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

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

[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."