Joan Ball is a business professor at St. John’s University in New York and the author of Flirting with Faith: My Spiritual Journey from Atheism to a Faith-Filled Life.
Apparently, in Philadelphia, a big scandal has brewed over a local day camp that contracted with a private club to use their pool facilities. After some members complained (and allegedly were heard uttering racist remarks in terrible fear of seven-year-old children) the club refunded the camp’s money and asked them not to return, with the president of the club saying, in a statement, “There was concern that a lot of kids would change the complexion … and the atmosphere of the club.”
Lousy behavior on the part of the Valley Swim Club, there’s no question about it. Hideously poor choice of words too. And it’s hard to come up with a scenario in which the decision wasn’t racially motivated, despite the club’s disclaimers (which ought, by the way, to say “overestimated,” not “underestimated,” but that’s just the editor in me). These people really owe the kids a BIG TIME apology. And I’m saddened and sickened that this kind of racial prejudice is still alive and well in our nation. When I saw those kids crying on CNN today, I just wanted to reach out and give them a hug.
But I also wondered, Were these swim club jerks ethically obliged to host the day campers? They gave the camp’s money back, after all. Their actions left the kids in the lurch, which stinks, but I don’t know if it’s contractually illegal. So, do they have the right to decide whose money they’ll accept, and whose they won’t? (After the fact, or from the get-go?)
This story brought to my mind the question of exclusive clubs in general, and whether their membership policies are equitable, or need continuing scrutiny.
The Valley Swim Club advertised open membership, according to what I’ve read, so it seems like an open-and-shut case–you can’t refuse anyone who has the money to pay for your facilities. But what about all those centuries of “Old-Boys’” clubs where women and minorities couldn’t get in the door? I mean, when Tiger Woods was first learning to play golf, he was frequently harassed because of his race, and many private golf clubs did not even allow black people to set foot on their grounds (except perhaps as caddies), let alone participate in championships. Since a great deal of the necessary networking both in business and in politics has historically gone on behind the closed doors of private clubs and societies like these, minorities and women couldn’t get ahead.
Despite great leaps in progress in these areas, (and the lawsuits that spurred them) it seems people continue to feel a natural (?) desire to form exclusive cliques; to shut some out for the sake of others.
In fact, in her quest for Supreme Court nomination, Sonia Sotomayor has recently been forced to give up membership in a powerful elite women’s-only group known as the Belizean Grove, which she had joined a year previously and which allowed her access to other high-ranking and influential women.
Some might argue these clubs and societies exist to better one group, not to harm another (the idea of a mentoring society to help women in business strengthen relationships sounds GREAT to me) but when it prevents any other group or individual from getting ahead due to gender or race, I get nervous. I guess Sotomayor’s critics felt the same, and in order to avoid the whiff of discrimination, she bowed to pressure.
Do you think there’s a place for clubs segregated by sex, race, or social status?
posted July 10, 2009 at 3:55 pm
The whole point of an exclusive club is to be exclusively with people similar to you. To that end, I think it’s fine. If it’s not actually hurting anyone else, then what of it? If one club doesn’t let you BECAUSE you’re black another one does only because you are, etc. While that wasn’t always the case, and these kind of clubs only existed for the rich, white, Christian, male, that is just not true now. You don’t want to join a club that has parameters that exclude people and that kind of club doesn’t want you. I see the problem here exactly as you say in the beginning. In this case people were hurt, and not people who could defend themselves properly. CHILDREN. The club had every right to say no, but they should have done it before the fact and without any explanation. Once they said yes, I think it was an ethical violation to take it back and take it back the way they did.
posted July 10, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Emmabliss: I think it was Groucho Marx who said “I wouldn’t join any club that would have me as a member.” Ha! However, forgive me if this seems harsh, but I think you may be kidding yourself if you think it’s only children who can be victimized by exclusivity. Whether it’s Sotomayor having access to influential women in a setting where men can’t have equal access to those same women, or rich white Christian men smoking cigars at a country club, I’m pretty sure exclusivity is still alive and well. It may not be as prevalent as once it was, but I think it’s scary when we have ‘women only’ or ‘men only’ clubs (or white only, hispanic only, etc.) In theory, perhaps these ‘exclusive clubs’ aren’t a problem, but in practice, I think they continue to foster inequity, mistrust, fear and segregation. Just my opinion.
posted July 10, 2009 at 5:34 pm
As a preface to my comment, let me disclose that I am white, was raised christian, and now that I’m 40 years old, I also happen to be rather wealthy. I also belong to some clubs – not the cigar-smoking elitist clubs that I could join if I wanted, I suppose, but special interest groups mostly related to my field of work and a few athletic interests. I agree with Emmabliss’s statement that exclusive clubs no longer pertain to only people [like me]. There are a lot of good things that come from people with similarities bonding together to either have fun or to improve their lives. But, while I think it should be perfectly legal, I also think that in many cases, the motivation behind the exclusion is highly unethical.
The clubs I belong to exclude, for example, people who don’t work in my profession, or people who don’t race road bikes. I think that’s fine. We’re exclusive in that sense. But, we will allow people of any gender, any race, any religeon, any sexual orientation, to join and partake. If we didn’t, I suppose it would still be legal, but I would never join. As for Valley Swim Club, they should be ashamed of themselves.
As a wealthy, white, 40-yo male, who lives not too far away from VSC, I might just go become a member just so that I can p*** in their pool!!
posted July 10, 2009 at 6:07 pm
This is long, be warned. LOL Hillary, I do actually agree with your point about the exclusivity of some clubs fostering an atmosphere of inequality. And, I do love that Marx quote. I suppose when I think of exclusive clubs I think of the ones I know best. And, while many of them had a history of segregation (race, religion, etc.), many of them have to tried embrace and reflect the changes in society. Some of the “top-tier” university clubs only had rich white Christian male members for many years because the schools only had rich white Christian male students. And the all-boys clubs–at least the ones I know–do have members of all cultural backgrounds (although I admit that’s only started happening in the last 20 years). The thing is, that by judging the club, one is also by default judging those who choose to be members, and I’m not entirely sure that’s fair. That is, I happen to know people who belong to a lot of the clubs where I live and none are as disgusting as the members of the club in the story referenced. Of course, I can hardly speak for the other members, so I am probably not well-enough informed. For me, I grew up in a culture wherein club membership was not only acceptable but expected. I have met some of the most wonderful people I know through memberships my family had as a child. I don’t think I’m kidding myself. I didn’t mean to imply that ONLY children can be victimized, more that adults can take a stand and fight back (if that’s what they choose) in a way that our children cannot. I didn’t say exclusivity wasn’t alive and well, but I think that maybe the driving force behind it has changed somewhat. I hold to my view that there is nothing unethical about wanting to be with those who share similar views and interests, and that doesn’t have to preclude other activities with other people who have different interests. I do, though, now agree that the practice can foster inequality. If the article didn’t help me to see that (all it did was make me angry), than you have helped me to see that. Thanks!
posted July 12, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Legally, the day camp could have sued for breach of contract, but could only have collected the amount they paid as damages, so okay, this wasn’t “illegal”, strictly speaking. But the day camp would certainly be within their rights to picket outside the swim club gate with signs that say “This club reserves the right to throw you out and refund your money if they don’t think you’re good enough for them.” Which although both true and legal, is probably not the kind of reputation the club wants.