Should private clubs have the right to exclude?

Should private organisations and clubs (e.g.-- men's clubs, country clubs, hobby clubs, etc.) have the right to maintain exclusive admissions criteria? Should a private club be allowed to exclude prospective members based on race, creed, gender, religion, eye color, etc?

Caveats: This is not a matter of employment, or anything affecting employment or career. Assume any organisation under consideration is a purely social organisation. Assume the organisation is truly private: it is an association of individuals who support their activities with dues, and receive no governmental perks.

After casting your vote, please explain your reasoning.

I can think of valid points both in favor of, and opposing, my question.

so long as no public resources are used by it.

Reason? Same logic DU uses to ban disrupters. A private club is a place/population of people who want to be together to share common goals, pleasures, interests. If anyone could join any private organization, nothing would get done as everyone would be dealing with constant disrupters.

I think the right to assembly, and to freely associate, means one can choose who NOT to hang out with, too. BUT -- then they don't get to complain when people picket, or when United Way chapters with non-discrimination clauses stop sending them funding, or when they're told they can't meet in government-owned facilities or march in a government-sponsored parade, etc.

HOWEVER -- In the real world, it's rarely that simple. Plenty of business gets done on golf courses (and if women or racial minorities can't get in, they lose opportunities).

In the real world, it's rarely that simple. Plenty of business gets done on golf courses (and if women or racial minorities can't get in, they lose opportunities).

I tend to be wary of private men's clubs and country clubs that maintain a men-only, and/or no minorities admission policy. Those sorts of organisations certainly are conducive to discussing business.

I would say if the organisation or club can clearly pass the test that it is not being used by members to further their careers or conduct business, then I'm OK with any membership policy they like.

There's nothing to stop women from forming their own clubs, conduct business there, and exclude men. The playing field is level.

Now if men-only clubs were allowed, but women-only clubs were prohibited, then I'd say your point is valid.

Jewish, Black, Hispanic, maintain a no whites, WASPS, Polish, etc. policy? what about if they network?

to the perceived "old boys' network".

Unfortunately, the world doesn't lend itself to simple explanations, so I'm unsure of how I feel about them.

that people should be allowed to form whatever voluntary associations that they want to, white males included, and do whatever they want to in them. It will all balance out

'high rollers' disappearing after supper along with a some of very successful sales & marketing chaps in her industry. She left the banquet hall and tracked them down. They were in a 'smoking room' at the hotel, having brandy and cigars.

The very next Monday, at the sales & marketing staff meeting, she opened a box of decent cigars and said, 'Ladies, today we learn to smoke cigars'.

Wonderful woman, my sister. Once she broke the code and learned that the company she worked for had memberships in several country clubs. A handful of the male employees (males being a decided minority in this particular industry) used the memberships to their advantage in business while keeping this resource secret from the females in the company.. Her response: "Ladies, this is a golf club..." Yep, golf lessons for 'the girls'. Women in her company do pretty well these days.

Wouldn't ya love a boss like that?

Yes, business does get done at private clubs, but it can be a tool you can usurp to some degree. Might be amazed at how many companies have memberships in groups they only let some of their employees know about. Knowledge, get it and use it.

Doesn't mean they can't get into another. If one of the people involved in the business refuses to make such an adjustment, they apparently weren't going to do business with you anyway.

if the business is purely private, and has nothing to do with government, the golf course is no different than an executive office.

I work for the federal government, and I think that no one should have a business advantage because they know someone with purchasing authority or influence in government, whether local, state or federal.

Neither should the organization receive any sort of favor from government, such as tax breaks for maintaining green spaces, etc.

Private means private. The Boy Scouts of America's national board of directors thinks private means private only insofar as they can prevent gay folks from associating with them in any way whatsoever. They believe they have the right to discriminate and also the right to favorable treatment by the government. That is just plain wrong.

I have nothing against the kids who participate in scouting, but I have plenty against the bigots who establish policy and guidelines for these kids.

For those who vote "sometimes", when is it acceptable? When is it unacceptable?

I would say that in most cases a private club should be able to restrict their membership but in some cases, as in VelmaD's post #4, the equal access to economic power & oportunity should be protected.

situations.

#1 - There's a men's club in my town where the guys in my business all go to hang out and make deals. I'm a woman and they won't let me in therefor denying me the same access to clients. They've impacted my ability to do my job. They've had an effect on my pocketbook. Is that ok? I don't think so.

#2 - The Masters golf tournament. I suppose legally speaking Augusta has the right to deny membership to anyone it wants. But I also have the right to boycott anyone who advertises on the Masters broadcasts. And I have the right to call Hootie and the other members sexist pigs.

In case #1, there is demonstrable harm caused by the exclusive policies. I am inclined to agree on this.

In case #2, it sounds like you find it distasteful that the discrimation occurs, but support their legal right to it, as long as you have the right to protest it. I agree on that, as well.

It's your fellow businessmen who are excluding you from conducting business, not the club.

Don't get me wrong, I understand what you are saying. I'm just saying that it's not the club's fault. It's the atmosphere of that particular business world that needs to change.

If a wolf is chasing a rabbit and the rabbit finds a hole and gets away, should the wolf blame his hunger on the hole because it was hiding the rabbit or was it the rabbit's fault for wanting to get away from the wolf?

the club is setting up an environment where this can happen.

How would you rectify the situation? Does the situation require intervention to rectify?

If these are executives, the company they work for should be made aware of the exclusionary circumstances their business is being conducted in. If these are small business owners conducting business in exclusionary settings, then I can only assume that they would rarely if ever do business with anyone outside the group - that is apparently part of the reason for belonging. If such is not the case, they are fools for limiting their business opportunities in this manner and probably aren't the brilliant business people you want to be "networking" with.

It's unfortunate that business is still conducted in this fashion but if someone doesn't want to conduct business with you in an open fashion for what ever reason, that act, that mentality must be condemned, not the group that was incidental to it. If the group wasn't there, they would likely find another way to exclude people.

I own my own small business. I understand the kind of mentality that is operating under these circumstances. Doing business in a non-exclusive manner is simply a courtesy that some people/businesses won't extend. It's like ordering lunch for a business meeting and assuming everyone eats meat. It's rude, unthinking, and not in the best interest of the company.

I don't need to do business with those kinds of people in those kinds of circumstances. I will get a job at Walmart long before they become the core of my customer base.

As eyesroll said, they'd better not expect government or charitable support for their "segregationist" organization and they'd better be able to stand up to criticism from the community and take whatever pounding comes their way for it.

It's their decision to make, but we don't have to like it.

It's tricky. I think that boy scouts should include gays, I think the Michigan Women's Music Festival should be open to women of transgender experience. I think country clubs should admit women, blacks, jews, etc. But I think that groups like South Asian Survivors of Incest should be allowed to limit their membership to South Asian survivors of incest. I think that The Michigan Women's Music Festival should be allowed to exclude men. I think that it should be on the group to show a compelling reason in their mission to be exclusive, and I think in many cases--especially for support groups--such reasons exist.

determining who gets to be exclusive and who doesn't. This is a huge problem, and is ripe for unfairness.

But if an "outsider" thinks they should be able to join a group, they should have some means for testing the legality of the exclusion.

They level a lawsuit at the club, thereby casting bad publicity on the club.

And why do you never see someone put in jail for breaking one of the anti-discrimination laws? There's a couple of local housing developers that only sell their new homes to whites. Why aren't they in jail? From some of the posts here, I guess their crime is ok with many of the members here.

If you can prove that, I think those developers would be facing not only criminal charges, but lawsuits, as well.

Read our posts more carefully... I stated in my poll question that you were to assume that this exclusion was related to a social organisation or club. Although I didn't include housing considerations, there certainly is a huge difference between a developer only selling homes to caucasians, and a women's a capella group excluding men.

regulate a variety of areas in our society, including sales of property. Your developer should be under investigation. I don't think you'll find anyone here who disagrees with anti-discrimination laws or who thinks they shouldn't be enforced.

But membership in a private funded private organization is just that, private. Whether it's the local Masonic Lodge or LaLeche League, no one gets to determine who the membership should include but the members.

I hate to use "slippery slope" arguments, but if you start telling private clubs (not businesses, but just leisure-time clubs) who they must include, eventually you'll be able to sue anyone for not inviting you into their club. What if five DUers who excel at bowling want to form a team and crush another site? The other site could get someone of a different race, creed or color who averages 90 to sue his way into it. And yes, I realize that this is a somewhat farfetched example, but I personally don't think it's all THAT farfectched. We've already seen males sue to be female cheerleaders in response to females suing to be on football teams (the males admitted that they were doing it for spite).

If I'm a minority that can't get equal opportunity at work, that's one thing. But a club? It's not hurting me. In fact, I (as a white male) am no more eligible to join Augusta National than Martha Burk is, so exactly what value would be added by shoehorning her into a room full of leather chairs and cigar smoke? She's not being deprived of a job or her right to make a living.

Besides, even if I thought that no club should be exclusive, I would rather see issues like health care and getting our asses out of Iraq handled before the government tackles this one.

you might not be eligible to join Augusta for other reasons. But if everything else was equal and you and Martha both met the other qualifications for membership...you could get in and she couldn't and JUST because she doesn't have a penis.

It may be perfectly legal...but it's also still silly.

It is silly, it is stupid and it is unfair. But it's also their right to be silly, stupid and unfair. I have the requisite penis, and I have no interest cavorting with the likes of Hootie and playing his overpriced golf course.

to join Augusta because I'm not rich and don't play golf. So what? The question refers to social situations. I'm not being hurt, and neither is she. She may be rich, but she doesn't play golf. She's not being deprived a living, just the chance to sit around with elitist assholes. That's not real damage.

Should we alter the standards of MENSA to make sure Repugs can join, too?

Be they based upon gender or race or anything really. A country club is exclusive to those with enough money. Mensa is exclusive to those who score well on its test. DU is exclusive to people on the left. I personally don't have a problem when people want to start a club. I think it's foolish to be exclusionary in most instances, but sometimes it can be justified. Like DU or Free Republic for instance. They want a conversation amongst those on one side of the political spectrum and that's fine. Mensa's exclusions are the whole purpose of the club.

I think when it comes to race and gender it's a little more problematic, but ultimately, people do have a right of association, and I'm not generally in favor of taking that right away. When anything is publicly funded, that changes it entirely, but if it is indeed private, then, as with speech, I'm willing to accept the bad so that society can benefit from the good.

I second the point that is raised elsewhere in this thread. Individuals should be able to congregate in areas of their choosing with like-minded people if they so desire. I wouldn't want to do it, but that's not the point. If you really think this shouldn't be allowed then you must also be in favor of opening this message board to all comers, inbred Freepers included.
For instance, I'm a married man. It's a bit of a pastime for some men to complain about married life, mostly jokingly. I would feel quite uncomfortable doing it in the presence of women I didn't know well, and I think that it may be taken in the wrong way. (Before you call me a pig, know that my wife does the same about having a husband, and it's in good fun). This is never appropriate in a formal or professional setting, but I think it's OK in social settings.

However, important contacts are made (and indeed many business deals) in social/country club settings. It smacks of unfairness to exclude individuals from these activites on what must certainly be superficial attributes (i.e. race, age, gender, religious affiliation). I think the best defense is to raise awareness of these issues, and try to embarrass the members (this has worked to some degree with members of the male-only Augusta club).

no public tax breaks (including property taxes, sweetheart deals on zoning from local legislators who get memberships, etc.), and no public entity holds events on the premises, yes, their bigotry is permissible. It is equally permissible to protest it - not in the courts, but in the court of public opinion, with letter-writing campaigns, picketing, boycotts, etc.

Wasn't it the Little Rock schools that tried to get around Brown vs Board of ed by privatizing their school system? Clearly this is a public good being privatized for rights of exclusion. I am afraid that most private clubs are just that so that they can exclude someone. Whether they should have the right to exclude then depends on what is transpiring within the club. If there is ANY public business going on or reasonable expectation of it going on then there can be no exclusion. This would include board room talk of any kind I would think. It really comes down to when is it ok? The answer might be when the business being conducted in the club is so ludicrous that no reasonable person would want to be a part of it.

Contracts are enforced many ways. There is a disincentive to screw someone who you have to see every weekend at the club, at church or at the bowling alley because you have to see the person you screw and everyone will know you screwed them over.

Clubs are a way to maintain the old boys network because of the non-legal ways of guaranteeing contracts.

Should they be illegal? I have to say no, because we do have a right to associate with like-minded people. But one of the trade-offs we make is the maintenance of old boys networks.

expand the membership to include more people. It's not the either-or situation your last line seems to imply. You can still have the social pressure not to screw over your club-mates. Just be inclusive when letting people into the club.

it is not on my dime, or is not a pure social club but has other, unofficial functions (i.e., golfing clubs that also serve as the county stepping stone to a job) then how could I have a problem with it?

I have no problem with it. Start your own club if you want to be in one.

And I don't think you should humor their "apples-to-oranges" comparisons.

'nuff said.

Why do you think that TXlib is asking this? It seems to me to be a perfectly fine, logical question....

Let's just say that someone posed this question on another board, thinking that they were making a point of some sort.

The gist: DU is a place where liberals can feel free to interact with other liberals. Some dumb-asses think that they're scoring a point by comparing DU to private "white-boy" clubs. Of course they're ignoring the rule of law.

For instance, I can tell a stupid redneck that he's not welcome in my house, without worrying that I'm violating the law. I'm just saying that some random asshole is not welcome to my dinner party.

I can't however, host a public golf tournament with the stipulation that blacks "need not apply". You see the difference? A private meeting is not the same as a public spectacle. Apples/Oranges. It's an easily refuted straw man argument. Easier than shooting Hannitys in a barrel.

because although I *suspected* the claim made was wrong, I wanted to test it myself.

I feel vindicated that the results of this poll backed up my argument against the anti-DU viewpoint.

That's why it's a private club.

With one of those three answers.

Certainly there are always exceptions to every rule. For instance, a Latin Club (for the dead language, not the racial designation) should always have the right to refuse someone who has no intention of learning or knowing Latin--the same should be said for any "hobby" organization: why should a stamp club, a coin club or other such group admit or allow anyone who doesn't have a sincere intterest in knowing about or learning about the hobby for which the club is based?

Why would a Catholic or Baptist group, for example, want to include someone who is an atheist who has no interest, other than to question the people there who already believe in something? Why would someone be invited to join a Scandinavian-American club if he/she isn't of that origin, but just wants to get laid by someone of that heritage?

There are valid reasons for many groups that disallow certain others, mostly those of diametrically opposing viewpoints, from joining a group. Even here on DU, we really don't want anyone who is opposed to our opinions here unless they remain above the fracas and are potential converts to our way of thinking. The same goes for our opposition--we can go to read at FR if we wish to, and even join, but we know we're not really wanted there, and personally, I can't fake it enough to not be banned within 10 minutes max of making my first (and only!) post.

As far as some other groups are concerned, I'm always found it futzy and misogynistic for men's clubs not to admit women, and I do oppose the decisions of some groups to discriminate strictly on the basis of race and or gender. Among these, to me, are the prime examples--catch the kids early and instill bigoted mindsets in them--like the Boy Scouts, who discriminate on the basis of gender, religious belief and sexual preference. I don't know for sure, but the Girl Scouts are probably in that same vein (I've only heard of lawsuits against the BS, not the GS), and such groups as these. The Salvation Army, though for a long time one of the most truly beneficial organizations out there is now defeating their purpose by trying to discriminate against non-Christians in their hiring practices.

This is not really a black and white issue. The vast number of groups and private club have rules, regulations and preferences to work into their membership enrollment, but rarely are they discrimatory against people for the more blatant offenses. I can see on country clubs, for example, not to admit certain classes of people based on financial well being--in those cases, I, who is poverty stricken, would certainly not be able to pay for the green fees, the membership cost, the drinks in the clubhouse, etc. ;)