Philly Pool Makes a Splash

[Boz]

Jul 9, 2009 8:27:04 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

But I'm betting that at least one person made a racist remark.

This may be true, but unless it was an employee of the pool club -- and I still refuse to believe, without a lot better proof, that a club employee came out and said "No minorities allowed" -- I really don't think that the club should be held responsible for that.

(Keep in mind, all you blood-sucking lawyers, I said should. I am sure there is some legal precedent for how the club can be held responsible for that; I just don't think it's right.)

[thebin]

Jul 9, 2009 8:57:17 GMT -5 TC said:

Jul 9, 2009 7:45:19 GMT -5 thebin said:

What are we left with? This is it presumably.... "According to 14-year-old camper Dymir Baylor, with whom I spoke yesterday, some of the comments were heartless. "I heard a white lady say, 'What are all these black kids doing here? They might do something to my child,' " recalled Dymir, who says he lives in a neighborhood so diverse, he'd never heard anyone speak like that before. "It was rude and ignorant."

The column (not article, my bad) suggests that Alethea Wright, the adult director of the camp, heard those statements too ("Trouble began immediately, says Wright, when she heard several white members make disparaging racial remarks about the campers, who are black and Hispanic. Wright says that Valley Club president John Duesler, who was on the premises, seemed surprised and embarrassed by the behavior but assured her that all would work out.") From the quotes in the article, she seems pretty reasonable ("I feel bad for Mr. Duesler," says Wright. "I think he did everything he could. He was very embarrassed and apologetic. But this is wrong."), so I don't know why you'd doubt her account.

Again, I'm not overwhelmed by that statement as proof of anything even if it's true. Why didn't the camp director state exactly who and what was said? You would surely do that if you could. She has to be considered a highly prejudiced soource and her accusations are so thin that might not really even be accusations. Why is everything so damn vague? All that it would take for the club director to be embarassed and nervous is his knowledge of how easily his club could find itself on the Drudgereport in a manner of hours and then for all of this to happen to a club that is probably his whole life.

I don't know what to do with the statement that the board approved this- it doesn't mesh with the statement that the passes were bought online. Surely the camp would claim they approached the club with full disclosure if they could claim that. Maybe that just means the board passed the notion of selling memberships to anyone online, but never intended to sell them to large groups of campers.

Of course there were dozens of disgusting racist remarks in the comments section. Unfortunately, there always are when a race article get's tagged in Drudge. There are a lot of internet trolls who like getting a rise out of people and there are a lot of good old fashioned racists who will opine behind the safety of a internet thread. That's not exactly the same kind of racism as a middle class private club in Philly announcing that they don't allow "minorities" into the club. Of course racism still exists. And part of the reason is because race hustlers (by profession like Sharpton or through good intentions like liberal journalists) are at least part of the reason we don't have racial harmony yet.

[thebin]

This story on the other hand doesn't sound suspiciously vague. It's not about hurt feelings but about a horrifying and violent attack by a large group on a very small one, with the large group explicitly stating their crime is driven by racism. It's quite specific and well chronicled. It has the merit unfortunately of seeming realistic.

But no hate crime will apply. This isn't racism is it? It's just a gang violence problem (iteself a product of white racism no doubt) or a youth problem or maybe just an alcohol problem...but racism? Nope, can't be. Then we wouldn't be able to couch racism in 2009 as a white-fault only problem. In fact, I'm probably a racist for linking this story.

www.ohio.com/news/50172282.html

[TC]

Jul 9, 2009 9:07:30 GMT -5 thebin said:

Again, I'm not overwhelmed by that statement as proof of anything even if it's true. Why didn't the camp director state exactly who and what was said? You would surely do that if you could. She has to be considered a highly prejudiced soource and her accusations are so thin that might not really even be accusations. Why is everything so damn vague? All that it would take for the club director to be embarassed and nervous is his knowledge of how easily his club could find itself on the Drudgereport in a manner of hours and then for all of this to happen to a club that is probably his whole life.

thebin, she's not making any accusations that I see in the column other than a bunch of people made some racially insensitive comments that the Club Director seemed to acknowledge. Duesler is the guy who made the "complexion" statement and she's defending him because he was apologetic and seemed to try to make amends and fix the situation. No one has launched a lawsuit charging institutional racism - she was trying to find somewhere for her kids to swim. Talk about blame the victim.

[thebin]

The "complexion" statement was not racist...it was foolish. Look up the word in Websters, he clearly meant that definition of "complexion" that indicates that the nature or character of the club would have been altered by the admission of 65 camp kids in one day. He did NOT mean the color, so let's stop willfully misconstruing the obvious intent of that sentence, ok? It was a foolish choice of words, but an innocent one. You can't be serious if you think he meant to say it was going to change the skin color of the club?

You are right to point out she didn't make any specfic accusations even thought both authors seem to be relying on her "feeling" of what happened in the absence of any specfic claims beyond the quotation of a 14 child which sorta sounds made up or at least embellished to me. Why do you think that is? The club director acknowledged nothing specific, he was embarrassed, the author says about their behavior, but it seems likely to me he is just embarassed about how this whole thing looks/sounds to people who want to believe the worst. He obviously knows that a couple of misunderstandings are about to be blown out of proportion by a country that is always ready to pounce on perceived racism, the bar for which is ASTONISHINGLY low if you are white.

[TC]

Jul 9, 2009 10:01:20 GMT -5 thebin said:

The "complexion" statement was not racist...it was foolish. Look up the word in Websters, he clearly meant that definition of "complexion" that indicates that the nature or character of the club would have been altered by the admission of 65 camp kids in one day. He did NOT mean the color, so let's stop willfully misconstruing the obvious intent of that sentence, ok? It was a foolish choice of words, but an innocent one. You can't be serious if you think he meant to say it was going to change the skin color of the club

thebin I was trying to point out that the head of the camp sympathized with head of the club, and did not seize upon his "complexion" statement which she could have easily done - but defended him. She stated that this guy tried to do the right thing and that he apologized but it went over his head. When she says that the parents were insulting it carries a little more weight in light of that.

[Cambridge]

Jul 9, 2009 9:16:59 GMT -5 thebin said:

This story on the other hand doesn't sound suspiciously vague. It's not about hurt feelings but about a horrifying and violent attack by a large group on a very small one, with the large group explicitly stating their crime is driven by racism. It's quite specific and well chronicled. It has the merit unfortunately of seeming realistic.

But no hate crime will apply. This isn't racism is it? It's just a gang violence problem (iteself a product of white racism no doubt) or a youth problem or maybe just an alcohol problem...but racism? Nope, can't be. Then we wouldn't be able to couch racism in 2009 as a white-fault only problem. In fact, I'm probably a racist for linking this story.

www.ohio.com/news/50172282.html

Hate crimes were not instituted because one set of crimes was more reprehensible than others, they were instituted because there were (and potentially still are, although I'm skeptical) some jurisdiction which would not adequately prosecute crimes committed against certain people. Some murders and assualts seemed to have received scant attention and sometimes tacit approval by local authorities, therefore in order to ensure justice for all these federal statutes were enacted to ensure prosecution. Now, I don't think that's what has happened and I think the hate crime laws are incredibly flawed, perhaps fatally, but I think you are twisting their purpose and shifting the point of discussion here unnecessarily. Besides, that little rhetorical detour you just made only belittles your point, which I find compelling.

[mchoya]

Jul 9, 2009 9:16:59 GMT -5 thebin said:

This story on the other hand doesn't sound suspiciously vague. It's not about hurt feelings but about a horrifying and violent attack by a large group on a very small one, with the large group explicitly stating their crime is driven by racism. It's quite specific and well chronicled. It has the merit unfortunately of seeming realistic.

But no hate crime will apply. This isn't racism is it? It's just a gang violence problem (iteself a product of white racism no doubt) or a youth problem or maybe just an alcohol problem...but racism? Nope, can't be. Then we wouldn't be able to couch racism in 2009 as a white-fault only problem. In fact, I'm probably a racist for linking this story.

www.ohio.com/news/50172282.html

As fun as it is to link Drudge in the morning, I'm not going to jump on a police department for not screaming hate crime in the first possible minute.

First, the hate crime enhancement is unjust on face because it creates different classes of the same crime due to age/sex/race/orientation/etc. Black-on-white or straight-on-gay crime shouldn't be punished more harshly than an equivalent black-on-black/white-on-white/straight-on-straight/gay-on-gay crime.

Second, and more applicable to this issue, the crime was committed five days ago. The police have found no suspects. I think they are more concerned with finding the assailants than determining whether something was a hate crime.

Third, it is the prosecutor and the state who decide to go for the hate crime enhancement, not the police department. The police aren't calling it a hate crime because they don't make that designation. The police can investigate motive, but if there is no suspect, they very well can't investigate him and find motive.

Fourth, I don't see anyone who has categorically said that this crime can't be a hate crime. The article says that the police aren't ready to call it one yet. They can make that judgment in the future.

[thebin]

Fair enough. If it wasn't obvious, I should say that I'm all for the eradication of all hate crimes legislation, which I find a repugnant form of thought-policing as well as a violation of the equal protection clause.

Anyone want to wager $100 that no hate crime charges are ever levied in this Ohio case? We'll call it a push if no charges are ever brought of any kind....

Cambridge is right...this is a detour, one that obviously doesn't make everyone comfortable. Intentionally so.

[Bando]

The "complexion" statement was not racist...it was foolish. Look up the word in Websters, he clearly meant that definition of "complexion" that indicates that the nature or character of the club would have been altered by the admission of 65 camp kids in one day. He did NOT mean the color, so let's stop willfully misconstruing the obvious intent of that sentence, ok? It was a foolish choice of words, but an innocent one. You can't be serious if you think he meant to say it was going to change the skin color of the club?

Even if he was operating under the second definition, it was still racist, just less blatantly so. The "nature" of the club changing because the kids are from a camp, not because they're black. Right. Their check was still good when this guy knew they were from a camp.

I gotta say I'm getting really tired of the racial resentment being bandied about in this thread. Obviously, white men are the most discriminated minority in America!

[thebin]

Jul 9, 2009 11:39:16 GMT -5 Bando said:

The "complexion" statement was not racist...it was foolish. Look up the word in Websters, he clearly meant that definition of "complexion" that indicates that the nature or character of the club would have been altered by the admission of 65 camp kids in one day. He did NOT mean the color, so let's stop willfully misconstruing the obvious intent of that sentence, ok? It was a foolish choice of words, but an innocent one. You can't be serious if you think he meant to say it was going to change the skin color of the club?

Even if he was operating under the second definition, it was still racist, just less blatantly so. The "nature" of the club changing because the kids are from a camp, not because they're black. Right. Their check was still good when this guy knew they were from a camp.

I gotta say I'm getting really tired of the racial resentment being bandied about in this thread. Obviously, white men are the most discriminated minority in America!

You are the kind of moron Bando that let's racial disharmony fester. Even if he was using a perfectly legit definition of a word that wasn't referring to race at all, its still racist? Under this definition, how racist you are only depends on how stupid the person is who is wrongfully offended.


This reminds me of that poor guy who was fired because he used the word "niggardly" and people were just not educated enough to know it had no racial implications whatsoever. He was fired for the offended people's ignorance.

Nothing could possibly make more sense that the statement of OBVIOUS FACT that introducing 65 camp kids (much rowdier than kids with parents to begin with and far less supervised) all on the same day during peak swimming season would destroy the purpose of paying a premium to swim at a private club. I would refuse to pay my dues if my private club allowed a massive influx of campers into it. That is the very antithesis of what a friggen private club is chief.

There is also no reason to believe that the club knew they were selling memberships to a camp. NONE. The memberships were bought online, very unlikely was there a "are you a large children's summer camp" option on the form. That nonsense about the deal being appropved by the board doesn't wash at all, it almost certainly means selling memberships to any family or individuals online was approved by the board. If you have ever been to a private club you know that the idea of opening it up to a group, who will all descend en masse on the same day, goes against what everything that a private club is.

[thebin]

I find it just precious that Bando is sick of racial resentment. If that's not the pot calling the kettle black. You may mean well Bando, but you are a race hustler Bando, pure and simple, ready at the drop of a dime to call racism but only in one direction.

[Buckets]

Jul 9, 2009 12:06:38 GMT -5 thebin said:

There is also no reason to believe that the club knew they were selling memberships to a camp. NONE.

Other than the minor detail that they signed up 65 people for a 90-minute slot on the same day for 10 weeks you mean? You think they just allow people to sign up online and no one ever looks at the membership groups and says "oh wow 65 people just signed up as one group maybe we should look into this"? Yup, it really looks like the camp owner was trying to pull a fast one signing up in early June so she could come on June 29.

[TC]

Jul 9, 2009 12:14:43 GMT -5 thebin said:

I find it just precious that Bando is sick of racial resentment. If that's not the pot calling the kettle black. You may mean well Bando, but you are a race hustler Bando, pure and simple, ready at the drop of a dime to call racism but only in one direction.

This post needs more Nazi comparisons. In fact - didn't we agree that we were going to start each thread off with a Nazi comparison just to get that pesky Godwin's Law out of the way? Shame on you Cambridge, Shame!

[thebin]

The camp director (Wright) now says she heard no racially charged comments herself. But, surprise surprise, parents of the kids, who I am assuming are going to start to remember all sorts of racist comments in the coming weeks, are seeking legal rememdy!

www.philly.com/philly/news/20090709_Montco_swim_club_accused_of_racial_discrimination.html

[Bando]

Jul 9, 2009 12:14:43 GMT -5 thebin said:

I find it just precious that Bando is sick of racial resentment. If that's not the pot calling the kettle black. You may mean well Bando, but you are a race hustler Bando, pure and simple, ready at the drop of a dime to call racism but only in one direction.

Can't. Stop. Laughing. I'm adding this to my resume.

Bin, I'm more than willing to recognize racism against whites when it occurs, but it's frankly preposterous to act as if racism against whites happens anywhere as often as racism against blacks. Given that blacks are a minority in this country and we only started enforcing their civil rights 50 years ago, you're basically ignoring power dynamics that lie behind racism.

Why exactly do you so readily disbelieve the camp kids? If the kids were white and the club patrons black, who would you believe then?

[hoyainspirit]

I'm sorry, but this is total bull$hit! My heart sank when I read this story. As a child growing up in New Orleans in the '60's, I remember when the city, rather than integrate its pools, closed all of them. My parents attempted to purchase a membership at several private pools for me, and were rejected because we were black. I was devastated. (The following summer, we found the Jewish Community Center, who accepted me, no problems.) Private club or not, do not underestimate the subtle psychological effect this may have on those children. It surely Editeded with me. That was the 60's. This is the 21st century! Spin it how you wish, from the children's perspective, this is unconscionable. Having been there, this is a truly sad tale.

[TC]

YAY! Crazy swim club relents after being painted internationally as Hitler's pool and invites back kids who already have another place to swim and probably never want to get within 100 feet of that club ever again! Happy ending for everyone!

www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/50589797.html?cmpid=15585797

[AustinHoya03]

Jul 9, 2009 10:55:11 GMT -5 Cambridge said:

Hate crimes were not instituted because one set of crimes was more reprehensible than others, they were instituted because there were (and potentially still are, although I'm skeptical) some jurisdiction which would not adequately prosecute crimes committed against certain people.

Sorry Cambridge, but I disagree. Many hate crime statutes were drafted in response to horrific, racially motivated crimes. Texas' statute is named the James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Act. The three men who killed James Byrd were prosecuted and convicted. Two received the death penalty, and one received life in prison.

Additionally, hate crime legislation does not negate prosecutorial discretion. Theoretically, a racist DA could refuse to prosecute a racially motivated murder despite the existence of hate crime laws, which generally only increase the range of punishment.

Hate crime laws, generally speaking, have no effect on whether arrests will be made or charges will be brought. They do determine what type of charges will be brought, and what punishment range a jury may consider if the defendant is convicted.

[TC]

Camp rejects club's offer, lawsuits ensue :

www.philly.com/dailynews/local/20090714_Ronnie_Polaneczky__Swim_club_outlook__Rough_water.html

This Duesler guy keeps digging his own grave, he should not be doing PR.