membership criteria as they see fit. And personally, I hope the club votes to change their membership criteria, although the attitude I 've seen conveyed by club members via the media makes me think this won't happen.
I'm gonna put on my 'Devil's Advocate' hat for this one. (I really need to get one made, complete with little horns.)
This issue is not new, and the swim club is only the tip of the iceberg. There are many golf clubs, mostly in the South, that are exclusively white and exclusively male. The golf club that runs the annual Masters golf tournament didn't accept blacks. That is, until Tiger Woods came onto the scene and broke that barrier. But the club still doesn't admit women. That may change, but it should be when the club votes to change, rather than have it forced on them by legislation.
I am also a past and/or present member of other private organizations that could theoretically, in the future, be ordered to accept people outside of their current scope of membership.
The first is the Boy Scouts of America. While I personally detest that they disallow atheists, gays, and pagans from participating -- and that is the reason I have chosen to not be an adult leader for a troop -- I would prefer that the organization change its policies on its own volition, rather than a court order.
The second is my college fraternity. In my chapter, we had quite a melting pot -- brothers from Korea, Ecuador, and Haiti, to name a few. But it's a single-sex organization. I'm scared that one day, women will not be satisfied with sororities and try to join my organization.
The third is the Mankind Project. While it is a progressive mens' organization and allows men of any faith, race, sexual orientation, and sexual identity (hey, we've initiated transgendered men), it is still classified as a single-sex organization.
This is why I don't want to see legislation forcing private organizations to change their membership criteria, and would rather see the criteria changed as a result of a vote of the membership.
What concerns me is that the swim club is a private club, and few of the news outlets have mentioned that fact. While I personally wouldn't be a member of such a club, I think they have the right to determine their membership criteria as they see fit. And personally, I hope the club votes to change their membership criteria, although the attitude I 've seen conveyed by club members via the media makes me think this won't happen.
I'm gonna put on my 'Devil's Advocate' hat for this one. (I really need to get one made, complete with little horns.)
This issue is not new, and the swim club is only the tip of the iceberg. There are many golf clubs, mostly in the South, that are exclusively white and exclusively male. The golf club that runs the annual Masters golf tournament didn't accept blacks. That is, until Tiger Woods came onto the scene and broke that barrier. But the club still doesn't admit women. That may change, but it should be when the club votes to change, rather than have it forced on them by legislation.
I am also a past and/or present member of other private organizations that could theoretically, in the future, be ordered to accept people outside of their current scope of membership.
The first is the Boy Scouts of America. While I personally detest that they disallow atheists, gays, and pagans from participating -- and that is the reason I have chosen to not be an adult leader for a troop -- I would prefer that the organization change its policies on its own volition, rather than a court order.
The second is my college fraternity. In my chapter, we had quite a melting pot -- brothers from Korea, Ecuador, and Haiti, to name a few. But it's a single-sex organization. I'm scared that one day, women will not be satisfied with sororities and try to join my organization.
The third is the Mankind Project. While it is a progressive mens' organization and allows men of any faith, race, sexual orientation, and sexual identity (hey, we've initiated transgendered men), it is still classified as a single-sex organization.
This is why I don't want to see legislation forcing private organizations to change their membership criteria, and would rather see the criteria changed as a result of a vote of the membership.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-07-16 06:39 am (UTC)1. Organizations that receive any public assistance or public funding via tax dollars must be open to all.
2. Often, business deals get transacted in settings like private clubs, golf courses, etc. Excluding people from those settings on the basis of membership in a suspect class thus excludes them from economic opportunity via discrimination.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-16 10:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-16 10:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-17 01:43 am (UTC)Anyway, I would think you'd be at least concerned that some men -- not me in particular -- could push to join a women-only group.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-16 12:44 pm (UTC)I believe that unless there's an overriding reason, discrimination -- even in private organizations -- on the basis of an irrelevant quality ought to be illegal. (So, for example, Mensa has every right to require that prospective members demonstrate high IQ, but if their test is demonstrably discriminating against, say, Hispanics, there's a problem. Likewise, a fraternity is by definition male-only, but if it were to exclude men of color, there would be cause to question its standards.)
But hey, I'm an egalitarian and unrequited DFH. My opinion only counts 3/5 as much as a right-wing pickup-drivin' gun-totin' sheet wearin' True Amurrican.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-16 01:53 pm (UTC)First of all, the Boy Scouts have been hauled up on this one. They accept money from Catholic Charities, therefore they cannot discriminate.
Secondly, you're assuming that local troops blindly follow national policy without question. The NATIONAL level forbids atheists, gays, pagans, etc. The LOCAL level says "its for all kids" and ignores the national level. Please do volunteer with a local troop, it's worth the effort.
-- Dagonell