What do you think of the "No women members allowed" at Augusta

[Golfgal]

In theory, yes. But the "private shield" isn't as automatic as you might think.

Hmmm...okay you bring an interesting point about companies. It would seem that most people believe private golf clubs should have the right to "choose" their members any way they like. But what about privately held companies? They cannot choose/exclude employees based on race or gender. Just to open up discussion again...what makes a private club different than a privately owned company when it comes to this issue? Is there a parallel to draw?

[iacas]

Excellent points. Forgive my ignorance, but are private clubs allowed to exclude people because of race in the US, just because they are "private"?

So far as I know, yep. That policy might exclude them from consideration for hosting a PGA Tour event or state amateur events or things like that, but I think they can make the rules they want. NAACP isn't likely to have a Caucasian president any time soon, and the Red Hat society probably won't be admitting many 25-year-old men any time soon either.

But what about privately held companies? They cannot choose/exclude employees based on race or gender.

Employment and recreation are different things altogether. Different laws, different mentality, different moral base.

Just to open up discussion again...what makes a private club different than a privately owned company when it comes to this issue? Is there a parallel to draw?

I don't see a parallel. I can't nail down the wording I'd like, but part of what makes them non-parallel to me is that the issues of employment and recreation aren't terribly comparable, nor is the money flowing in the same direction in both cases. Employment affects your livelihood, and is covered under a whole different set of laws than what you're "allowed" to do recreationally. The law guarantees certain rights to employment - it doesn't grant the same rights to how you'll spend your free time, money, etc.

And no, don't quote me on any of that. IANAL and all that jazz.

[DaveLeeNC]

Hmmm...okay you bring an interesting point about companies.

I really don't know this particular area well. However, I do feel pretty sure that ANGC would not be able to discriminate in their employment practices.

I'm not sure what the analog to 'member' is for a privately held company. I suppose it would be 'owners' and I would guess that they could limit themselves by any rules that they would chose. dave

[flanagan]

As you have discovered, there is no such policy. So, it would seem this angle for part of an article would pretty much be a rehash of old news, and not particularly newsworthy.

What makes Augusta National different from private employers in terms of membership policies is that we are tallking about membership policies not employees of a business. Antidiscrimination laws apply to employment not to membership issues, generally speaking. Nothing really there to discuss. Pretty well settled law at this point.

At the same time, if reminding people that Augusta National doesn't have women members is the point of view you are intentionally going for, by all means have at it.

[zeg]

Personally, I think "the Club" is disgusting based on its attitude toward race and gender. Nice golf course they have there, but I am appalled by almost everything I know about the group who runs it.

[goblue107501]

It is their club, they can do what they want. Hence the term private. I am sure their are plenty of private female organizations that don't allow men. Men don't go around and protest them.

If it was a private club in Fargo or Boise and didn't hold one of the biggest golf events in the world, no one would care. If there are other men-only clubs they should receive the same protest and criticism. Don't just single out Augusta because it is famous. Oh, that's right, a small club in Boise won't get your protest on TV or in the news, because no one will care.

[Jared]

I think my opinion on this pretty much agrees with the consensus. It's a private club, and as such, has the right to invite whomever they choose.

Just as an aside, I seem to recall a country club being in the news some years back who lost a discrimination suit. A judge ruled that since their dining facilities and banquet hall were open to the public, that they could not discriminate in terms of golf membership. I'm a little fuzzy on the details, but I could swear I remember this happening.

[gogolfing]

I think we all have women only fitness clubs in most cities, so I don't see the problem with a male or female only golf course either. People pay dues and know what they are joining going in.

[zubady]

I have read all the posts, many, particulary the most recent cite legal issues. For me it is morally wrong what Augusta National is doing. They have profitted handsomely from golf, their obligation now is to help promote it. If they were really forward-thinking, they would host a Women's Master's tournament; I guarantee it would be an instant ladies major. Lawyers are already taking over common sense in this country. It is not about your club Augusta National, it's about our sport. Take the high road and get off your high horse.

[chipper2]

When I was much younger they would not allow me to join the Girl Scouts, now that I am older I cannot joint the DAR. By that reasoning why should a private club not be allowed to be all male? Lawyers are going to bring down our country and way of life. By the same reasoning, I still beleive in God and if a kids did not then he should be excluded from anything that smells of religion in school.

[Shindig]

I have read all the posts, many, particulary the most recent cite legal issues. For me it is morally wrong what Augusta National is doing. They have profitted handsomely from golf, their obligation now is to help promote it.

ANGC does help to promote golf. Have you seen, for example, what they are doing in Asia lately?

If they were really forward-thinking, they would host a Women's Master's tournament; I guarantee it would be an instant ladies major.

Which would it replace? The ladies already have four majors, and one already jumped in to replace another one a few years back.

Lawyers are already taking over common sense in this country. It is not about your club Augusta National, it's about our sport. Take the high road and get off your high horse.

Do you think the lawyers are going to take over Augusta National? Regardless of your answer to this, do you think that what Augusta National does is going to affect the case of

Lawyers v. Common Sense ? For the record, I think they are taking the high road. Women are able to join ANGC, but they are subject to the same requirements that men are subject to.

[flanagan]

I have read all the posts, many, particulary the most recent cite legal issues. For me it is morally wrong what Augusta National is doing. They have profitted handsomely from golf, their obligation now is to help promote it. If they were really forward-thinking, they would host a Women's Master's tournament; I guarantee it would be an instant ladies major. Lawyers are already taking over common sense in this country. It is not about your club Augusta National, it's about our sport. Take the high road and get off your high horse.

For heaven's sake, this isn't about lawyers, nice knee jerk nothing of a comment that has nothing to do with this subject.

[flanagan]

When I was much younger they would not allow me to join the Girl Scouts, now that I am older I cannot joint the DAR. By that reasoning why should a private club not be allowed to be all male? Lawyers are going to bring down our country and way of life. By the same reasoning, I still beleive in God and if a kids did not then he should be excluded from anything that smells of religion in school.

This has nothing to do with lawyers, but you should know it is in part because of laws, not lawyers, that the same reasoning does apply to the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts exemptions from anti-discrimination laws in regard to gender and the rights of private association. Of course, you wouldn't recognize that. The last part I haven't figured out.

[zubady]

Well, a few others took a more studied approach to my response and I respect their perspectives vice your knee jerk reaction.

[1Greatgolfguy]

my 2 cents

Women and men should be treated equally.
All races should be treated equally.

For ANY PUBLIC place to exclude admitance due to gender or race, is unacceptable.
For ANY private club to exclude a member based on race, is unacceptable.

For ANY PRIVATE club to refuse membership based on gender, when an alternative public or private club is unavailable, is unacceptable.

Otherwise, to create a club and limit its membership is acceptable. This is no different than only inviting your friends over to your house or "girls night out."
To make a big deal about membership to such clubs; is similiar to complaining about not getting invited to a party.

Augusta National limits membership, and when it is the last golf course in Georgia, then I will scorn its "exclusion based on gender" membership policy.

[zubady]

Shindig: I appreciate your studied approach to my comments, but in the end we will have to agree to disagree on them taking the high road. Notice in the flap with the activist, the law was cited, nothing about morality. As an avid fan of golf I am aware of the Augusta Chairman traveling to Asia to personally offer their support for the growth of the sport in Asia (which it frankly does not need in Asia; I lived in Asia for a year, they are beyond passionate about the sport).

1Greatgolfguy: Well done.

Flanagan: I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you are really passionate about this topic; otherwise I believe your remarks border on insulting. But I will let the moderators decide on that.

[flanagan]

I'm actually not passionate about the subject at all. The whole Augusta membership thing has been done to death over the years and is really a nonstory. I was a little surprised someone was proposing to toss a little of this into some article without even understanding the true nature of the situation, i.e. the fallacy contained in the title to the thread. Again, if the point of view of the article is to "re-raise" awareness of a private club having no women, so be it. If it is not the point of view of the article, it's not newsworthy and the treatment is likely to be nonrepresentative and not thorough.

My reaction was to the old standby "blame lawyers" remarks, which have nothing to do with the situation, begs the question and advances no discussion.

If you have a moral problem with Augusta National, great. You are entitled to believe that private clubs should be held to a different standard, but I think you will be eternally frustrated, because they probably always will be. Rights of association are just as important as other freedoms we enjoy.

[DavidFehertysBike]

I dont like it at all, but its a private club and they technically can do what they want. I just dont see why golf clubs arent allowed to discriminate based on race or creed but they can based on gender. Its archaic.