Theoretically speaking (and we can't pretend to know what these parents are thinking) I would tend to believe that when your money is involved in something important (your child) the entity will not make a decision without parental consent first.

I don't think they would rush to go back there without meeting with the parents first and even then, just like the one example in the article I posted, not all of those kids will be returning.

I agree with that. Even the restaurant in the notorious Katzenbach v. McClung case (where the SCOTUS said that racial discrimination in places of public accommodation was a burden on interstate commerce) was able to avoid the effect of the court's pronouncement by becoming a private club which only admitted whites.

I'd think though that business would be pretty bad for a club openly discriminating against blacks. No one wants to be associated with that. That's probably part of why the private club has done a 180 on its decision. No doubt many members cancelled their memberships over this incident and would continue to do so until something was done (I would).

This almost goes back to what I was saying earlier. What institution in their right mind in today's society would allow archaic rules like this to be set in place, whether written or not?

Yes, to a degree they may have a 'right' to serve whomever they want, but all the same, it's outdated thinking that is perpetuated because the people involved let it be so.

What becomes interesting is not the color of people who are or aren't allowed to utilize the facility, it's the color of what keeps this place open.

Green.

To a point, one can say that the club didn't want to be seen as racist, thus the quick 180 as you mentioned.

Furthermore, being seen as such could also open the club for retaliation such as...lawsuits which could affect their bottom line should they lose their case or once people catch wind that they are being dragged into court because of this type of thinking.

I won't assume that's what going on but, in today's society when shyte like this occurs, you don't have to always protest, just threaten a person's pockets.

I agree with this. But they will definitely lose in the court of public opinion. They very obviously were trying to garner some good PR from doing this in the first place (oh, look at the country club helping out the poor underprivileged children). They lost on multiple fronts - from the outside people who think they're racist, and from members who will probably pull their memberships either because a) they're ashamed to be associated with the club or b) they're aghast that the club lowered itself to letting the lower classes through the doors in the first place.

But why wait til NOW with this incident to be ashamed?

heh!

You don't actually believe that do you? If that really was the case, do you really think there would still be all-white country clubs and other private clubs? That really is a rather naive sentiment you have expressed there. Business doesn't always flounder for businesses that discriminate against blacks. And there are people who don't mind being associated with that. Billy Graham was a member of an all-white country club for years. Clearly he had no problem with it.

I have never heard of anyone using the phrase "changing the complexion" as a way of referring to a change in tone or atmosphere.

Example: http://www.propeller.com/story/2009/...your-business/

I'm assuming the club is smart enough to know not to make public racist statements but not swift enough to think that "change the complexion" has a different meaning when referencing minorities at a white club. Misspeaking is a common error that people of all races make when they aren't thinking on their toes. Not to be confused with WHY the club felt these kids would change the complexion of the club.

To be clear, being a member of an all-white establishment does not mean that all of the members know that nonwhites are intentionally and formally excluded.

I really don't have a problem with all-white country clubs. If I played golf, I might even belong to one. Diversity wouldn't be on my list of things I care about either way. I'm more interested in the facilities and the membership.

Membership requirements for those clubs vary. Usually, you have to get a sponsor, usually, the shareholders have to vote and typically, the vote requirement is very high... at least that's the case for country clubs with any sort of prestige attached to them. The view at these sorts of places is pretty simple -- they don't discriminate based upon race, they just haven't had a subjectively qualified person of color apply. That might sound like a fiction to you, but really, do you think minorities are even applying?

You might have a case if Colin Powell gets turned down for membership somewhere, but that hasn't happened.

There are highly selective black organizations out there such as Jack and Jill. They don't admit whites (as far as I know) and that's just fine with everyone. Their racial requirements are express, unlike country clubs where you have a circumstantial case at best for racially based exclusions. And in J&J's case, you don't have whites banging down the door for admission either.

Now, when one of these organizations admits a black person and then turns around and boots them because they're "changing the complexion," we'd have a serious problem. I suppose the difference is superficial, but real. People will belong to these organizations so long as the organizations help these people to achieve what they want to achieve.

As the significant other of an avid golfer (who is Black, as am I), this has definitely been our experience. Many of the clubs that were once exclusively white, including those that intentionally excluded nonwhites, now have Black members. These Black members were mostly sponsored by white members and are professionals who are of the upper social class designation of the existing members.

In general, minorities aren't flooding the gates however it is not true that none of these clubs intentionally discriminated based on race. More clubs are allowing sprinkles of nonwhites but there is still a racial tipping point in some of these clubs as there is in predominantly white neigbhorhoods.

Maybe I come from a very different environment, but I personally would have issues with country clubs which admit only one race. I don't know about where you're from, Kevin, but there are a lot of non-whites up here who'd be wonderful candidates at exclusive clubs. Many are already members. Say you're a wealthy businessperson from Singapore. You've had a foreign education since middle school (prep school in the US, followed by two degrees, each from an Ivy). You go home to work a few years, establish yourself and then go to the US...permanently. You're an avid golfer. You'd like to join the club in your town, and your accomplishments, connections, etc would make you a likely candidate....except for one thing....you're Asian.

Kevin, have you met someone like this? And what about someone from Asia who belongs to a recipricol club?

The ignorance behind this statement is...staggering.

Yes, minorities are applying. We just don't often hear about them getting turned away because they may not be well known.

We only would hear about Colin Powell because he is famous.

With all the minorities in America, why does it have to go international? LOL

It isn't surprising that you have no problem with all-white clubs. I would expect that. That's pretty much a given.

As for Jack and Jill, I'm not even sure why you brought that into the discussion. Furthermore, it is absurd when whites counter comments about all-white country clubs with this type of statement. The reason Jack and Jill and other such groups were started was to create a network for black children. The racism going on then and now resulted in blacks forming such groups because they were excluded from groups that were predominately white...among other things.