<p>“Like most kindergarten-age and elementary-age children walk around with self-confidence when someone says derogatory comments against them.”</p>
<p>I am not defending racism in any way. However, I do not know what was really said that day or if the kids were “informed” of those comments by adults and encouraged to feel “victimized” by the comments. I think that adults do a great service for kids when they teach them to deal with derogatory comments effectively (mostly by ignoring). No one gets to adulthood without hearing derogatory comments, and going around suing people for every insult is ridiculous. No positive outcome will result from a lawsuit here, just greater animosity.</p>
<p>“How were the kids supposed to ignore racial and class comments obviously targeted against them? How were the day-care kids supposed to FORGET about that???”</p>
<p>How about this – “OK, kids, I guess that the club made a mistake and we can’t swim here today. Let’s get back to the center so we have time to play outside before lunch. What’s that? Some people wondered about why all of the black kids were here today and made some nasty comments? Well, maybe they don’t see that many beautiful black children here. And maybe some of them hold bad feelings in their hearts against children who look different from them. But, remember what you’ve learned at our center – don’t let these kinds of nasty comments bother you. These people don’t know you. When we get back to the center, we (the adults) will call the club to find out about this mistake, and to let them know that some of you were upset by the comments you heard. Now, on the bus, let’s practice those songs we learned yesterday, so that we can sing them for your parents when they come to pick you up today.”</p>
<p>^^^ claremarie, while such conflict negotiations do work in some situations, the Swim Club chose to refund the day care’s membership money without just cause. Very bad mistake.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Good luck explaining the refund. “Safety concerns” does not lead to kicking out an entire day care. You request the day care to bring fewer children next time on alternate days. That would have been the smarter move.</p>
<p>That’s nice…but the kids won’t forget. In spite of all the nice words and speeches, they have experienced being judged by the color of their skin.</p>
<p>They will always rememeber that experience.</p>
<p>In an era in which we have a black president and Latina woman being considered for the SC, the day camp might be better served by focusing on positive role models for the children rather than reinforcing victimhood. </p>
<p>The fact that this story made the news as it did–doesn’t it show that most Americans ARE horrified by racism/discrimination/ nasty comments made to children? Why not leverage that? </p>
<p>Claremarie in 202 is spot on. Don’t give other people the power.</p>
<p>An anti-discrimination lawsuit under the Public Accomodations statute of the Civil Rights Act never results in money damage. The remedy is injunctive relief. That means the club will be obligated to provide access to all individuals and organizations irrespective of race, gender, national origin,… Any restrictive access policy which impacts one race more than others (such as the camp access policy in this case) will have to be eliminated. There may be some periodic inspections by the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission to verify compliance. Just letting the club make a token gesture towards these kids would not have prevented it from going back to the same practices the next week or setting additional requirements on minority groups such as requiring certain kids to pass a swim test, limiting access to various facilities or restricting access to 6:00AM to 9:00AM on Mondays, under the guise of maintaining safety or the atmosphere. The simple fact that a few bigoted members were able to have such influence over the Board is definitely an indication that current access policies are highly arbitrary. The swim club won’t close but the ‘complexion’ of the pool will definitely change.</p>
<p>The kids will always remember that people with an agenda told them they were rejected because of their skin color.</p>
<p>I was on the ferry this morning. A Jewish day camp got on and I turned to my daughter and said “shoot me now” because I can’t stand kids on the ferry. I’m sure that could have been spun into anti semitism if someone were so inclined, but that wasn’t it. It was cranky and not in the mood, plain and simple.</p>
<p>What “policies,” cellardweller? This case isn’t about policies; it’s about an incident. There were no racially restrictive policies in place at this pool. Indeed, the policy, if there was any policy at all, was to rent out the pool to day camp groups.</p>
<p>Note, from the article, that every member of the pool’s board, except one, voted that the day care group should return. This is the governing body of the pool, and it appears that they don’t agree with what was done by the director. This lawsuit will accomplish nothing, except perhaps bankrupting a pool club to the detriment of the majority of members who have done nothing wrong.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, truly rich country clubs that don’t need the money to rent out their pools to poor kids continue blithely on with whatever policies they like, and nobody is picketing them. Strange world, isn’t it?</p>
<p>Hunt, I thought we went through that before. </p>
<p>1.The swim club will most likely be subject to Title II of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 which prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation based on race. Generally, what is a place of accommodation is defined under state law.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Disparate impact is the standard under which the swim club access polices will be examined. Motive is irrelevant. </p></li>
<li><p>By cancelling facility rental agreements with organizations predominantly composed of minorities, the swim club’s decision had a disparate impact on these minorities. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>As to why the same rules don’t apply to strictly private organizations is because of the First Amendment freedom of association. The ability for private clubs to claim that they are private associations turns on a number of the factors discussed earlier such a selectivity of membership, access by non-members etc…</p>
<p>In this instance, it is likely a settlement will be reached rapidly as the Club does not have the means to fight a lawsuit. The Day campers couldn’t care less about going back to the Club. They have more invitations from other organizations and pools than they have summer days left. They probably won’t get any money either. Most likely the entire Board will have to resign. There will be a public apology. New and fair rules of access will be agreed upon. The club will no longer be a protective enclave for local residents to escape from mingling with minorities.</p>
<p>“Most likely the entire Board will have to resign. There will be a public apology. New and fair rules of access will be agreed upon. The club will no longer be a protective enclave for local residents to escape from mingling with minorities.”</p>
<p>Will “have to” resign? They’ve probably already done so. Who needs that aggravation? What SHOULD happen is that a new board is elected by the members in an emergency meeting – if they can find anyone willing to serve-- and they immediately cease making the club facilities available to any outside groups who are not guests of a member.<br>
And what is surely already happening at similar clubs in Philly and elsewhere is that nervous volunteer board members are inquiring about D&O insurance, and that clubs are re-thinking their policies on renting out their pools to outside groups. At the end of the day, the result will be even fewer options for other groups such as the daycare center to find pool space.</p>
<p>"At the end of the day, the result will be even fewer options for other groups such as the daycare center to find pool space. "</p>
<p>claremarie, many private clubs will become more respectful and sensitive to the needs of its members. However, this case is another example of common sense and following the law. Don’t refund groups hastily without explanation and then announce to the media that the group changes the “atmosphere” and “complexion” of the facility. Poor choice of words and hastily, ill-advised decisions by the management caused the downfall of that private club.</p>
<p>I can see letters going out to the membership at other clubs saying something to the effect of - we can either open the club to outside groups, thus increasing our exposure to lawsuits and liability, or raise your membership dues by X amount. I think many members would cough up the extra money to avoid the hassle.</p>
<p>'Any restrictive access policy which impacts one race more than others (such as the camp access policy in this case) will have to be eliminated."</p>
<p>That’s a ridiculous misstatement of the law. Charging membership fees of $10,000/year unquestionably impacts black families more than white families. I promise you, that’s perfectly legal.</p>
<p>Under the Pennsylvania Human relations Act (State equivalent to the Civil Rights Act):</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So for instance, banning all day camp groups from access would be illegal if the impact was substantially greater on racial minorities (a protected class), who often depend on day camps for access to facilities such as pools. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That would not save the Swim Club from being subject to the PHRA. You need a lot more to exempt a private club from the reach of the Civil Rights Act: How exclusive are the membership criteria, how many sponsors do you need, do they allow non-members on the premises without the presence of a sponsoring member, do they advertise for membership, how many members do they have, do they have by-laws, how often do the members meet, is membership simply a means to control access to certain facilities, etc… Truly private clubs are protected by the freedom of association under the First Amendment. But you have to be legitimate association. Even charging a million dollars for membership would not be sufficient to make the club private if all you needed was money to join.</p>
<p>I understand what disparate impact is. I just don’t see that it has been applied to public accommodation cases. It would seem the standard would be disparate treatment. </p>
<p>A private club is not going to be forced to open its doors to outside groups. They will not have to recruit minorities to have a balance. As long as they don’t turn down membership requests from minorities, they will meet the civil rights act requirements.</p>