<p>Nice try, PG, but your version of the story simply does not square with the facts. The club will have to do a lot better than that at this point to stay open.</p>
<p>In a discrimination suit, motive is irrelevant. Only the effect is taken into account.<br>
-The club terminated agreements with two minority groups.
-They have no minority members.<br>
The staff ordered only the black kids out of the pool not the white kids.</p>
<p>There is evidence from actual club members that the overcrowding issue played no actual role in the decision as confirmed by the initial statement of the club president speaking of the effect on atmosphere and complexion. </p>
<p>There are also a number of witnesses attesting to the fact overcrowding was not an issue on the day of the event. The club knew exactly how many kids were coming from the online registration and had adequate number of lifeguards. The kids were very well behaved, there was plenty of adult supervision and no safety risks. If anything all the white kids, except for three, exited the pool when the black kids entered the water. It was not until the camp supervisor mentioned the racist comments by some of the club members that the president was even aware there was an issue. </p>
<p>If the kids were guilty of anything it was of SWB (swimming while black). The only thing missing on the club online registration was the ethnicity of the applicants. Had it been known they would probably never have been allowed in the club in the first place. </p>
<p>“Whitewashing” (pun intended) the real issue after the fact simply won’t fly. let’s face it. The reason many members join such a club is to avoid mixing with the undesirable minorities at the municipal pool. Once the club opened its doors to non-members it effectively gave up the right to discriminate on the basis of race. </p>
<p>What could the club be required to do? There are dozens of actions the club could take:
Affirmatively seek to change the racial makeup of the club by advertising more broadly
Offer its facilities on equal terms to all organizations wanting to use it
Train its personnel
Hire minorities
Have greater involvement in the community at large</p>
<p>Maybe if the club members had to interact with minorities on a regular basis, they wouldn’t think they’d catch the cooties swimming in the same pool with them.</p>
<p>Agree with kayf. The end result will be that no club will allow day camp kids to use the pool. To do otherwise would be irresponsible of management.</p>
<p>Oh, could you stop it already? Could we stop acting as though this was a hoity-toity snobby swim club? BTW, Huntingdon Valley has two prestigious country clubs - Huntingdon Valley Country Club and Philmont Country Club - with significant costs of entry. </p>
<p>This isn’t a ritzy swim club. It’s relatively inexpensive to join. It is no more “ritzy” than deciding that you want to join a private workout facility instead of using the park district workout facilities. If I decide I want to join Lifetime Fitness or Bally’s or Jane’s Yoga Studio rather than use my park district workout facilities or yoga classes, is that because I “don’t want to mix with undesirable minorities” or might I just like the facilities better? Sheesh. You’re ascribing motives where you have no evidence of any. Do you think it’s possible that someone might want to join a private pool simply because they want a quieter environment, and not because they’re trying to avoid people of different races?</p>
<p>So let’s leave the overcrowding thing aside. Let’s assume the president agreed to let the daycamp in, didn’t think one way or the other about the race makeup of the kids, was totally cool with it. And let’s assume that a few club members, upon seeing black kids at their pool, were total jerks and said horrible things. Is that the club’s “fault”? What if the club decides to kick them (the offending members) out the same way they’d kick them out if they broke other pool rules (running, stealing from the snack bar, etc.)? Wouldn’t that be enough?</p>
<p>That would most likely not be possible if they are semi-private such as this club. </p>
<p>If the net effect of such restrictive policy is discrimination against a particular group, even under the guise of safety, the policy will be disallowed. The test is such instance is strict scrutiny which is nearly impossible to meet in practice. The club would have to prove there was no other alternative such as adding a lifeguard or supervisors. In this case, the club has already reversed its position and offered the day campers to come back, so the argument that is impossible to accommodate day campers for safety reasons would not hold. Other clubs would have to do the same. </p>
<p>It will also be very difficult for all but the most exclusive and wealthy clubs to claim they are truly private and can have restricted access policies that mostly affect minorities. If they advertise for members, allow groups to host events at the club for birthdays, weddings or parties, allow non-members to pay for food or beverages or allow month to month memberships they will not be considered private. Many states also have anti discrimination laws that go further than the federal laws.</p>
<p>The pool I belonged to when my daughter was young has over 1000 members. It is now owned by Michael Phelps and his swim coach. It was very ordinary, except for its size - not fancy in any way. Not all private swim clubs look like country clubs and have only wealthy members.</p>
<p>I know. That’s what is so funny. All these people are thinking that these are ritzy-Richie-Richs who don’t want to be anywhere near black people. Um, if they didn’t want to be near the city of Philadelphia, they wouldn’t live in Huntingdon Valley. Which BUTTS UP RIGHT AGAINST the city and many mixed neighborhoods. Again - one more time - this isn’t the Main Line, this isn’t WASP Central.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, What makes you think that being rich has any relationship with not wanting to be anywhere near black people? And who has claimed this private pool was at all ritzy? Certainly cellardwellar has pointed out that it is really only semi-private, not exclusive. If the pool isn’t WASP Central, then they probably have a membership that reflects the racial diversity of the surrounding area’s mixed neighborhoods. In that case, proving they aren’t racists should be very easy for them.</p>
<p>Probably not. If the anti discrimination statutes kick in (as is likely), the only thing that matters is the effect of the exclusionary policy, not the motive, which may be very hard to prove. </p>
<p>Even assuming for a moment that the safety concern was legitimate, the net effect is discrimination against minorities (who presumably can’t afford to join such clubs as regular members). The Supreme Court has ruled that unequal statistical effect by race is enough to invalidate a policy even if, on its face, it has a rational basis. You would have to show there was absolutely no other possible way to achieve the desired result (in this case safety) short of the proposed policy (excluding day campers). I assume the club consulted an attorney who advised them to reverse an untenable position.</p>
<p>Um - if they were racist, then the club wouldn’t have gone soliciting for black / Hispanic daycamps to come use their facilities. “Racist people” don’t generally go looking to invite races they don’t care for, for the sole purposes of then disinviting them.</p>
<p>I still think a few people opened their loud mouths and said nasty things (because there’s always one or two loudmouths in any crowd), and somehow that’s the club’s fault / responsibility.</p>
<p>BTW, how many white kids are in the Creative Steps daycare?</p>
<p>What if the Valley Club says - we’re no longer going to invite other camps / groups of non-members to use our facilities ever again, it is only open to paying members and their personal guests, end of subject? (The pool I belong to has that policy. Only members and their guests. “Outside” people cannot rent it for a party or other event.)</p>
<p>NE Philly (where the Creative Steps camp is) has all different races present (and indeed has quite a large white population). If the Creative Steps daycamp does not adequately reflect the racial diversity of those neighborhoods, would that therefore make the Creative Steps daycamp racist? Why or why not?</p>
<p>Actually most of the very exclusive country clubs are eager to admit black members as long as they can afford the steep membership fees. (That is not true as far admitting women on the other hand). Which club wouldn’t love to have the Woods or the Obamas as members? </p>
<p>The problem is really with clubs who can’t afford to be exclusive but seek nevertheless to provide a sheltered environment for their members. I would venture to guess that with a $300-$600 annual fee, this club’s membership is economically diverse although not racially diverse. They could be plumbers or store owners AFAIK. The club is probably struggling financially as many such clubs. They seek to get revenue whichever way they can. That does not give them the right to discriminate, even indirectly, against minorities, any more than the local restaurant.</p>
<p>This club is a private club then. But if a club does rent its facilities to the general public, it cannot discriminate in to whom it will rent the facilities.</p>
<p>Again. Why do you say the desire to join a private swim club is to “provide a sheltered environment”? Why can’t it simply be a more convenient location / better-equipped and maintained pool than a public pool? Why do you keep turning it into some kind of I-only-want-to-be-with-my-own-kind? Do you say the same thing of people who join Bally’s at a few hundred bucks a year instead of the park district workout facilities for a much more nominal fee? Because seriously, that’s the level we’re talking about here. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No one said it did, but the very FACT that they contracted, presumably in good faith, with the black / Hispanic daycare is kinda sorta of a clue that they weren’t intending to discriminate. See, if they really wanted to provide a “shelter from the black people” for their members, they wouldn’t go SEEK them out!</p>
<p>Do you think it’s possible that the club management itself is not racist, but a few odd members are? Or do you think that the club management itself is racist? Or both?</p>
<p>Nobody has suggested that inviting the kids violated any safety regulations. The club knew exactly how many kids were coming and were equipped to handle them. There were plenty of supervisors and lifeguards. There were no disturbances of any kind alleged by the club or any members. If anything the black apparently felt lonely after all the white kids left. </p>
<p>By health violations, do you mean that black kids made the pool unsanitary as some members seemed to have believed?</p>
<p>“the very FACT that they contracted, presumably in good faith, with the black / Hispanic daycare is kinda sorta of a clue that they weren’t intending to discriminate.”
Likewise, the fact that they contracted with such a large group (or even the smaller group of 25) should be a clue that the group size (for either group) was not in conflict with any health or safety policies they might have had.</p>
<p>cellardweller, geez! By “health regulations” I mean exactly what it means - state Health Departments regulate public swimming facilities, and each pool has maximum capacity/numebr of people its chlorination system can handle. Next time you visit a swimming facility, take a peek at the little sign on the wall that says “Pool maximum capacity XY persons”.</p>
<p>Club management is accountable to the membership and acts on behalf of the membership. It may very well be that the club president had no personal ill will against the day campers. (Unlike apparently the club staff which was quoted to have made racist remarks to the kids). he apparently did not know who was coming as the registration was done strictly online. </p>
<p>As it now appears from testimony, a few irate members called the president after the event to have the agreement rescinded. At that point he apparently took it upon himself to cancel the agreement as no vote by the members was taken. It is possible the Board forced his hand. There was no discussion of safety at the time and it was not given as a reason for the cancellation to the camp. Atmosphere and complexion was the official reason. The safety excuse was only brought up after a lawsuit was filed. </p>
<p>As far as how many members of that particular club were racist or not is hard to tell. Apparently all the members except for one voted to ask the day campers to return this past weekend. Whether it was genuine, or to stop various pending lawsuits can’t be determined. In any case, the club membership composition will most likely change. Those who don’t want to swim with minorities may leave but could have a tough time finding an alternative venue, especially at the low rates offered by this club.</p>