Swim Club Discrimination?
Back in June, The Valley Club in Pennsylvania turned away a group of 56 black day camp kids (some sources cite 65, which includes Hispanics) who came to use the private club’s swimming pool. The club gave the camp a refund.
Naturally, accusations of “racism” flew, especially when some of the children said they heard a club member ask why the black kids were there. Employees say the incident wasn’t racially motivated – too many kids, some of whom couldn’t swim, not enough bodyguards on duty, etc.
Although the club is private, turning away a group of racial minorities was bound to cause a ruckus. Last week, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission found probable cause of racial discrimination. The Valley Club may have to pony up $50,000 in civil penalties. (Source)
How does a private club fall under the jurisdiction of a government agency? The commission’s 33-page report (PDF) doesn’t answer the question. After reading the report, my view still holds: the group was too large and disruptive, and dues-paying members complained. The evidence of discrimination is pretty thin. Because the kids were mostly black, however, and some heard a club member – not an employee of the club – mentioning race, it became a racial issue.
The Valley Club may appeal the decision. I suggest the club changes its policy to expressly prohibit groups over a certain size from using the facilities or designate certain days for day camp swimming while giving dues-paying members advance notice of the schedule.
Update: John Hudson, who’s comment was deleted as spam (text retrieved), wrote:
“You indicated that you did not see how a private club could fall under the jurisdiction of this commission. Findings 10 and 11 state that the club allowed its facilities to be used by non-members on a fee for use basis. This makes it a business open to the public and not a private club for this purpose. As a result it is subject to the same anti-discrimination laws as any other business open to the public. The mere fact that it also use of its facilities based on membership does not alter the fact that it also rented out its facilities to the public and was therefore a public accommodation. If you want to have a private club that bars non-whites you have a constitutional right to do so under the freedom of association that the Supreme Court has implied into the First Amendment. However, an accommodation open to the general public is not an exercise of that right to choose your associates.”
