I’ve experienced this before. Typically the dress code will be no hats, hoodies, Timberlands, sports attire, baggy pants. The laughable part is that you can’t distinguish te gang bangers from the guy with a legitimate disposable income. It’s just what black 20 somethings wear a lot.
You can’t really tell racism at the door but you always wonder why does the dress code ban attire associated with black people. Admittedly black clubs or frat/soror parties do this too. The flyer will have the phrases “Proper attire required” and “Don’t start none. Won’t be none” on them. But even people in proper attire still start some. So even though the motivation is the same, some white clubs come off as not wanting black people at the club at all despite all the hip-hop music they play.
Back in the days of yore, when I was a wee undergrad, there was a pub whence no one with any sense went - the Cape of Good Hope. And the Cape of Good Hope had an upstairs room with a bar that served as a disco for private parties, or for the general public at times. Displayed was a sign with the timeless motif “No Trainers Allowed,” referring to footwear (think sneakers) rather than athletic educators.
One Saturday night, three gentlemen of Carribean extraction attempted to enter said disco. The landlord of this establishment was, to be blunt, known to be a racist bastard. However, the above three gentlemen were wearing trainers. He refused them entry. They brought a complaint against him based on racial discrimination. The complaint was going nowhere until the Landlord testified. He had the case absolutely sewn up until he started being honest, replying to a question “one or two blacks are OK, but any more than that in the place and you are asking for trouble…”
I’ve seen these restrictions used in other places to discriminate. A bar in NJ I used to frequent when at my ex-in laws had a sign saying they required 2 government issued IDs if one of them was a NJ license, or 3 government issued IDs otherwise. Never saw it enforced at all, until one night the first black person I ever saw in that bar came in. He only had a NJ license, was clearly in his 30s, but the bartender pointed to the sign and refused to serve him.
Coincidentally, I worked in law enforcement in both of the cities linked in the OP (i.e. Philadelphia and Chicago). And I’m not seeing racism. What I’m seeing is club owners trying to keep street gang activity out of their businesses.
In both of those cities, as in most major U.S. cities, the gangs have a uniform: yellow timberland boots, dark unmarked baggy jeans, long unmarked white shirt, and sometimes a red or blue baseball cap. If you see someone with writing on his clothes, he is likely not an actual member. This uniform applies to black gangs, hispanic gangs, white gangs, etc. The rationale is that if a member commits a crime, any witnesses will only be able to say “he was hispanic, about 20 years old, white shirt, baggy jeans, yellow boots” which matches hundreds of youths in the neighborhood, and thus is useless to identify the actual culprit. The red/blue for bloods/crips is mostly a thing of the past. Likewise the loud t-shirts. If you see a kid with “bloodz 4 lyfe” on his t-shirt, you can bet that no actual street gang has accepted him.
Businesses can’t keep gang members out, and most don’t want to: if you run a club in a gang territory, banning gang members means you have no customers. But what businesses can do is make it more difficult for gang members to self-identify within their establishment. If you force patrons out of their gang uniforms, the thinking goes, they’re less likely to coagulate into their groups once inside, and thus less likely to start any ruckus. I have no idea whether it actually works, but it’s a very common tactic. You’ll see fliers stapled to telephone poles advertising an upcoming party at a local club, and prominently featured on the flier will be the phrase “no tims, no baggies, no hats, no white-t’s.” These will often be clubs in gang territory. These will often be clubs with 100% black clientele.
If everyone in the club is black, I have trouble believing that the club’s dress code is intended to keep blacks out.
One of the linked stories in the OP includes a text message from the bar’s general manager that says, “We don’t want black people we are a white bar!”
So, in that case it appears to be racially driven. That said, I have no problem with private establishments creating dress codes to keep up the appearance of class. I’ve been to places that did not allow sneakers or hats of any color or brand. I have no problem with that. It’s usually about keeping the place classy.
Whether the policy is racist in origin or not, this is a private business. If they want to require you to wear a baseball cap and ban anything orange shouldn’t it be their right? Many fine restaurants require patrons to wear a coat and tie and thus by extension ban casual wear, which could be read as discrimination against poor people (though most establishments probably don’t care how much or how little money you have so long as you’ve got enough for your tab and tip and behave yourself in the premises), but there’s no outrage there and people in fact go there because of the upscale environment.
If a clubowner in this economy is knowingly turning down tens of thousands of dollars per month as the article alleges, there is probably some reason other than just racism. If that reason is racism- well, frankly I have little problem with that so long as he doesn’t have an outright ban on black patrons; his racism will probably cost him his business. His isn’t the only establishment in town after all.
I doubt racism is the extent or the ultimate reason though- it’s probably a particular type of patron they don’t want and the reason they probably don’t want that particular type of patron is that they don’t want trouble in their establishment. I don’t think anybody has a problem with law abiding black people wanting to have a good time, but if Jesse Jackson owned a bar I doubt he’d want black gang members to frequent it as the liability issue and headache would be huge.
If you insist on dressing in that fashion then express discontent with your wallet and go someplace that does allow you. This isn’t like Jim Crow where the state says “no blacks” but a privately owned business and I believe they should be allowed to make any policy they want.
PS- I’ve seen “No Camo” signs as well, and also “No Team Jerseys”, this in a business with predominantly white clientele. The ban on team jerseys had to do with fights during football season.
In this particular case, it does seem racially driven. But there’s nothing wrong with a business wanting to keep “poor people” and “wasters” out. I suppose the logic is that troublemakers, punks, drunks and other undesirables will be less inclined to visit your establishment if they have to get all dressed up. Probably less inclined to start trouble too if they are worried about getting their good pair of slacks dirty.
I have seen the “no trainers” signs in Ireland, along with “no site clothes” (meaning building site, meaning boots, overalls). There (with no racial minorities to speak of, though I’m sure there were bouncers who tried to spot/exclude tinkers) it was purely a classism thing, if it was any -ism. N.B. I have seen similar signs at U.S. Irish bars (no work boots) that are aiming for more of a tourist/after work white collar crowd.
I don’t have a real problem with what the bar owners probably justify to themselves as an anti-douchebag policy. If a bar owner decides that white people who aren’t professional athletes are douchebags if they wear professional athlete’s jerseys, or that people who aren’t gang bangers but dress in a style originated/associated with same, are douchebags, and in both cases are a population who will annoy him and/or scare off his desired customer base – I’d say let the market take care of it.