<p>
I thought I’d read here that the day camp served K - 7th graders?</p>
<p>I think cellardwellar has read the following article, which is pretty good:
[Anti-Discrimination</a> Laws Applicable to Private Clubs or Not?](<a href=“http://library.findlaw.com/2000/Oct/1/130527.html]Anti-Discrimination”>http://library.findlaw.com/2000/Oct/1/130527.html)
It may well be that the pool would be considered a place of public accomodation because it was willing to rent itself out to public groups. But I still don’t think there is enough evidence (from what we’ve read) to make a winning case that the POOL discriminated on the basis of race.</p>
<p>When I served on the board of our local swim club, I inherited the insurance issues. After our rates skyrocketed a few years ago (they used 9/11 as a justification), we switched to an insurance company that handled ONLY private swim clubs. In the process, I learned a lot about liability insurance for swimming facilities. The insurance application from the new company asked many detailed questions about pool access – how many members, how many guests, how many large groups of non-members, procedures for identifying children with limited swimming skills, etc. I learned that private, neighborhood swim clubs actually have very few drowning-related claims, because most children are accompanied by their parents rather than “chaperones,” they learn to swim at an early age, and don’t descend on the pool in packs. For that reason, the liability premiums are much lower than at comparably-sized facilities that are open to the public. The more that your club resembles a public pool in its access rules, the higher the premiums will be.</p>
<p>Icargirl-I agree. I think the “mistake” made was in kowtowing to the few loudmouths. If the club and members want to revisit the policy and procedure of letting outside groups have access, that’s one thing. I think the club president was weak willed, rather than racist.</p>
<p>claremarie, Statistics do not support your claims about the safety of private pools compared to public pools. 80% of drowning deaths DO NOT occur in PUBLIC POOLS with lifeguards present. (from [Drowning</a> statistics - Drowning facts](<a href=“http://www.poseidon-tech.com/us/statistics.html]Drowning”>http://www.poseidon-tech.com/us/statistics.html)) For young children, “70 percent are in the care of one or both parents at the time of drowning and 75 percent are missing from sight for five minutes or less.” (from [Drowning</a> statistics - Drowning facts](<a href=“http://www.poseidon-tech.com/us/statistics.html]Drowning”>http://www.poseidon-tech.com/us/statistics.html))</p>
<p>Hunt - assuming it is a place of public accommodation, how does the disparate impact theory from Title VII apply? It would seem that just setting a fee to join has a disparate impact.</p>
<p>What’s this about unattended kids? The pool had 5 lifeguards and the camp brought one of its own.</p>
<p>6 lifeguards for 65 kids? that is not unsafe.</p>
<p>At our public pool kids age 10 and over are allowed to attend without a parent and kids over 8 may attend with a sibling. Lifeguards are far more reliable than parents. Sorry if I offended any parents out there.</p>
<p>My daughter spent several summers guarding at a public, private and hotel pools. Her stories are truly hair-raising. She would rather watch a pool full of “unattended kids” than a those with parents since the parents often thought they could override the lifeguards rules.</p>
<p>Most drowning deaths occur in backyard pools, not commercial facilities.
But private community swim clubs have a better track record than public ones, which is why their premium rates are lower.</p>
<p>I have not read how many lifeguards were on duty that day. Were there 5 on duty when the kids arrived?</p>
<p>claremarie, Support your claims by citing sources, please. Your claim about “most drowning deaths” is not true for all ages according to research previously cited.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl
</p>
<p>Yeah, poor me - it sure is foreign, as the only environments I have ever been exposed to are overrun with a gazillion kids, and I have never been to places of any sort which require membership or guest approval. Therefore I really have no idea what it means to be entitled to what you describe. Oh well… </p>
<p>Perhaps you will be patient with me, though, when I explain once again that the kernal of truth in this matter has nothing whatsoever to do with getting what you pay for, or the value of a sedate and comfortable environment. It has to do with the Golden Rule, and and the kind of manners which clearly cannot be taught. </p>
<p>Once the children arrived, once the mistake of inviting too many was made (if that even was a problem), the primary concern should have been to be gracious to them. Once a committment is made, it must be kept. We do not mistreat others because we are entitled to a calm and sedate pool. We do what is right, paticularly when it concerns children, and then make sure that in the future our financial investment is better managed by the pool board.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The % of drownings that occur in public pools with lifeguards versus private pools with lifeguards versus private-private (e.g., backyard pools) versus lakes versus oceans versus bathtubs for that matter are meaningless statistics unless you know what % of swimming-hours occur in each of those venues. Sorry, this is a statistics pet peeve of mine.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sigh. Who said otherwise? Who on this thread is defending the kinds of people who may have made hurtful or insulting comments around the children, who committed no offense other than by showing up where their daycamp leaders brought them (and I’m giving the benefit of the doubt were appropriately behaved and exhibited nothing other than the normal enthusiasm of children at a pool)?</p>
<p>Oh. That’s right. Crickets chirping.</p>
<p>maybe not defending but once the “powers that be” give in to those who made hurtful or insulting comments, they joined that group. Guilty by association.</p>
<p>Moving on - this was a teachable moment for all the kids involved. The day care kids and the kids who belong to the pool. If the loudmouth members are not indeed racist, they should be embarrassed. There are ways to handle situations and this appears to have been handled all wrong.</p>
<p>Now the daycare has refused the offer to return - which I think is a shame. This teaches kids that loudmouth obnoxious (and possibly racist) people get their way, it keeps the kids out of the pool and teaches the day care kids that white people are racist, even if they are not.</p>
<p>So who will “correct” the attitudes of the daycare kids that white people are racist? Isn’t that just as important to correct, as the attitude of the few loudmouths at the club who didn’t want to be around blacks (and didn’t have the decency to keep their thoughts to themselves)?</p>
<p>Pizzagirl
</p>
<p>I wasn’t addressing the issue of racist comments in my last post. I made the point that even if none were said, once the guests arrived and the contract commenced, the notion of a sedate pool and getting what one is “entitled to” as a paying member becomes irrelevant (until the commitment is kept). You mentioned those concerns as a possible explanation or justification for what occured that day. This demonstrates a lack of focus on the core issue (which is fairness to the children).</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, If you find to be meaningless the drowning statistics from the CDC and other sources that have been cited in this thread, please point us to some meaningful ones…</p>
<p>Most child drowning and submersion incidents involve swimming pools, with residential or backyard swimming pools posing the greatest danger.
Read more: [Child</a> Drowning Statistics: Water Accidents and Submersion Incidents Involving Kids and Toddlers | Suite101.com](<a href=“Suite 101 - How-tos, Inspiration and Other Ideas to Try”>Suite 101 - How-tos, Inspiration and Other Ideas to Try)</p>
<p>Apparently, there are significant differences among racial/ethnic groups:</p>
<p>During the study period, 678 US residents aged 5 to 24 years drowned in pools. Seventy-five percent were male, 47% were Black, 33% were White, and 12% were Hispanic. Drowning rates were highest among Black males, and this increased risk persisted after we controlled for income. The majority of Black victims (51%) drowned in public pools, the majority of White victims (55%) drowned in residential pools, and the majority of Hispanic victims (35%) drowned in neighborhood pools (e.g., an apartment complex pool).</p>
<p><a href=“Swimming pool drownings among US residents aged 5-24 years: understanding racial/ethnic disparities - PubMed”>Swimming pool drownings among US residents aged 5-24 years: understanding racial/ethnic disparities - PubMed;
<p>Pizzagirl - that is why I think it’s too bad the kids won’t return. There should have been a way for everyone to save face in this.</p>
<p>Kids are greatly influenced by the attitudes of adults around them. If the adults are rude and obnoxious (on both sides) that is what they will learn. The situation needs someone without an ego to step in and bring both sides together.<br>
I can think of a slew of different ways this could have been handled.</p>