Augusta May Have To Admit Its First Woman Member

[clubchamp]

I really think some of you need to look at harder at some of the sites the US Open and PGA Championship are played. I think the point of the PGA could do something is not really a valid point a lot of the sites majors are played on have restrictions maybe not like ANGC but AGNC is far from the only place to have restrictions.

[Shindig]

I confess that I don't know anything about that guy.  I only know what was written in the stories I read about this.  I went back and read again and it actually does say that "many" of the previous CEO's have been invited, not "every."  So if what you're implying is true (he wasn't invited) then that tells me they don't really have a dillemma at all, because the whole point of the story was which tradition they were going to honor.  If they haven't been inviting all of the previous CEOs, then its not really a tradition.

I didn't claim that he wasn't invited: unlike Martha Burk and her ilk, I don't pretend to know the details of Augusta National's membership qualification process. I do claim that his situation, when he became IBM's CEO, is different from that of the current CEO. [quote name="Golfingdad" url="/t/56772/augusta-may-have-to-admit-its-first-woman-member/54#post_696350"]

Oh, and her qualifications as CEO have nothing to do with anything here, nor does Martha Burk.

[/quote] Her qualifications as CEO are very relevant to this: she wasn't given the job to appease someone or to allow IBM to bathe in the enlightenment of having a female CEO. She got the position because the board believed she was the best for the job. That's important because meanwhile we have people claiming, allegedly in the name of gender equality, that she should not be held to the same standard as men in other aspects of the job. It's disgusting, it's insulting, it's sexist, and it's why so many of us that believe in equality think Martha Burk is the worst thing for gender equality since the burqa. And Burk is relevant because she's the one who wants Rometty to be a member at ANGC. Not Rometty, not IBM, and not Augusta.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Shindig

I didn't claim that he wasn't invited: unlike Martha Burk and her ilk, I don't pretend to know the details of Augusta National's membership qualification process. I do claim that his situation, when he became IBM's CEO, is different from that of the current CEO.

Her qualifications as CEO are very relevant to this: she wasn't given the job to appease someone or to allow IBM to bathe in the enlightenment of having a female CEO. She got the position because the board believed she was the best for the job. That's important because meanwhile we have people claiming, allegedly in the name of gender equality, that she should not be held to the same standard as men in other aspects of the job. It's disgusting, it's insulting, it's sexist, and it's why so many of us that believe in equality think Martha Burk is the worst thing for gender equality since the burqa.

And Burk is relevant because she's the one who wants Rometty to be a member at ANGC. Not Rometty, not IBM, and not Augusta.

I'm sorry, I don't understand you point at all.  As it pertains to this story the only thing that matters is what the two do have in common:  Both are/were the CEO of IBM.  As I see it, here are two issues here, and two issues only.

1.  Augusta has supposedly invited all of the CEOs of IBM to be members to this point.

2.  They have, as far as we know, never invited a female.

Now that the current CEO is female, they have to make a choice.  That's it, end of story.

Nobody is questioning her certainly high qualifications for having been named CEO, and more importantly, nobody gives a flying rat's you-know-what what Martha Burk thinks.  (Augusta squashed that one a long time ago)  Even if Martha Burk heard about the situation and wants to start flapping her gums about it doesn't change anything.  She is completely irrelevant.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

1.  Augusta has supposedly invited all of the CEOs of IBM to be members to this point.

I don't believe that's true.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by iacas

I don't believe that's true.

And I certainly don't know that it is either, which is why this time I threw the "supposedly" in there.  If they haven't, then I would revert back to my previous statement that this whole thing becomes a complete non-issue.

[LuciusWooding]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Now that the current CEO is female, they have to make a choice.  That's it, end of story.

But they can make the choice to do nothing, which I believe they will. They don't need to admit their reason for not inviting her, they don't need to invite her, and they don't care what people think of them. Right now the most likely method of getting women allowed in is if Donald Trump buys ANGC, and that's not happening. It would make probably every golfer have a stroke.

I'd just like to point out that the Shinnecock Hills Golf Club of Long Island was founded in 1891. It is and always has been a private club, and I doubt it's much easier to get into than Augusta. It is a prestigious course in terms of hosting several US Opens and claims to be the oldest organized club in the US.

They allowed women from the very start. In fact a short "ladies" course was very popular until it was redesigned to make the main layout tougher after many players in competition could shoot low scores.

In 1896 it hosted its first US open, only the second overall. A black player named John Shippen, the first black professional ever, and a Shinnecock indian named Oscar Bunn were not only allowed to play, but sponsored by the members of the club, and when the professionals threatened to boycott the membership and USGA President Theodore Havemeyer didn't budge. Shippen would contend throughout the tournament until the 29/36th hole where he scored an 11, and if he had made par he would have made it into a playoff for the title, and this was 100 years before Tiger Woods. He finished T-6.

So really golf has been an egalitarian game for over 100 years. Augusta represents a big leap backwards by a small part of southern gentry, but in my neck of the woods golf has been available for everyone for 120 years, as long as you're rich and/or know the right people. That discrimination will always exist, but I couldn't afford to play the place if it were public so I'll live. The fact that Bethpage Black is in the other direction half as far and costs about 70$ can make up for that.

[burtonda]

The outrage should be directed at the PGA Tour, tournament sponsors, and even the players who cling to "tradition" as a blanket justification for their participation.  Heck, you can even express outrage at the fans who support it by attending or simply tuning in on TV.  No one is forcing the PGA Tour to hold an event at Augusta National.  And certainly no one is forced into sponsorship, attendance, or support.

Augusta National Golf Club is a private club.  They are under no obligation to admit anyone, nor are they required to post membership criteria or lists.  As pointed out earlier, many private clubs in the US operate in this manner.  Even some public ones essentially do this (ie. Curves).

With that said, history never looks kindly on systemic discrimination or repression.  And the excuses (ie. public vs private) that seemed so right at the time eventually just seem pathetic, backwards, and sad.

[SoCal Blade]

YAAAAAWN.......... Aint never gonna happen, no matter what the TV sez.....Same old talk every year before the masters...Like i said; YAAAAAWN

[Rudyprimo]

ANGC will eventually change it's policies when, like another poster said, the old members die off.  There's only about two dozen males only golf clubs left out of 4500 golf clubs in this country according to an article in Golf Digest.    Slowly, clubs have been changing their policies over the past 20 years or so.

Butler National hosted the Western Open for 16 straight years and gave it up instead of opening their membership requirements.  They're in the process of changing their policies right now and they are also petitioning the PGA to host events there again.  They would especially like to host an U.S. Open.

Chicago Golf Club in Wheaton gave up hosting the Walker Cup in 1993 instead of changing.  They eventually changed anyway and hosted the Walker Cup again in 2005.

ANGC will change too.  Personally I see nothing wrong with a private club only admitting members they choose.  That's one of the freedoms in this country.  I know I would never be admitted there

even if I had the money to join.  I'd love to play the course but I wouldn't want to be socializing with the type of people they have as members anyway.

[brocks]

I really think some of you need to look at harder at some of the sites the US Open and PGA Championship are played. I think the point of the PGA could do something is not really a valid point a lot of the sites majors are played on have restrictions maybe not like ANGC but AGNC is far from the only place to have restrictions.

Actually, the PGA can occasionally "do something." In 1990, the PGA Championship was scheduled to be held at Shoal Creek CC, in Alabama. For whatever reason, Shoal Creek's policy of "no black members" became controversial, and several things happened: - prominent civil rights groups made plans to hold protests outside the grounds - the founder of Shoal Creek said that the club would not be pressured into admitting blacks - IBM, among other corporate sponsors of the PGA, announced that they were withdrawing their financial support - the founder of Shoal Creek claimed that he had been misquoted, and announced that an invitation had been extended to a black person - the PGA of America, the PGA Tour, and the USGA announced that future championships would not be held at clubs that discriminated against blacks - Augusta National GC extended an invitation to its first black member I have been reliably told by a poster here that ANGC's change of policy at this time had nothing to do with pressure. I have also been told that it is an abuse of facts to hold the opinion that 1990 is relatively recent in the context of Supreme Court decisions outlawing racial discrimination by public institutions in 1954 (Brown v. Board of Education), and by private businesses that admit the public as guests (Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States) in 1964. However, I think it is not preposterous to believe that Augusta was responding at least indirectly to the actions of IBM and the PGA, among others, even though the PGA has no direct control over the Masters. I therefore think it is not preposterous that IBM and the PGA Tour could figure in dragging Augusta a bit further into the 20th century, if not the 21st. I realize that this opinion is akin to saying the Girl Scouts should admit grown men, and therefore makes me an idiot, but I never claimed to be otherwise.

[mtsalmela80]

Thats what we warm blooded Americans call "regulation through facism", in other words the First Amendment no longer applies.

Originally Posted by brocks

Actually, the PGA can occasionally "do something."

In 1990, the PGA Championship was scheduled to be held at Shoal Creek CC, in Alabama. For whatever reason, Shoal Creek's policy of "no black members" became controversial, and several things happened:

- prominent civil rights groups made plans to hold protests outside the grounds

- the founder of Shoal Creek said that the club would not be pressured into admitting blacks

- IBM, among other corporate sponsors of the PGA, announced that they were withdrawing their financial support

- the founder of Shoal Creek claimed that he had been misquoted, and announced that an invitation had been extended to a black person

- the PGA of America, the PGA Tour, and the USGA announced that future championships would not be held at clubs that discriminated against blacks

- Augusta National GC extended an invitation to its first black member

I have been reliably told by a poster here that ANGC's change of policy at this time had nothing to do with pressure. I have also been told that it is an abuse of facts to hold the opinion that 1990 is relatively recent in the context of Supreme Court decisions outlawing racial discrimination by public institutions in 1954 (Brown v. Board of Education), and by private businesses that admit the public as guests (Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States) in 1964.

However, I think it is not preposterous to believe that Augusta was responding at least indirectly to the actions of IBM and the PGA, among others, even though the PGA has no direct control over the Masters. I therefore think it is not preposterous that IBM and the PGA Tour could figure in dragging Augusta a bit further into the 20th century, if not the 21st. I realize that this opinion is akin to saying the Girl Scouts should admit grown men, and therefore makes me an idiot, but I never claimed to be otherwise.

[brocks]

Thats what we warm blooded Americans call "regulation through facism", in other words the First Amendment no longer applies.

I don't see anything in my post that implies that ANGC members can't say, read, or believe whatever they want. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see nothing in the Constitution that guarantees their right to get millions of dollars from sponsors who disagree with their policies. By the way, I just googled "regulation through facism," in quotes as you gave it, and I got zero hits. That may be the first time I've ever gotten zero hits on a well formed query. Apparently the shortage of warm blooded Americans is much worse than I thought.

[brocks]

And I just noticed the typo, so I tried "regulation through fascism," and still got zero hits.

[MSchott]

Originally Posted by iacas

I don't believe that's true.

From what I've read it's the last 4-5 IBM CEO's that were offered memberships to AGNC.

[zipazoid]

Correct if I am wrong (I'm sure you will), but isn't The Masters not run by the PGA Tour?

I'm thinking back to the Shoal Creek situation where they wouldn't admit a black as a member & the PGA intervened...which makes sense since it was their Championship.

But I believe The Masters is different...?

[iacas]

Originally Posted by burtonda

No one is forcing the PGA Tour to hold an event at Augusta National.

The PGA Tour is not holding an event at Augusta National. They sanction an event there, but they really have zip, zilch, nada to do with it.

Originally Posted by brocks

In 1990, the PGA Championship was scheduled to be held at Shoal Creek CC, in Alabama. For whatever reason, Shoal Creek's policy of "no black members" became controversial, and several things happened:

That was the PGA's own championship. Of course the PGA could "do something" there. What they can "do" to the Masters is incredibly limited.

Originally Posted by brocks

I have been reliably told by a poster here that ANGC's change of policy at this time had nothing to do with pressure. I have also been told that it is an abuse of facts to hold the opinion that 1990 is relatively recent in the context of Supreme Court decisions outlawing racial discrimination by public institutions in 1954 (Brown v. Board of Education), and by private businesses that admit the public as guests (Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States) in 1964.

Hold on now.

I called your use of the phrase "relatively recent" - and I'm quoting myself - " a bit awkward". I also pointed out that they have several black members, have for 20 years, while you were ranting on about Hootie and his all-white, all-old cabal or whatever.

The only time the word "abuse" was used in this thread - I just searched all five pages - was in your post, #82, just above. You were the only person to use the word "fact" as well until now.

Please endeavor to quote properly.

Originally Posted by brocks

However, I think it is not preposterous to believe that Augusta was responding at least indirectly to the actions of IBM and the PGA, among others, even though the PGA has no direct control over the Masters. I therefore think it is not preposterous that IBM and the PGA Tour could figure in dragging Augusta a bit further into the 20th century, if not the 21st. I realize that this opinion is akin to saying the Girl Scouts should admit grown men, and therefore makes me an idiot, but I never claimed to be otherwise.

Hey, once again, you said it.

I really have a hard time caring about any of this. Have at it brocks. If you want to get your panties in a twist, be my guest. So long as nobody's rights are being infringed, I don't really care what a private group does.

[brocks]

Corrent if I am wrong (I'm sure you will), but isn't The Masters not run by the PGA Tour? I'm thinking back to the Shoal Creek situation where they wouldn't admit a black as a member & the PGA intervened...which makes sense since it was their Championship. But I believe The Masters is different...?

None of the majors are run by the PGA Tour. The PGA Championship is run by the PGA of America, the US Open is run by the USGA, the British Open is run by the R&A;, and the Masters is run by the ANGC. I laid out the events as they happened. It is up to you if you choose to believe that it was just a coincidence that ANGC chose to invite its first black member in the aftermath of the Shoal Creek controversy.

[mtsalmela80]

If you actually support the idea of penalizing ANGC, financially or otherwise, unless they start to allow women members and/or take on more minority members simply for the idea of taking on more minority members, then you should probably sell whatever clubs you have, buy a tent, and head off to the nearest occupy protest.

Originally Posted by brocks

And I just noticed the typo, so I tried "regulation through fascism," and still got zero hits.