Private Pool Bans Minority Campers
 

Private Pool Bans Minority Campers
By RON TODT

HUNTINGDON VALLEY, Pa. (July 10) - State officials will investigate accusations of racial discrimination against a suburban Philadelphia swim club that allegedly reacted to a visiting group of minority children by asking them not to return.
A local television station reported that club president John Duesler issued a statement saying, "There was concern that a lot of kids would change the complexion … and the atmosphere of the club."

read the rest
http://news.aol.com/article/philadel...ool-ban/564346

I read about that on PP.

For those that say racism doesn't exist...:rolleyes:

Perhaps all of the GC resident attorneys can weigh in

From what I gleaned from the article, this is a private club where one has to pay a membership to use the pool. I wonder if it's a socioeconomic prejudice vs a racial one? "Poor" kids from a daycare environment as opposed to African-American children.

I'll take off my "law student" hat for this one and simply say that the club president saying "There was concern that a lot of kids would change the complexion … and the atmosphere of the club," (emphasis added) was monumentally stupid. It sure sounds like a racial thing when he puts it in those terms.

Exactly. Especially when you have members of the club contradicting all of the other claims, "overcrowding" and such.

It broke my heart a little to read this:

Day camp member Araceli Carvalho, 9, said she was upset when told she wouldn't be allowed to return.
"I said, 'That's not right,'" she said.
But when asked if she wants to return now, she said, "I don't want to swim here anymore."

This is how little children respond to racism, by closing themselves off from possibilities as a defense mechanism, to protect themselves from further rejection. This is how these little acts take a long term toll.

I agree.

Wow, I'm from the south and even I'm suprised by this...

This was my first thought.

Social class and race are virtually inseparable in America so it is undoubtedly both.

The people at the pool said and did dumb and intolerant things. "Changing the complexion" is a phrase sometimes used to refer to a change in tone or atmosphere. However, in reference to 65 Black and Hispanic kids that comment will always have racial overtones and undertones.

Other than that, this story doesn't move me.

I know right. I can't believe there is not one white kid attending that camp.

If there isn't, is that racism in your mind?

It was a joke. This is what I consider racist.

I totally agree.

Also, some people from the private club said that they have turned away other groups before after realizing they couldn't handle the capacity, but what I don't get is if you (the club) have already tried a similar program that didn't work b/c of a capacity issue, why would they offer to do it to other groups later on?

Wow...just wow. I hope the kids who did it get caught.

Congratulations on finding white victims of a perceived hate crime. Your point?

HUNTINGDON VALLEY, Pa. – The head of a private suburban Philadelphia swim club on Friday defended its cancellation of the memberships of dozens of minority children, saying safety, not racism, was the reason.

"We deeply regret this whole situation," John Duesler, president of the board of directors of The Valley Club, told reporters Friday afternoon at the entrance to the club in the leafy suburb of Huntingdon Valley.

[ full story ]

Nice attempt at spinning this, I guess.

Citing an example of what I consider to be racist in regards to your previous question. I find it odd that you find the incident to be "perceived" as a hate crime. What exactly would qualify as a hate crime to you?

Back to the topic....
 

I understand and can relate to both sides of the issue. But I think unfamiliarity and unwillingness to share (based on social class and race) are what breeded the contempt. Safety is just a more PC catch word.

I hope this situation is handled somehow and this relatively uninteresting story dies down. :)

They should either hire a competent PR person, or at least put a gag order on this guy.

Haha, don't hold back, tell us how you really feel. ;)

A friend and I were discussing this and one of the questions we had was if any other camps had visited before hand. I will have to forward this article.

Also @Phil I suppose it is ok to be blase about this story, but these are real children who are being affected by what they perceive to be racism and/or classism (whether that perception is accurate or not). Though I guess we can all agree, based on available information, that even if the club owner's response was not motivated by race, the responses of some of the patrons were. Note the children's response to their, to use Morrison's term, "disallowing." That is always noteworthy.

FWIW, I have to agree w/ Kevlar. It goes both ways. You can't say one is racism and the other is just 'perceived' b/c it was the other way around.

My understanding is that racism involves an element of power. So, while the actions of whites towards blacks can be qualified as racism, the opposite situation can't technically be called racism. It doesn't make it right or ok, but it's not racism either.

However, I don't have a lot of interest or experience in sociology, so I may not be explaining this correctly.

Do hate crime laws make that distinction?

It depends on the state - there's a wide variation among states, and some extend the term "hate crime" to deal with everything from face to sexual orientation. Some states generalize the hate crime law to include laws based on "bigotry" or "bias" (like CT for example).

The Anti-Defamation League site has a decent summary, although I wonder if the info is up to date: http://www.adl.org/learn/hate_crimes..._frameset.html

I understand where this is coming from and recall a thread a few years back where this was discussed in depth. At any rate, the definition you propose here is not a universally accepted one. Far from it.

The word is so politically and ethically charged that it has many acceptable definitions and this power-based definition is only one of many.

ETA: IIRC, the thread I just referred to is the infamous "Prejudism" thread.

Oh, I understand that it's not the universally-accepted definition; I apologize if it seemed like I was trying to give the "right" or "correct" definition. I was just explaining my own understanding of the term.

This is a relatively uninteresting and nongroundbreaking story to me, so are the reactions to this incident that I've heard elsewhere. A lot of people (not here but elsewhere) are very outraged, not because these are kids but because people are easily outraged over race relations.

My apathy toward the story as reported and people's responses is separate from the social significance of the alleged incident and how it should be handled.

The opposite is called racism by some social scientists but most distinguish that it is individual level racism, which has minimal social significance because it cannot be aggregated if the "racist(s)" is of the minority in power. Racism and hate crimes targeting whites occur in limited contexts and are extremely rare because, as you implied, whites are the majority in power and in population size. Moreover, racism is more covert than overt and Blacks would have a difficult time finding contexts in which they could covertly (as well as overtly) victimize whites.

More importantly, I was wondering what chip Kevlar was trying to shoulder. This thread is about alleged discrimination and possibly racism. What's the point of bringing another incident into the mix? Just to prove a point?

some people love the past, so why not?

I think that saying they cancelled their "memberships" is a bit over the top and improper spin by the AP. Membership in a private club is something individuals apply for. These children were being permitted to swim there for the summer ONLY - on Mondays ONLY - because of an agreement a camp they were attending made with the club. It was more like having a day pass.

Not that I don't think the whole thing is ridiculous and racist, but the appropriate terminology should be used. Implying these children were "members" inflames the situation further.

33girl, your correction is extremely appropriate, thank you.

I agree with your second paragraph, too. The spin by the AP fits the tone of many of the articles and people's reactions to them. We know the things that get a rise and an emotional response from many people in America, among them are: race, racism allegations, and exaggerations/inaccurate statements of the facts.

Are Anglo-Americans really the "Majority in power" though? I thought that they were either already considered a minority b/c the huge influx in minority populations by now?

I think that whole "whites will be a minority" thing only counts if you make 2 groups, White and Not White.

Yes.

Whites are over 70% of the total population. That inludes whites of various ethnicites (e.g. white Hispanic/Latina) and combinations with other races. This makes whites the majority in population size.

Being the majority in power is part of, but not contingent upon, being the majority in population size (think South African Apartheid). However, whites are also the majority in power as social, political, and economic institutions in America are dominated by whites.

Maybe. But even comparing a white group of about 220 million to a nonwhite group of, let's say, 100 million still makes whites the majority. Maybe the higher fertility rates of some of the nonwhite groups would be able to bridge that gap (sarcasm).

I say it doesn't count unless people pretend that their definitions of "whiteness" have suddenly changed and that Hispanic/Latina suddenly does not include whites, as well as Blacks (such as Cuba).

well, it broke my heart when a tv reporter interviewed one precious little boy who started crying(so did i) when he told what he had heard.

I think the media's coverage of this is probably going to do more psychological harm to these kids than the private club's manager ever could.

How so?

I say it's because of the overwhelming emotion that anything race related receives in this country. Those kids are being interviewed by a ton of reputable and nonreputable news sources. Some of them have their faces all over the place, including those who were crying. They are going to receive different types of responses from people.

Some of those kids may remember the incident but I wager that they don't know much about this story or anything beyond the fact that they didn't get to swim that day. They may believe whatever angry adults tell them about the incident and its consequences (i.e. them being denied membership when they were never seeking membership). And, as with most kids who are around adults, they can sense the emotions that they are expected to feel and express as Blacks and Hispanics who were allegedly discriminated against by whites. This type of thing can sometimes become an "I'm angry...don't know why...but I am...because I'm supposed to be" situation.

I already figured that as much, however I am waiting to see what KEVIN'S response is.