WTF? Philadelphia Private Swim Club Forces Black Children Out

From The Huffington Post/Allison Kilkenny:

Philadelphia Private Swim Club Forces Out Black Children

Update: The public email and phone number for The Valley Swim Club is 215-947-0700 and info@thevalleyclub.com. The President of the club is John Duesler.

NBC reports that more than 60 African-American campers from Northeast Philadelphia were turned away from a private swim club because -- according to John Duesler, President of The Valley Swim Club -- "there was concern that a lot of kids would change the complexion ... and the atmosphere of the club."

It may surprise some Americans to learn that not only do certain private clubs still refuse to admit African-Americans, women, and gay people, but that this kind of enrollment discrimination is considered perfectly legal.

While the total number of private clubs is unknown, there are around at least 4,000 private golf clubs, according to Golf Digest. Of course, since these clubs are private, their exact enrollment standards aren't part of the public record, so there is no way to know for sure if they discriminate against ethnic minorities, women, or homosexuals. Furthermore, even if they do adopt official "white males only" policies, these practices are considered "legal" in some jurisdictions, though many clubs have been sued for discrimination.

Because of the shroud of secrecy surrounding enrollment at private clubs, these discriminatory practices usually only come to light when the media catches a prominent politician on the fairway. Katon Dawson, South Carolina GOP chairman and former candidate for the RNC chair, was forced to resign from the Forest Lake Club after members made public the fact that the club has a whites-only restriction and no black members. Then there was Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), who hosted a golf fundraiser at a whites-only club back in 2000 along with then-lawmakers Bob Ney and Tom DeLay.

Back in 1992, Bill Clinton was accused of attending an all-white private golf club, though Mark Grobmeyer, the Little Rock lawyer who played at the club with Clinton, denied there was a "no blacks" policy. Why were there no black players then? Mr. Grobmeyer replied, "None have applied."

President Kennedy was once challenged by future Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, over his membership at the Links Country Club because the club excluded Jews from membership. President Kennedy reportedly chuckled and replied, "Hell, Arthur, they don't even allow Catholics."

This recent case of discrimination at the Philadelphia club is merely a continuation of discriminatory admission standards. Such official bans on non-Anglo Saxon men may seem superfluous considering outrageous membership fees are usually enough deterrence to keep non-white people off the golf courses and out of the pools, but when The Creative Steps Day Camp managed to pay the $1900 for their young campers to enter The Valley Swim Club, the staff resorted to drastic measures.

"When the minority children got in the pool all of the Caucasian children immediately exited the pool," Horace Gibson, parent of a day camp child, wrote in an email. "The pool attendants came and told the black children that they did not allow minorities in the club and needed the children to leave immediately."

Remarks like that make it difficult to remember that it's 2009. According to attorney Benjamin Leedy, another shameful episode occurred a little over a decade ago when Hall Thompson, founder of the all-white Shoal Creek club in Birmingham, AL (site of the 1990 PGA Championship,) declared that his club would not be pressured into accepting African-American members. "This is our home, and we pick and choose who we want," he said.

Leedy cites another recent example in 2003 at the Augusta National Golf Club, home of the Masters, where Martha Burke, head of the National Council of Women's Organizations, demanded that the club allow women to become members. Hootie Johnson chairman of Augusta National, responded "There may well come a day when women will be invited to join our membership, but that timetable will be ours and not at the point of a bayonet."

In 2001, Birgit Koebke and Kendall French, a lesbian couple registered as domestic partners under the California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003, sued Bernardo Heights Country Club alleging that the club discriminated against them on the basis of sexual orientation. The club's membership privileges were only available to members' spouses and children, but not to members' domestic partners. In 2005, the California Supreme Court concluded "that since, under California law, registered domestic partners have rights equivalent to legal spouses, the question of whether the club's practice of granting playing privileges to members' spouses but not to members' registered domestic partners constituted unlawful discrimination under California's anti-discrimination law must be left to a jury decide."

This most recent case of discrimination in Philadelphia is particularly sinister because it involves banishing children. "I heard this lady, she was like, 'Uh, what are all these black kids doing here?' She's like, 'I'm scared they might do something to my child,'" said camper Dymire Baylor.

What a terrible lesson to teach two children -- one white and one black. The white child learns to fear those who are different from them. The black child learns there is something "wrong" and "dirty" about their very existence. Hopefully, another more enlightened swim club will welcome the campers from The Creative Steps Day Camp, who are now looking for a place to keep cool during the summer.

Cross-posted from Allison Kilkenny's blog. Also available on Facebook and Twitter.

Follow Allison Kilkenny on Twitter: www.twitter.com/allisonkilkenny

"You're Worth It!"... Unless You're Not White. Then No....You're Not!

From The Guardian:

Part of the cosmetics giant L'Oréal was yesterday found guilty of racial discrimination after it sought to exclude non-white women from promoting its shampoo.
In a landmark case, the Garnier division of the beauty empire, along with a recruitment agency it employed, were fined €30,000 (£20,300) each after they recruited women on the basis of race. The historic ruling - the first time a major company has been found guilty of systematic race discrimination in France - saw a senior figure at the agency given a three-month suspended prison sentence.

The French campaign group SOS Racisme brought the case against L'Oréal, the world's largest cosmetics firm, over the campaign in 2000. Garnier France sought saleswomen to demonstrate the shampoo line Fructis Style in supermarkets outside Paris. They sought young women to hand out samples and discuss hairstyling with shoppers.

In July 2000, a fax detailing the profile of hostesses sought by L'Oréal stipulated women should be 18 to 22, size 38-42 (UK size 10-14) and "BBR", the initials for bleu, blanc, rouge, the colours of the French flag. Prosecutors argued that BBR, a shorthand used by the far right, was also a well-known code among employers to mean "white" French people and not those of north African, African and Asian backgrounds.

Christine Cassan, a former employee at Districom, a communications firm acting for Garnier, told the court her clients demanded white hostesses. She said that when she had gone ahead and presented candidates "of colour" a superior in her own company had said she had "had enough of Christine and her Arabs".

One woman working in the recruitment firm involved said foreign-sounding names or photos showing a candidate was of Moroccan, Algerian, Tunisian or other African origin would ensure candidates were eliminated. Another said: "I once had a good woman candidate but she was non-white. I had to ask someone to pretend that our list was full. It was hard."

One experienced candidate said she realised she was not eligible because she was of mixed race. In a normal sample of women recruited for similar sales work, around 40% would be non-white. For the Fructis project, less than 4% were of "non-European" origin.

SOS Racisme said hundreds of jobs had been subject to discrimination in the case. Garnier and the recruitment company were initially acquitted last year, but the appeal court yesterday overturned the ruling. A former Garnier head and a senior recruitment agency executive were acquitted.

Anti-racism campaigners in France hailed the ruling. Racial discrimination in employment is a huge problem in France with a recent survey finding three out of four firms preferred white workers.

President Nicolas Sarkozy's new justice minister, Rachida Dati, the first woman of north African origin to hold a ministerial post, has ruled that special departments in prosecutors' offices should be set up to deal with race discrimination.

Samuel Thomas of SOS Racisme told the Guardian: "This ruling is an enormous victory for everyone currently suffering race discrimination in France. It shows that economic interests cannot be put before the law and morality. Companies here clearly thought that racism was in their financial interest."

He said consumers of L'Oréal products in the UK and the US would be horrified to learn about the racial discrimination.

L'Oréal owns brands ranging from Lancôme to the Body Shop, which it bought last year. It said yesterday it would immediately appeal against the decision, which it found "incomprehensible".

"We believe that diversity and difference are a source of richness and we do not tolerate any form of racism or discrimination," the statement said.

The company was hoping for an altogether different type of publicity in France this weekend when it created a special lipstick for the Paris wedding of Desperate Housewives' star Eva Longoria to the French basketball player Tony Parker.

Century of beauty

L'Oréal was founded in 1907 by a French chemist who invented one of the first synthetic hair dyes.

It is the world's biggest beauty products company and owns brands from Maybelline to Helena Rubinstein and the Body Shop. In the 90s L'Oréal was hit by claims over past links to fascism, anti-semitism and the giving of jobs to Nazi collaborators after the second world war. It went some way to satisfy its critics with a boardroom change and other measures. Liliane Bettencourt, L'Oréal's major shareholder, is the wealthiest woman in France. Two years ago L'Oréal's slogan was softened from "Because I'm worth it" to "Because you're worth it" after concerns in France that the original appeared too money-oriented.






I remember seeing this Beyonce ad where she is lightened so much she looks like Reese Witherspoon or something, and I remember thinking "They don't value their customers if they don't value their spokespeople"

I am glad that the French Court of Cassation found them guilty and fined them. I am sure that fine is a mere drop in the bucket... but hopefully this will result in people boycotting the product which will be a bigger hit to their wallets. Hmmph! "Money-Oriented" is right... they want that non-blanc money, but they don't want to allow any people of color to make money off the brand.

I stopped using their cosmetics a long time ago (primarily because they're shitty) I did not know about Maybelline, though.. which means I will not be spending money on the clear Great Lash anymore! Does anyone know who else makes a good one?