Philly swimming pool kicks out black kids, "doesn't allow minorities"

[not_alice]

@ivn1188

not_alice, the problem here is that you are stating some sort of legal outcome, whether it be the pool will have to be open to minorities (which, you should note, implies that they do not currently do so, and you have provided no citation that the club actually disallows minorities except for the news article), or that they will be forced to pay some large settlement, etc.

I said no such thing. Look, the camp can disappear tomorrow and the news will still come around the rest of the summer and next looking for evidence. The Board MUST deal with it, and ignoring it is certainly an option. If they thnk it best for their club to be ridiculed and measured by the press, then that is their option. I predict it doesn’t happen that way though.

You are free to think that the business and the law are the same, and that the same outcomes are desirable for any party in both points of view, but consider if your experience is shading your opinion.

You have written good stuff here, I esp. enjoyed your participation in the Stoid stuff a bit back (I was lurking). But do keep in mind that lawyers work for businesses, not the other way around. They only handle a subset of the business’s issues, and not everything is a business issue.
racist remarks because those do not matter at all in contract law.

“Law school cite war” or not, this is a fact and means that your prediction cannot come to pass based on a contract theory.

I stipulate whatever you say about contract law.

I also did not base my position on the outcome of any contract law. Did you see the post a few up from here? I predict the outcome even if the camp ends up with no more restitution then they have already pocketed. So arguing that is all they get is not going to change anything, I already base my position on that.
Press can certainly park itself outside, and with little trouble inside the club, and report on the nature of the club’s demographics. You really think this won’t happen regardless of any legal case?

Does the club (and its individual members) really want the scrutiny that will bring?

I predict it is human nature to say no, don’t want that to happen to me or my wife or kids.

No lawyer can prevent it. Names and pictures will be attached one way or another (I know where pics can be taken can be limited legally, but still - this is the internet age).

Nor will it matter in the future, because they can turn down who they want, and they can breach a contract any time they want without any sort of penalties above and beyond actual damages, which will be small. Period.

But you say that as though the law is the only thing that a Board needs to consider.

So, your other option is to sue them under a constitutional claim for a civil rights violation.

No, in the end there are lots of ways to pressure the Board without resorting to Court. In this case, and I think you know it, in the PR battle, the more they fight, the worse they look. They can absolutely win the battle on the fine points of the law and end up with an empty ugly club that the locals won’t go to anymore.

Indeed, you could dig up some stuff and interview members and depose the management and make a showing that the club is racist. However, you will first have to survivie a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment to clear the hurdle of proving that the club is not a private club. Your amateur analysis notwithstanding, the fact that the club allows the public to purchase memberships means nothing.

I would need do nothing of the sort. It is not a legal outcome I am predicting. As I said, I all but concede the case, and still see that the Board will not be eager to let this fester and happen again. They fucked up a bit, but it can be fixed easily enough. They know that, I am sure. The legal stuff we are seeing and you are describing is just a minuet everyone does to get to the end result.

It is in no way a slam sunk that this club is going to be found not to be a private club. Your layman’s experience and a little bit of web research aren’t enough to tell one way or the other.

True, but I can place my bet

And either way, my predicted outcome does not depend on any particular result in that matter. Even if this is a PC, and everyone agrees so tomorrow, it is not Augusta. They are jsut regular folks sharing a pool in a middle class (I guess) neighborhood. They don’t have anything vested in standing up and being called racist the way the folks at some golf clubs have been over the years. They will either walk away or persuade the Board to fix it before it gets out of hand.

Even with an ironclad judgment in hand, the Board has to consider if and when that will happen, and what will they do if it does.

Just by reading some of your posts, it is clear to me that you are operating on an interpretation of constitutional law not found anywhere in jurisprudence, but only one found in your ideals (however noble).

That is because you are having trouble looking at it from a non-lawyer/management perspective. Maybe the nature of your training, and usually it serves you well, but remember the job of management is not synonymous with the job of its legal counsel.

So the way I see it, your predictions are completely wrong, and all you are doing in this thread now is trying to make some sort of case as to why your uneducated and ignorant intuitions are going to carry the day in court,

From the begining I have said it would be settled behind the scenes and not reach court. Why are you missing that?

should it ever come to that. There may or may not have been racism, but the constitution also protects those you disagree with, and racism does not, and never has, been the kind of thing that allows one side to simply declare a win and move on.

Of course. But no way the club moves on as though this never happened, no matter the legal outcome of this particular matter. The toothpaste is out of the tube. That is my prediction. Is it not also yours?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Rand_Rover

What does the club have to explain? I think both sides are on equal footing. The camp says they were kicked out for bringing black kids, the club says they were kicked out for bringing lots of kids. There’s no reason to accept what the camp says as correct and then say that the club has some explaining to do.

The camp only says they were kicked out. That they were kicked out is not in dispute. The camp said it did not know why it was kicked out. It did not say it was because of racism. Soem of the kids said they heard racists comments, but the camp has not accused the club of racial discrimonation.

The camp has nothing to explain because it didn’t DO anything. The club did.

[Rand_Rover]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

The camp only says they were kicked out. That they were kicked out is not in dispute. The camp said it did not know why it was kicked out. It did not say it was because of racism. Soem of the kids said they heard racists comments, but the camp has not accused the club of racial discrimonation.

The camp has nothing to explain because it didn’t DO anything. The club did.

But the need to explain arises only after a charge of racism. The pool doesn’t have to explain to the world why it runs its business the way it does. So, the burden is on the camp (or anybody who cries racism) to prove it up; the burden is not on the club to prove its actions were not racist.

[not_alice]

@Rand_Rover

But the need to explain arises only after a charge of racism. The pool doesn’t have to explain to the world why it runs its business the way it does. So, the burden is on the camp (or anybody who cries racism) to prove it up; the burden is not on the club to prove its actions were not racist.

Is anyone here reading my posts?

I described at length why a full-on legal attack that relies on charge of racism to be sanctined by a court is not necessary to get a fair and just outcome.

So far, only Ivn has bothered to comment on that theory. I know it is the Pit and no one wants to do anything but shout at each other, but DtC and Rand (and others) already went around that merry go round 30 times. Isn’t an actual new angle better than the 31st time around?

[ivn1188]

I understand your point about non-legal pressure. Yes, people could picket the club and investigate its members, etc. etc, and bring bad publicity onto the club.

On the other hand, there are tons of much more prestigious country clubs, like Framingham, that still discriminate against women , minorities, or homosexuals. These are big name clubs who have members from society’s power elite. (I think there was even a fairly recent case where some judge or politician dropped his membership in one of these discriminatory clubs.)

I don’t think that a few articles in the local paper or a tidbit on CNNHN are going to make that much difference, and the press is less well-equipped to investigate these matters than the courts would be. I just don’t see it being quite as damning and embarrassing to the club as you do, and I don’t believe it will make a huge dent in the club’s finances due to members leaving. That is admittedly pure opinion, though (as is your prediction wrt non-court outcomes).

[not_alice]

On the other hand, there are tons of much more prestigious country clubs, like Framingham, that still discriminate against women , minorities, or homosexuals. These are big name clubs who have members from society’s power elite. (I think there was even a fairly recent case where some judge or politician dropped his membership in one of these discriminatory clubs.)

And many if not most of those have folded under the glare of pressure. Not all, but many,

This club has nothing like those resources. If the people there did, they wouldn’t be at this rinky dink club in the first place, did you see their web site? This is a neighborhood club left over from an earlier era when suburbs were new. They were common in that area at one point, as I said my family belonged to one in the early 70s. I imagine this one is like that one except almost 40 years older. Nothing to write home about. And I bet the finances are shaky too, otherwise they would not be entering into sketchy contracts with kids to begin with - if they truly wanted to help their less fortunate neighbors, they would have a better program. Members are likely white collar based on what people here have said, they can organize properly for purposes like that.

I don’t think that a few articles in the local paper or a tidbit on CNNHN are going to make that much difference,

You’d be surprised. I have a related matter happening locally. Legally there is no recourse other then judicious exercising of our 1st Amendment rights. I know full well once this kind of thing gets underway, what happens in public and what is negotiated in private are separate matters indeed. People can be brought to the table in a case like this.

and the press is less well-equipped to investigate these matters than the courts would be.

Doesn’t need to be a press investigation. Continuous coverage is all, plus people with their own tools of the press - cameras, phone video, blogs, facebook, etc. will keep people on edge when they see how they are associated with such nonsense as the club can be positioned to represent. The club and members will always be on the defense, and while some might relish the fight, others won’t. As I said before, professionals such as we have in that town apparently are not going to want their name coming up in a web search among friends and especially among recruiters and HR people next time they look for a job. Or maybe as passive job hunters, they never even hear of opportunities they otherwise would have. These are serious risks.

The way to solve it (won’t happen this minute, but likely eventually) is to agree to support some other camps in the future with the facilities and some basic sensitivity training and sufficient staffing. Things they ought be doing anyway (and apparently at least they tried). In exchange for no admission of wrong doing, and a plan to do well what you were already trying to do before, why would anyone push back?

I just don’t see it being quite as damning and embarrassing to the club as you do, and I don’t believe it will make a huge dent in the club’s finances due to members leaving.

Maybe. My guesstimate is that,if they are selling daily passes online to stay open, and apparently never have 60 kids there at a time, they are not raking in much dough. OTOH, the club is so old, the land and facilities are long paid for, only maintenance and staffing is an issue. So expenses are low, but then they are probably only open a few months a year too. I’d say if their legal work is not being volunteered right now, they’d be looking to settle very soon.

That is admittedly pure opinion, though (as is your prediction wrt non-court outcomes).
[/QUOTE]

True, thanks for sharing and addressing what I actually said. It wasn’t as bad as you thought earlier, right?

[Kent_Clark]

@ivn1188

I don’t think that a few articles in the local paper or a tidbit on CNNHN are going to make that much difference, and the press is less well-equipped to investigate these matters than the courts would be. I just don’t see it being quite as damning and embarrassing to the club as you do, and I don’t believe it will make a huge dent in the club’s finances due to members leaving. That is admittedly pure opinion, though (as is your prediction wrt non-court outcomes).

So far, it’s been a tidbit in 1,180 news stories including ABC World News Tonight, ABC Good Morning America, The Early Show on CBS, and NBC Nightly News, [NBC Today Show](javascript:vPlayer(‘31846913’,‘110f63d5-b497-4423-9db6-3bd12b04c0f9’)) among others.

[MsWhatsit]

Yeah, it was on the local evening news here in C’bus tonight.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Rand_Rover

But the need to explain arises only after a charge of racism. The pool doesn’t have to explain to the world why it runs its business the way it does. So, the burden is on the camp (or anybody who cries racism) to prove it up; the burden is not on the club to prove its actions were not racist.

The camp has made no charge of racism, so it’s stupid to say they have to explain a charge it hasn’t made.

The club has “explaining” to do from a PR perspective if nothing else. Your assertion that “they don’t have to explain to the world how it runs it’s business” is childish and obtuse.

[Rand_Rover]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

The camp has made no charge of racism, so it’s stupid to say they have to explain a charge it hasn’t made.

The club has “explaining” to do from a PR perspective if nothing else. Your assertion that “they don’t have to explain to the world how it runs it’s business” is childish and obtuse.

You have made the charge of racism. Therefore, you have the burden of proving it. The club doesn’t have the burden of defending itself from it.

And that was not childish and obtuse. Deciding whether people can stay on the club’s premises is a business decision. The club has no burden to explain every business decision. You are the one being childish here.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Rand_Rover

You have made the charge of racism. Therefore, you have the burden of proving it. The club doesn’t have the burden of defending itself from it.

You’re moving the goal posts here. We were not talking (you and I) about whether what the club did was racist. I asked what the CAMP had any obligation to “explain.” You’re coming up empty.

And that was not childish and obtuse. Deciding whether people can stay on the club’s premises is a business decision. The club has no burden to explain every business decision. You are the one being childish here.

Purely as a matter of BUSINESS, the club has some fucking explaining to do. Not understanding that, or pretending not to understand it, is childish and obtuse.

[Lama_Pacos]

@Vinyl Turnip

However, when I try to envision any sudden entrance of 65 hyped-up “minority” kids of that age into a pool area on a summer day that is NOT “loud and obnoxious,” all I can manage is a spit-take.

(Should someone produce a videotape of the little buggers filing in in silent formation like good little prep school students, I’ll officially recognize it as evidence of the supernatural.)

Uh, if you *can’t picture *black kids behaving themselves, that’s your own issue and not a reflection of reality. The same racist sentiment underlies much of this thread: obviously the kids were either being rowdy, or were lying, or were (dot dot dot)

Because when white kids have energetic, outdoor fun they’re being vivacious, spirited, cute, and fraternal; when black kids do the same they’re being loud, menacing, obnoxious, and rowdy.

[Rumor_Watkins]

@Lama_Pacos

Uh, if you *can’t picture *black kids behaving themselves, that’s your own issue and not a reflection of reality. The same racist sentiment underlies much of this thread: obviously the kids were either being rowdy, or were lying, or were (dot dot dot)

Because when white kids have energetic, outdoor fun they’re being vivacious, spirited, cute, and fraternal; when black kids do the same they’re being loud, menacing, obnoxious, and rowdy.

Poppycock. I’m an equal-opportunity misanthrope.

[Biggirl]

@Rumor_Watkins

Poppycock. I’m an equal-opportunity misanthrope.

Got too many windows open, Vinyl?

[monstro]

Having been a “minority” day camper back in the old ages, I can imagine them getting a real serious “you better behave” speech right before they disembarked from the bus. Kind of like, you’re in a different climate here, and we want to make a good first impression on these (rich white) folks. Follow the rules, be respectful, don’t make anyone say those camp kids weren’t raised right. So I can totally see these kids behaving themselves, if only out of shyness about being in a new place.

These weren’t inner city kids, correct? Why do people keep saying that? Minority does not equal inner city, nor does inner city equal bad and rowdy. If their behavior had been the issue, then that would have been the first excuse given.

They showed overhead pictures of the pool on the news yesterday. If that pool couldn’t accomodate 65 kids, then there’s something seriously wrong with that club’s management.

[Rand_Rover]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

You’re moving the goal posts here. We were not talking (you and I) about whether what the club did was racist. I asked what the CAMP had any obligation to “explain.” You’re coming up empty.

Wow. This is like debating in la-la land where you just have a different reality than everyone else. If anyone has moved the goalposts, it’s you. This conversation started with your assertion that the club has some explaining to do, and somehow you’ve morphed into an obligation on my part to say what the camp has to explain. Anyway, I think I’ve made my point to everyone capable of understanding it, so I’m done.

Purely as a matter of BUSINESS, the club has some fucking explaining to do. Not understanding that, or pretending not to understand it, is childish and obtuse.

Again, no. The club may have raised the price of lemonade from 65 cents to 75 cents–does it have to issue a press release discussing why it did that? Same thing with deciding to revoke some memberships.

[not_alice]

@Rand_Rover

Again, no. The club may have raised the price of lemonade from 65 cents to 75 cents–does it have to issue a press release discussing why it did that? Same thing with deciding to revoke some memberships.

True in the sense that if the club and its members are willing to take the PR and legal hits, they don’t have to do anything but sit back and watch. Most orgs and people are not that way though your experience may differ I guess. Like Sara said, only dead fish go with the flow.

[Justin_Bailey]

@Lama_Pacos

Uh, if you *can’t picture *black kids behaving themselves, that’s your own issue and not a reflection of reality. The same racist sentiment underlies much of this thread: obviously the kids were either being rowdy, or were lying, or were (dot dot dot)

Black, white or polka dots, 65 school age kids at a swimming pool would be obnoxious. Full stop.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Rand_Rover

Wow. This is like debating in la-la land where you just have a different reality than everyone else. If anyone has moved the goalposts, it’s you. This conversation started with your assertion that the club has some explaining to do, and somehow you’ve morphed into an obligation on my part to say what the camp has to explain. Anyway, I think I’ve made my point to everyone capable of understanding it, so I’m done.

No, the conversation started with the assertion that BOTH had some explaining to do. my assertion is that only the club does. You insisted that they both did, but you can’t come up with anything the camp needs to explain.

The club has explaining to do if it wants to keep a good reputation and keep attracting memberships. The camp has nothing to explain.

[Shagnasty]

@PoorYorick

What is it about swimming pools and racism? From my childhood memories, swimming pools were the last bastion of whites-only. If I remember correctly, the city amusement park in Oklahoma City (Spring Lake Amusement Park) closed their public pool in the '60’s because whites would not use it after it became integrated. Is it that there’s something more intimate about swimming with someone?

It is an extreme safety issue. Black people can’t swim in the same way that white men can’t jump. Did you ever see the final sinking scene in the movie Titanic where people were drowning each other trying to stay afloat even with life jackets? It is the same thing. Panic sets in and then all hell breaks loose. I don’t want my lilly white daughter to be used as a flotation device for a group of black kids. Sixty black kids in a pool requires 30+ experienced lifeguards and I doubt the club is staffed for that. OTOH, if I tried to do a single basketball dunk, I would end up in the emergency room so I wouldn’t expect them to allow me on the basketball court in the first place either.