<p>Pizzagirl, You’ve spent a number of posts defending them for asking a large group of children to leave because of your own insight and knowledge of the pool and neighborhood. I simply wondered if you also wanted to defend the decision to take money from such a large group in the first place knowing that it was very obvious to you as a patron of the pool that the pool couldn’t handle such a large group and should have been obvious to the management after they turned away and refunded a group of only 25. These are both groups who paid to use the facilities.</p>
<p>No, obviously the club mgt didn’t think it through. Why would I defend their decision to allow in a larger number of kids than what is reasonable for the pool size and atmosphere desired?</p>
<p>Update</p>
<p>[Swim</a> club accused of racism to ask kids back | Freep.com | Detroit Free Press](<a href=“http://www.freep.com/article/20090712/NEWS07/90712033/Swim-club-accused-of-racism-to-ask-kids-back]Swim”>http://www.freep.com/article/20090712/NEWS07/90712033/Swim-club-accused-of-racism-to-ask-kids-back)</p>
<p>What these kids desperately need is not just splashing in the shallow end of the pool, but swim lessons. According to the commercial filmed by the USA Swimming, a huge percentage of minority kids never learn to swim. It is very sad that they do not have access to classes to obtain the skill that can potentially save their lives. Unfortunately, more and more pools are getting mothballed due to the economy…</p>
<p>mrsref I can understand your anger at the non paying youth groups, but in this case, the camp paid money. On top of that, as Mrs Weasley pointed out in the article, the club had turned away a group containing 40 less people. So what excuse does the club have now? As I see it, the club screwed up big time, and the camp members have the same (if not more) right to be angry as the regular members, considering the racist comments thrown in.</p>
<p>I agree with the swimming lessons. The public schools used to have swimming. They were among the 1st to go with budget cuts. Also, the City summer recreation programs had swimming lessons, but public pools got cut.</p>
<p>When I was a lifeguard, we taught swimming, organized swim teams, and even arranged swim meets with other pools for urban children. We literally had a pipeline for future lifeguards because of this. Sadly, those programs went by the wayside in the 80’s.</p>
<p>tennis player…the youth groups coming into my club were paying money to be there. That doesn’t make it right. I was paying a monthly membership fee for my family to have access to the club, and the indoor basketball court was part of that. The club decided it wanted to make money off the youth groups, so they rented out the basketball courts during regular club hours. The youth groups being on the courts made it less enjoyable for me and my kids, just like 65 extra children in a pool made it less enjoyable for the pool members.</p>
<p>I don’t care what color anyone is…large groups of non-members should not be allowed to use the facilities during regular club hours. If they want to rent time before or after regular hours, then that would be okay.</p>
<p>I predict that when the investigation is carried out, it will difficult or impossible to find any evidence that the decision to exclude the group grew out of racism. As it stands now, the only evidence of overt racism that appears in the articles is that “they” asked where all the black kids came from. Was this an adult or a child? How many people made such comments? I can guarantee you that everybody that they interview in the club will say that race had nothing to do with anything. And they could be telling the truth–there’s really no way to know.</p>
<p>
I hope so, too, but wouldn’t be surprised if this wasn’t the case at all.</p>
<p>For a discussion of the legal ramifications of the case.</p>
<p>[How</a> The Valley Swim Club Racial Discrimination Lawsuit Will Go Down : Litigation and Trial - Max Kennerly](<a href=“http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2009/07/articles/litigation/news/how-the-valley-swim-club-racial-discrimination-lawsuit-will-go-down/]How”>How The Valley Swim Club Racial Discrimination Lawsuit Will Go Down | Litigation & Trial)</p>
<p>The case has now been referred to both the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice and the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission. (PHRC). </p>
<p>It appears that the Swim Club is going to have a very difficult case. </p>
<ol>
<li><p>The facility will most likely be deemed a public accommodation as it also admits non-members and therefore under the jurisditction of the DOJ and the PHRC. </p></li>
<li><p>Racial motive is largely irrelevant in such cases and the investigations will look at the statistical effect on racial minorities of the club policies. As it appears the club has rescinded agreements with at least another minority day camp, they may have to show that they similarly rescinded agreements with predominantly white day camps. Additionally, it appears the club has only a token number of minority members if any. </p></li>
<li><p>If the club appeals an unfavorable decision by the DOJ or the PHRC to a state or federal court they may do even worse. There are major inconstencies in the club’s versions as to the reasons for the rescission which will affect its credibility with a jury. “Atmosphere and complexion” was initially reported as the main reason, apparently corroborated by several members of the club. Contrary to statements by the Club president, there was no vote by the membership to rescind the agreement, but the decision was apparently taken by the Club management based on complaints by a few parents. Statements by the Club staff to the minority kids to exit the pool and comments by parents at the scene would also tend to support the “atmosphere” motive. Overcrowding was only presented as an excuse after the fact and does not appear to be justified based on any specific incidents at the pool itself. The day campers were apparently very well behaved and adequately supervised according to several club members present. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>The belated offer by the club to reinstate the agreement with the day campers may just be too late. While the vast majority of the club members seem genuinely eager to dispel any implication of racism, the actions of a few bigots and an overzealous management may end burying the club in legal fees. At the very least the club president should be expelled.</p>
<p>"I couldn’t believe I heard correctly the Swim Club’s statement, in which they claim to have “+ underestimated the capacity +” of their facility…To have “underestimated capacity” is to actually have more space than they thought they did. That would NOT be a reason to ask people to leave; on the contrary, it is an admission that they actually have plenty of space. A little Freudian slip? " (from [PhillyBurbs.com:</a> Column hits a nerve](<a href=“http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/news_details/article/222/2009/july/12/column-hits-a-nerve.html]PhillyBurbs.com:”>http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/news_details/article/222/2009/july/12/column-hits-a-nerve.html))</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And I am telling you, as someone who has been there, <em>I</em> don’t think the pool is capable of handling 65 kids. I don’t think it’s capable of handling 65 people all in the water at one time in general, unless they are doing something like water aerobics and just standing in one spot, or they are organized in swimming laps with lanes clearly differentiated.</p>
<p>I think the club management just didn’t think about the wisdom of inviting 65 kids at once, AND a few people smart-mouthed about the race of the kids. But I daresay there would have been outrage among club members if 65 lily-white kids from Wayne (Main Line) had been brought in. Lots and lots of kids don’t contribute to the atmosphere the members paid for.</p>
<p>Much has been made of the use of the word “complexion.” Has no one heard the usage “that puts another complexion on the matter”? (Having nothing to do with skin color.) Or is everyone convinced that his usage was either literal, or driven by a Freudian slip?</p>
<p>Well, Consolation, it’s in the same ballpark as the outrage against the word “niggardly” in its proper context.</p>
<p>I agree with PG that 65 kids with minimal chaperones would have been a mess if they were cherub children descending from on high. It’s just not the same as each kid having parents to supervise.</p>
<p>It may be that just a single bigoted comment from an obnoxious club member has made this incident into a mess. But people do expect special attention for the money that they paid to join a private organization.</p>
<p>My excercise club/gym is a new and very nice facilty with an outdoor pool. It’s membership fees are by no means extravagant. Well, the affordability apparently motivated tens and tens of folks to purchase family memberships just for the summer (month-to-month memberships are allowed). Predictably on Memorial Day when the outdoor pool opened, it was a frustrating madhouse. Many more people showed up, people whom rarely if ever came to use the gym and its various exercise machines. With kids in tow, they headed straight to the pool, competing with the “Ironman” athletes as well as casusally ‘physically active’ folks like myself. People were fighting over deck chairs and towels, since many families had multiple children. I watched more than one set of parents bellyache to the management and the lifeguards. What a mess! Actually, I didn’t mind the children. What annoyed me were the couch potatoes who came to sleep on a reclining deck chair all day long without ever getting their toes in the water.</p>
<p>I agree with zoosermom’s post # 12.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wonder what if anything this lawsuit will accomplish. The club gets buried in legal fees and goes bankrupt, and the pool gets shut down. One fewer pool for the kids to use for summer activities.</p>
<p>Bunsen, yes, and there will be no pool for anyone, and houses will be built there, increasing everyone’s property taxes. And every pool nearby wont even take a phone call from camps.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The primary purpose of the various anti-discrimination statutes is deterrence and this case will certainly make other semi-private clubs think twice about their policies. Strictly private clubs (which this is not) will remain largely unaffected. </p>
<p>If the club enters into a consent decree with the DOJ or the state equivalent and revises its policies, the legal expenses will be limited and the club may not have to close. It is not certain they would even be fined as relief is often in the form of an injunction against future behavior. The real cost will be if they fight a decision on appeal and the case goes to trial in state or federal court.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What “policies”? There’s no explicit or implicit policy of the Valley Club that black children are not to be let in. The club manager (or whoever makes such decisions) made a poor choice in agreeing to let a large group into the premises, larger than what the pool can handle. Club members were annoyed by the presence of lots of children, which they have every right to be. A few members may have then mouthed off inappropriately (it only took one, really, for this to become an “issue”) but what “policy” should the Valley Club have against the speech of individual members, other than perhaps a reminder that offensive comments are not welcome at the club?</p>