Comments on: Pool to Minority Kids: You Can't Swim Here

Suburban Club Accused of Racism For Rescinding Pool Privileges; State to Investigate Actions

[toldyouso29]

Slavery by Europeans began in the Americas in the 1500s, for African Americans, in the mid 1600s.

More importantly, "wallowing or not" when racism is institutionalized, then any effort by blacks to escape the 'wallow' will be limited or controlled by whites. This means a black who wants to get off their butt and get an education may find the education options limited (as was the case prior to the CR movement) or out of reach financially. After getting a degree, the same black may find no one will hire him or her regardless of degree or skills--that same black with no job is no different than the black on welfare--both will be in poverty...if residential options are limited--that educated black will live in the ghetto, be subject to the same treatment as other blacks, will be stopped and questioned and treated by cops the same way--etc--it is disingenuous to speak of blacks or any other racial group "wallowing" in their circumstance when others do not face their circumstances and the "circumstances" are such that they are sanctioned and fostered by the society. That is like touting a man who learns to fish eating for a life time--but denying access to the pond, the fishing rod or anything else but worms to the man and claiming it is his fault he can catch no fish.

[rwassel]

"Education is not solely the responsibility of the educator."

Oh well then I would assume, since all education is equal, and that the responsbility lies with the student, you would have NO PROBLEM sending your bright, articulate child to an inner-city school with a crumbling infra-structure and underpiad teachers, right?

Now who's shooting themself in the foot.

[rwassel]

"Education is not solely the responsibility of the educator."

Oh well then I would assume, since all education is equal, and that the responsbility lies with the student, you would have NO PROBLEM sending your bright, articulate child to an inner-city school with a crumbling infra-structure and underpiad teachers, right?

Now who's shooting themself in the foot.

[kennergirl]

While it's unfortunate that the head of the Valley Club took such drastic measures apparently his choices were poor from the onset. If it is a "private club" he could have turned down their money from the start when the call first came in. But he didn't and once he saw the attitudes of the other members of the club he again made another poor choice to follow up his first one, by asking the campers to leave. I don't believe anyone should be forced to be around a person or persons they don't want to be around. Granted, it sounds as if some (ok lots) of the club members are crude people to make statements to a bunch of kids like that but some people live hardfast to the rule that they don't want to be around someone different than themselves (trust me I've worked for people like that). Now you have a bunch of kids with hurt feelings, a camp director that is angry and a private club with a lot of explaining to do.

[toldyouso29]

by Uncle_Eccoli July 10, 2009 2:11 PM PDT
So the argument will be that the e-mail exchanges constitute a contract? That's pretty thin. Even assuming the court buys that, the day camp will have to prove that the swim club was discriminatory in denying them further access and that it wasn't because of any of the other reasons they've provided. Also, arguing that the fees paid to and then refunded by the club were public funds is going to be a real stretch..."

Honestly, people like you are scary. Not for what you think more so for HOW you are thinking. Understand this--once a private entity contracts with any person of the public for services, they can no longer hide behind being "private". Breach of contract applies to all entities, public or private. When the club took the money, they essentially made the 65 campers 'limited members' of a certain duration. Spelled out would have been where they could go, what they could do and what they could not do--this must be in the agreement to assure if parties breach this, the other side can pursue damages or have legal recourse. The transaction itself represents a contract financial in nature with specified parameters. (that makes it a contract)

What this means is that the private club was now subject to the terms of its own agreement but also was subject to laws governing contracts and contractual obligations. Racism is not illegal per se unless applied during any process or procedure which affects the general public. By turning his private club into a venue which accepted public visits and money from those in the general public--the club became subject to all the rules and laws of any other institution that did so. Had the club remained private, they could have continued to deny access--but the minute they took money from persons from the public and entered into any arrangement with the public--they became subject to state, local and federal laws and rules. This is why Congress and others are getting involved--if you want your actions to be personal and private--you cannot sell your attitude to the public at large--to do so and renege will not be allowed to be a personal perogative--the act of accepting those funds made it a public venture subject to public/legal censure. Hope this helps you get the points.

[rwassel]

So you're saying the baby born in a crack-house to a single 14 year-old mother has just as equal access to good education and job opportunities as a baby born to a weathly suburban couple?

You sir, are as naive as they get...

[rwassel]

And I probably can assume that you are white, huh?

[rwassel]

Uncle_Eccoli:

Actually, there are some things that CAN and DO make up for those 200 years...ever hear of affirmative action? And my point is that it is idiotic to think "Hey, sorry about all those years of slavery and oppression, but let's just start over from scratch, okay?" and to claim that now everyone has an equal chance of succeeding, when 200 years of institutionalized racism cannot make that possible. But people such as yourself would rather just forget all those terrible things that took placem, and think that none of them have any effect on the present.

If we ignore history, we are doomed to repeat it.

[Uncle_Eccoli]

Laying blame is far easier than taking personal responsibility. Life isn't fair for any of us. Education is not solely the responsibility of the educator. Sitting around complaining and feeling sorry for yourself (or others) will never make things better. But I needn't tell you, I'm sure you spend every free hour tutoring underprivileged youth, right?

[toldyouso29]

No. The arguement will be that the exchange of funds which also delineated days of usage, how many could use and restrictions if any will be considered the contract--also what will be looked at are in what ways the contract could be nullified, if this was not specified, then no inferred nullification can be made (in other words, if the club never spelled out under which set of conditions would terminate the arrangment they would have to carry it all for the time contracted for--until the end of Aug?)

This is the problem with people not understanding what they are doing. What the emails will show is that the club director was already apprized of capacity and that he factored that into the amount charged--it will also nullify his defense of not enough room. That defense is pretty slim anyway because he will have some paperwork which justified him charging almost 2000 for 7 visits during the summer and no doubt, somewhere is the amount of kids and how he arrived at that figure.

The point is, when money is exchanged for a certain set of terms with obligations on both sides, that is a contract--the emails if coupled with the transaction helps to flesh out intent and the veracity of what the Director now says--got it?

[nanc12]

Please read the article before commenting. It was "65 kids for the summer." They were going to come once a week, on Monday. And it definitely is a race issue - the parents pulled their kids out of the pool, for goodness sake - wouldn't let them be in the same water as black kids.
There should be protestors there every day with signs calling them racists - we'll see how the idiots like that kind of "atmosphere."

[Uncle_Eccoli]

@rwassel
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot...
Your comment demonstrates very clearly that you are not moving forward in good faith. Please, enlighten us - just what WOULD "make up for 200 years of slavery, oppression, unequal access to education and jobs, and not being able to vote?" Anything? And while you're at it, why not explain why YOU'RE entitled to it? Are you 200 years old? This is precisely what pw08-2009 is talking about.

[Uncle_Eccoli]

So the argument will be that the e-mail exchanges constitute a contract? That's pretty thin. Even assuming the court buys that, the day camp will have to prove that the swim club was discriminatory in denying them further access and that it wasn't because of any of the other reasons they've provided. Also, arguing that the fees paid to and then refunded by the club were public funds is going to be a real stretch.
As much as any of us may dislike it, racism in itself is not illegal. That said, the law is only what men make it day by day. We'll see how this turns out.

[TyroneHoglegg]

Poor kids....didn't even get a chance to prove they were good kids just excited to get to swim at a pool every Monday...

Oh and you 2 twenty something "upper class" white males...****...you know nothing. I, as well as many people are tired of hearing your blathering "Oh I know poor black kids"...."I have no racist bone in my body"..."Stop the racism"....

[toldyouso29]

by tmittelstaed July 10, 2009 12:44 PM PDT
This is simplistic BS. There are answers to ALL those questions and if the person being asked is educated they will know what they are. For example, asking why so many blacks are on welfare - that's an easy one. It's because the US still has a lot of racism in it. Granted, that doesn't explain it for ANY INDIVIDUAL but it definitely explains it for the entire group.

Asking questions like these is not racist.

Asking questions like this most definitely ARE racist. If they were not, people would not save them up to ask those who they perceive to be of the same ilk. Keep in mind that racism does not have to be denigrating, it has to be the single minded focus of judging or interacting with everyone through the prism of race or differences --first. In other words--if your way of operating is to see a persons skin color and then tailor your questions to this and ask them to explain actions of others with the same skin color--THAT is racist--because if a person is not racist--they do not dwell or or see skin color.

Now, if the question was "Why are so many people on welfare" that is not racist--but the minute anyone expects another person to speak for a group due to similarities that person has with that group--there is a problem. I know that if someone asked me why my race was on Welfare or killed people, my response would be: "How the hell do you expect me to know? I am not on welfare and have not killed anyone"

Incidentally, my perspective on this was underlined when a black woman in our study group was asked the question about blacks on welfare, follwed by blacks in gangs--she said--"I will answer your question when you guys can tell me why white middle aged men seek out and serially kill kids and rape them" The group was shocked. They stated that how could they know that? Because none of us were white males or had raped and killed anyone. "Precisely." she said. "If you are not expected to answer for your race why an abberation exists, why do you expect me to? I am not on welfare and I have never been in a gang--why do you expect from me what you are shocked to provide yourself?" Point was well taken. I have watched how I phrased my sentences ever since--maybe you can catch a clue from this too.

[bobnjersey]

["the members began pulling their children out of the pool and were standing around with their arms folded," Wright said. "Only three members left their children in the pool with us". Sounds like a pretty good vote for me, not counting on after the incident.]

that's not a vote ... that's a bunch of ignorant fools just like yourself only seeing the world their way.

[rwassel]

You think racism happens "equally", do you? You think many black americans "wallow in it", huh? Well I have a question: since when does 40 years of "equal" rights make up for 200 years of slavery, oppression, unequal access to education and jobs, and not being able to vote?

[rwassel]

"it's time to jump off the racism bus, folks. i am a 21 year old upper-middle class white male from western pa and i can honestly say i don't think about race"

Well - that pretty much sums it up right there, chief. You don't HAVE to think about race, because you are white and upper-middle class. Try telling that to the 21 year old poor black kid who didn't get equal access to education because they were born in a poor neighborhood to poor parents who didn't have access to equal education, and THEIR parents weren't allowed to vote in legislators to look after their own interests, and were instead sprayed with fire hoses and had crosses burned in their yards.

I'm a 28 year-old upper middle class male, but I'm sure as heyl not so naive and history-ignorant as to think poverty and race aren't related and inextricably linked to each other. 40 years of "equal rights" doesn't make up for 200 years of slavery and oppression.

[toldyouso29]

What you gave as "answers" is actually your own personal opinion and as such can only apply to you--when you attempt to answer for, or speak for an entire group, have the decency to wait until they elect you the definitive spokesperson and critic for them all--until then, speak for yourself and recognize that your 'answer' is not the only salient, plausible or pertinent one--otherwise you are a pompous know it all who presumes you have all the answers to all the ills in the world and to say blacks are on welfare due to racism--is not an answer, it is a cop out and one that will quickly get you and the people you claim to represent and speak for, rendered--irrelevant, and self made victims.

[rwassel]

"some people are racists, and that's a shame"

But you're obviously not, huh? I mean, calling the kids "Street Rats" when you don't even know them is perfectly acceptable, right?