<p>
</p>
<p>@@ Yes, that’s what I mean. @@</p>
<p>
But many, if not most, private clubs don’t do most of these things. Anyway, you’re simply mistaken about the reach of the antidiscrimination laws to private clubs, and you’re also mistaken about the likelihood that this particular club will be found to have discriminated anyway. The disparate impact language you are using applies to state action, in general. What will actually happen is that this story will poop out in a day or so, and we’ll never hear any more about it.</p>
<p>Nobody ever alleged the maximum capacity had been exceeded that day. Again, the club knew exactly how many kids were coming as they were all registered in advance. The club management may be stupid but would most likely not break the law deliberately. There were actually 46 children that day. The week before the club had hosted another group (all white) with 53 campers without any objection. The club even has a second pool. </p>
<p>There was no claim of overcrowding at the time. All the day campers were calm. They were herded in the shallow end by the staff, even if they could swim, as they had not passed an official “swim test”. It is of course well known among whites that black kids can’t swim! (Interestingly, the “swim test” was not offered as an option to any day camper). </p>
<p>As can be seen on Youtube, the pool is actually L-shaped. The shallow end is on one side, with the lanes for swimming (for whites only) on the other. again, no risk of anybody drowning in some frenzy.
[YouTube</a> - Accusations of Racism at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Area Swim Pool Club [FOX News]](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0ZwvkOOWm4]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0ZwvkOOWm4)</p>
<p>“People who manage private clubs can sometimes be shockingly inept.”</p>
<p>I was on the board of our private swim club for several years. Most swim club boards in the DC area are made up of volunteers, usually busy professionals whose families are heavy pool users. It’s hard to schedule meetings around everyone’s work and family commitments, so decisions are often made via email or with less than a quorum, and ratified later. Without knowing more than what was reported in the media, I’d say that a few board members probably approved the camp arrangement because of the income potential, without fully thinking through the seemingly obvious issues associated with 65 under-supervised children with limited swimming skills.</p>
<p>cellardweller:
</p>
<p>LOL! In the middle of a serious discussion, a little levity never hurts.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl:
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In this instance (the original topic) we have some clear evidence of racism, beyond the issue of over crowding, if posts on this thread which offer information about the event are correct. Racism is certainly an example of “better than”.</p>
<p>My last post expanded on the theme to include other examples of people thinking they are better than others in a pool environment. The funny thing about money and “better than” is that it is not a malady which is exclusive to any particular economic group. The Botox and horsey moms I cited were only one example. Wherever people are on the socioeconomic ladder, there will always be some who are happy to snub those who are a half-rung below them.</p>
<p>In the most innocent interpretation of the events at that pool in PA, we have a slam dunk diagnosis of “better than”. Would any of us appreciate it if our kids were in a day camp environment and were not welcomed, or were uninvited for the rest of the week?!! </p>
<p>Even if racism was not in the mix, we certainly can know there were people there who thought they were better than others. If you hate crowding, make sure the next time a decision is made it reflects that concern. But don’t punish the children and organization you (or your club) already made a promise and committment to. Unless of course, their feelings don’t matter (because you are better than them, and while your feelings count, theirs do not).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not true, any labor lawyer will tell you that disparate impact is the standard test used in employment discrimination until Title VII for any employer with more than 15 employees, in the private or public sector. It is also the standard test under the Fair Housing Act. Title VII has also been found to apply to admission to private clubs by the Supreme Court.
[Private-club</a> exemption to civil rights admission laws: sex discrimination versus the right of private association. | North America > United States from AllBusiness.com](<a href=“http://www.allbusiness.com/accommodation-food-services/344940-1.html]Private-club”>http://www.allbusiness.com/accommodation-food-services/344940-1.html)</p>
<p>As far as what defines a truly private club, the rules are extremely narrow and controlled by both State and federal law. </p>
<p>Title III defines the factors used in evaluation of private club status:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This last section alone clearly disqualifies the swim club as a private club.</p>
<p>“They were herded in the shallow end by the staff, even if they could swim, as they had not passed an official “swim test”. It is of course well known among whites that black kids can’t swim! (Interestingly, the “swim test” was not offered as an option to any day camper).”</p>
<p>Our club had a policy requiring ALL children under 12 to pass a swim test before being allowed in the deep end. The liability insurance application I signed each year always had specific questions on this point, for obvious reasons. The tests were administered by off-duty lifeguards, and each child was tested separately, even those who swam two miles a day in swim practice. There is no way that such a large group of children could have been adequately tested during a 90 minute swim period. I agree that those who approved this day camp contract made a very poor decision, but if the guards had decided to let everyone who claimed he could swim into the deep end, and there had been an injury or drowning, the club would have been on the hook. </p>
<p>And it is unfortunate but true that large numbers of minority children lack swimming skills. Are the staff supposed to toss common sense out the window in the interest of political correctness?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, because not wanting a lot of kids in a pool setting is not evidence of “better than.” This may be foreign to you, but some people want more sedate pool environments that aren’t overrun with a gazillion kids, or that only members’ kids and their direct guests are allowed into, and they’re entitled to receive that if that’s what they pay for.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One person’s “herding in the shallow end” is another person’s “common sense when dealing with large groups of children about which you don’t know their swimming abilities.” </p>
<p>Heaven forbid that one of the children had gone into the deep end and drowned. Then you’d be all “those elitist whites cared so little about the safety of the black kids they didn’t even ensure that they were kept in the shallow end until their individual swimming abilities could be determined.” Can’t win for losing.</p>
<p>claremarie, agree with you 100% on this one.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I did not see any mentioning of the signs that say the pool had “Lanes are for whites only” in any of the linked stories. Care to provide a source? When you start making things up and twisting facts, it really distracts from your message and the points you are trying to make, and you lose support.</p>
<p>Additionally, Cellardweller, it sounds like you’ve not been around swimming pools much. There was “no risk of anybody of drowning in some frenzy” in our apartments’ swimming pool on the day I pulled a lifeless child from the bottom of said pool. There were only 5-6 kids in the water, and the girl was there with her babysitter, but no one saw her going under water. Luckily, I walked in at the right time, saw the kid, and the story has a happy ending. Even 12 year old kids can drown in as little as a few inches of water. It only takes a slip and fall head first onto a hard surface. Have you ever been to the Frog Pond in Boston? The pool is only 4-5 inches deep, but the city keeps several lifeguards on duty.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interestingly, when 53 white day campers rent the pool for an afternoon, nobody objects. When 46 minority kids do the same for 90 minutes, the pool empties.</p>
<p>
Obviously the low membership fees are not sufficient to support the operation without general public involvement. If the members were paying exclusionary country club fees, they would not have to worry about sharing the facilities with uninvited guests. You can’t have it both ways.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No kidding. Cellardweller, you really are making up stuff on this topic. BTW, how do you know that 53 white day campers didn’t generate complaints, etc. to the management? Oh that’s right. You don’t. </p>
<p>And yes, if the low membership fees are not sufficient to support the operation without general public involvement, well, then, I guess the management needs to deal with that, take the pulse of the members and determine whether they want to pay higher dues or whether they’re comfortable opening it up to outside groups. That doesn’t make anyone “racist,” though. That just means there’s a management issue that needs to be dealt with.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They didn’t need a sign, they had the ‘swim test’, which was not available to blacks. I would bet some of the 53 white kids from the prior week used the diving board at the deep end without going through the swim test. </p>
<p>
I have owned a pool for many years. I have never heard of a 12 year old kid drown in 3 feet of water when simultaneously monitored by supervisors and multiple lifeguards, not babysitters. </p>
<p>Again, let us not make up facts as we go. Even the club never alleged a safety threat or potential violation of safety standards. Underestimating the capacity of the facility was shown as nothing more than underestimating the capacity to handle black kids.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And if they had not observed this safety rule and a kid had drowned, the lawsuit would have been filed before the body had cooled.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’d suggest that a failure to schedule swim tests may have had more to do with a desire of the camp not to incur costs. This was the first time that particular set of kids visited…do you know for a fact that the POOL people assumed that black kids can’t swim, as opposed to the CAMP people not wanting to bother with and/or pay for swim tests? Or was there a completely innocent failure of communication? </p>
<p>You seem to have a lot of information about what everyone involved was thinking that has not been included in any article I’ve read. Could you cite your sources? I’d be interested in reading them.</p>
<p>Claremarie, the problem with your argument about poor management is that the Board or the management of the poor likely are very familiar with insurance concerns based upon WHO gets to use the pool. I’d bet my last dollar on it. No matter what potential revenue gain, I doubt a club would risk a potentially devasting financial liability for a possible accident.</p>
<p>Lake Washington, if this pool is anything like our club, you’re mistaken in thinking that everyone on the board is up to speed on insurance and liability issues. Again, it’s most likely run by volunteers, and the only person who thinks about insurance is the general counsel or the person who got stuck dealing with the insurance company. Everyone else is focused on other things – increasing membership, setting the dues rate, the swim team schedule, pool maintenance issues, trash in the parking lot, etc. This is not a country club run by a year-round paid staff.</p>
<p>I agree with claremarie. This is precisely the situation at this pool. The
anagement didn’t adequately think through how the number of kids would change the atmosphere, and how to ensure their safety but that doesn’t make them racist. </p>
<p>It’s pretty obvious that the club mgt itself aren’t racist but that there may be a handful of loudmouth members who are. Is that the responsibility of the club to police? If the club said, look, all guests will be treated politely and if you cause trouble for duly authorized guests, you will be expelled, isn’t that enough? Or is club mgt responsible for the privately held thoughts of members? You seem to want to go after the wrong entity here.</p>
<p>I’m NOT condoning this, but let’s say I’m indeed a white person who doesn’t want my precious offspring swimming with a black person. Let’s say I instruct precious to get out of the pool if too many black kids are in there. But let’s say I’m otherwise polite, I don’t go hurtling insults or calling the black kids names. Precious just grabs her towel and we leave. </p>
<p>Again, I’m not condoning this. But what is the club’s “obligation” to correct my bad attitude and prejudice? Should the club mandate that white children can’t leave the pool at will? Or what? This is a serious question btw.</p>
<p>My daughter attends a predominantly black high school. The principal is a black woman from the neighborhood. She is a serious, determined, devoted woman. The school has a pool. She mandates one semester of swim-gym and passing a swimming test in order for “her” kids to graduate because she feels strongly that too many black kids don’t learn to be safe in the water. I would defy anyone to tell her she’s wrong.</p>