Legalized Discrimination: Can Country Clubs Be Forced to Catch Up?
A Personal Take by Cole Gerson
When playing golf at my country club, it is evident that everyone is white. One might think this is because I live in a predominantly white community. While my community’s lack of diversity helps provide context as to why everyone is white, it doesn’t explain why almost everyone at the club is also Jewish. About a ten-minute drive from my mostly-Jewish club lies a different club called Winged Foot. Winged Foot is one of the country’s most prestigious clubs and has hosted numerous major championships. While the prestige differs between my club and Winged Foot, another main difference is that Winged Foot has no Jewish members, as most are Christian. For a long time, I had just accepted these religious differences. Recently, however, through learning about discrimination in America and Ta-Nehisi Coates’ idea of the dreamers, I began to wonder how discriminatory institutions can still exist even after the ratification of significant laws that prevent discrimination. In America, almost every institution has made changes to meet anti-discrimination laws and society’s standards. Private country clubs, though, still have discriminatory practices that are strikingly transparent. The issues in my community that I have discussed signal a much larger problem in private country clubs across the United States. Discrimination at private golf clubs in the U.S. is evident in the lack of memberships granted to women and racial minorities. Clubs exploit laws to justify their discriminatory practices that have allowed and contributed to the mistreatment of black people at their own clubs and have diminished women and their rights. There have been legal and social efforts to help lessen the discrimination at private country clubs, but reforming laws and society will be necessary to truly end the discriminatory practices for good.
The American private golf club industry has minimal representation from racial minorities, specifically black people, and women, and this imbalance of membership is ordinary at many clubs around the nation, even the most famed and celebrated club in the country and arguably in the world: Augusta National. Augusta National is the host of the annual golf tournament called The Masters. This tournament is seen as the holy grail of golf tournaments as it is one of the four yearly major tournaments, and because of the club’s traditions. Bleacher Report, a famous sports website, published an article titled “In Golf, Whites Only Need Apply” in 2010 that reported, “There are still no female members at Augusta National. The famed club does have six black members out of 300” (Axley). In 2012, the club “admitted its first female members: former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice and South Carolina financier Darla Moore” (Schudel). While there are signs of improvement regarding discrimination against women, Augusta still has roots in its sexist ways, and two admissions of women don’t make up for decades of discrimination. Also, admitting these two women seems to be more of a scheme to take public attention away from the gender discrimination that is still prevalent. The most famous tradition at Augusta National is The Green Jacket. It is precisely as it sounds, a green jacket gifted to the winner of the annual tournament that the club also gives to all its members. Jackets, as a whole, are far more commonly worn by men showing the continued sexism that stems from Augusta’s traditions. Augusta’s original formation as a men’s club has built practices for its male members that continue supporting sexism even after changing the men-only foundation. Every year, millions of people tune in to watch The Masters to see who will win The Green Jacket. All of these people, admittedly myself included, support this tournament and this club that enforces sexism through its members and traditions. The gender discrimination prevalent at Augusta also exists at many other, often less famous, clubs in America. Sergio Bichao, a writer and editor for the website New Jersey 101.5, provides evidence regarding the sexism existing at New Jersey’s Plainfield Country Club:
More than 95 percent of the club’s [Plainfield Country Club’s] full members are male. Their wives are counted as “associate members,” and are denied privileges granted their husbands, including choice tee times and access to the Member’s Grill Room, which members call “the men’s Grill,” the couple said (Bichao).
Making wives “associate members” rather than full members reinforces the nuclear family in which women are viewed as extensions of their husbands. A lack of individuality arises because women need their husbands to gain membership. Women who are “associate members” are given far fewer privileges than their male counterparts in booking tee times and not having access to “the men’s Grill.” This shows how there are discriminatory practices not just in admittance tendencies but also in the treatment of female members.
There is an issue of gender discrimination at country clubs, but there is also racial discrimination at many clubs. In the article “In Golf Whites Only Need Apply,” the author talks about the private country club discriminatory practices on a larger scale:
Several years ago a Time magazine article indicated that industry experts estimate that three-quarters of the nation’s 5,232 private golf and country clubs have no black members. The study also found that of 74 private country clubs in the Chicago area, only 10 said that they had black members, and only 26 enrolled women (Axley).
It is important to note that many clubs with no black members may be in areas with few black people or no black applicants to their club. However, many clubs use discriminatory practices to prevent black people from obtaining membership. Using data from Chicago with nationwide data helps show that the problem is exacerbated by racism and that racism plays a large part. Black people make up 29.2% of Chicago’s population, yet only 13.5% of clubs in the Chicago area have any black members (United States Census Bureau). There are so few black people that are members of private clubs compared to their representation in the area that it is fair to conclude that many clubs have racial preferences that aren’t favorable towards black people. Although less prevalent, women are also discriminated against in the Chicago area, with women's enrollment only existing at 35% of clubs. Across America, there are specific examples of gender and racial discrimination at private country clubs that are indicative of the nationwide problem.
The main factors contributing to private golf clubs’ discrimination are the holes in some of America’s most central laws. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution have been exploited by clubs to maintain the high membership rates of white men and continue the gender and racial discriminatory practices. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited segregation in public places and banned employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Sports Illustrated, a famous sports magazine company, published “Why Private Golf Clubs Are Legally Still Able to Discriminate Against Women,” which describes legal holes that have allowed discrimination to exist at private clubs:
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 contains an exemption for private clubs in their membership activities. Specifically, the Act ‘shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment…’ This language means that private clubs can’t discriminate against customers but can discriminate against prospective members (McCann).
While the act does lay some guidelines that clubs have to follow, they can still discriminate because of the specific emphasis on public places, which doesn’t apply to private country clubs. Clubs can’t prevent people from applying for memberships, and they can’t discriminate against their members, making some actions described earlier about Plainfield Country Club illegal. Still, there are no restrictions on who clubs do and don’t admit as members. While a law that explicitly outlaws discriminating against prospective members could be created, enforcing it would be complicated. Clubs accept applicants based on recommendations from other members, an application that prospective members submit, and their view of the applicant in an application meeting. These are all used in deciding whether or not to admit an applicant. It is hard to claim that there was discrimination as there is no way to discern it from any other reason clubs may have for rejecting the applicant, like failing to have sufficient recommendations from current members.
Also, The First Amendment has been interpreted to further protect the discrimination at private clubs. Expanding on the argument about The Civil Rights Act, Sports Illustrated’s article discusses The First Amendment and expressive association:
The First Amendment is often cited in the context of free speech, particularly with respect to an individual person’s right to say what he or she would like and not fear government persecution. The First Amendment has also been interpreted by the courts to safeguard the right of private clubs to engage in ‘expressive association’… expressive association protects the right of members to associate and to set applicable terms for membership…The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld private associations’ right to expressive association, even in cases when relevant fact-patterns feature explicit discrimination (McCann).
The First Amendment would do nothing to protect the discrimination practices at private clubs without the interpretation of expressive association by The Supreme Court. When faced with cases regarding discrimination at private clubs, The Supreme Court fails to legitimize the issue or make changes to fix the problem. Instead, they claim that clubs are demonstrating their First Amendment right. To me, I’ve always thought The First Amendment was meant to be used to limit restrictions on people’s freedoms. While I can see that laws against the actions of private clubs could be viewed as restricting, I believe that it is a form of restriction that we need. Otherwise, discrimination at clubs is practically encouraged, and the problem will persist. By keeping clubs unrestricted, we allow them to establish discriminatory practices. It is a choice between restricting the exploiter or allowing restrictions on the exploited. Private clubs have taken advantage of the holes in some of America’s most important laws, and they wouldn’t be able to do it without the support they have received from U.S. Supreme Court rulings.
Some consequences that result from the discrimination at private clubs have led to the mistreatment of black members as they are seen as unwanted outliers by white members and in the case of Pine Valley, the number 1 ranked golf course in the U.S. and one of the most famous clubs in the world, where the club controls all land in the area, they have used their private club status to prevent women from joining the club and more importantly from owning land on the club’s property and getting jobs at the club. Georgetown Country Club in Texas had admitted a black member named Jonathan Dade, who was also the club’s general manager for about four years. The club’s lack of diversity led to discrimination against Dade because he was an irregularity at the club:
The club’s president and a board member met Dade on May 18, 2017, and showed him a petition signed by 20% of the club’s members who wanted him to leave the club, according to the lawsuit. The club’s president told Dade that at a previous stockholders meeting, the petition’s leaders had “demanded ‘the sugar can stay, but the ‘sh-t’ had to leave by Saturday (May 20, 2017), or else,’ the suit says (Osborn).
To clarify, “the sugar” is white people, and “the sh-t” is black people. The lack of representation of black people in private clubs has led to them being viewed as outsiders. Also, the ability to discriminate against prospective members led to these white people being unhappy with a black person entering the club. It is almost as if white people feel they are entitled to keep their clubs all white, as they have always been able to disallow black people from joining. Clubs, like Georgetown Country Club, that discriminate against black people aren’t appealing to racial minorities. It becomes even more challenging for racial minorities to join clubs when they rightfully avoid clubs that will alienate and mistreat them.
The famed Pine Valley has had a long history of discriminating against women in getting a membership and even in activities unrelated to the club. The discrimination, however, has not gone without contest:
Filed last April, the complaint alleged that the male-dominated club broke the New Jersey law against discrimination by banning women from becoming members, keeping women from using club facilities, and preventing women from owning or leasing housing on its land unless they co-owned the property with a man (Vadala).
Since Pine Valley has the power to discriminate against prospective members, they have extended it to discrimination in land ownership. Pine Valley owns land stretching beyond the course, including almost all the nearby land. Combine that with their discrimination towards women, and it has made women unable to purchase land. This is not legal and contradicts The Civil Rights Act of 1964. The ability for clubs to discriminate in some ways has led to more and more discrimination that goes beyond even the holes in the laws. This is further proved in that,
The club recruited employees based on referrals from its mostly male workforce, resulting in the club having mostly male staff. Women, the complaint said, made up less than 4% of the club’s workforce, and often were working in positions in which they did not interact with members (Vadala).
The club goes a step beyond not letting women have membership in that they have clear discriminatory practices towards women in job hiring. Similarly to land discrimination, Pine Valley has extended its discrimination beyond what The Civil Rights Act has allowed. Keeping women workers away from members shows how Pine Valley pushes the all-men narrative beyond only admitting male members. While the lax laws have allowed discrimination in the private club admissions process, it has led to further discrimination that breaks laws and takes away people’s rights.
The most effective ways to help solve the issue of discrimination at private golf clubs are to legally punish the clubs, to prevent people from exploiting holes in the Civil Rights Act, and to not give discriminatory clubs the recognition that the business side of clubs so often needs. Some states are taking action to fight discrimination at private country clubs. Michael McCann describes in his Sports Illustrated article,
Private golf clubs that discriminate can face adverse consequences under anti-discrimination, tax and licensing laws found in state statutes and municipal codes. For example, a number of states condition eligibility for tax deductions and eligibility for liquor licenses on (among other factors) the absence of discriminatory membership policies (McCann).
States taking action to punish clubs through taxes and revoking liquor licenses attacks the roots of clubs, making them not appealing to current and future members. These threats are highly effective as clubs will have no choice but to comply and admit minority races and women, as a failure to comply would have substantial economic and social consequences. Members will want to avoid being at a club that starts increasing membership costs to account for hefty taxes while also being unable to buy liquor at their club. McCann also mentions the use of tournaments and publicity to fight discrimination:
Race- and sex-based membership exclusions have caused organizers of major tournaments to bypass discriminating clubs as prospective hosts. These consequences are more business outcomes than legal aftereffects but are nonetheless impactful in terms of revenue and prestige (McCann).
Many clubs make a lot of money from tournaments and even need them to fund club activities. Often, tournaments help publicize courses to attract new members and make the courses more well-known. Ceasing to hold a large tournament at a specific club could have significant financial repercussions. Many clubs have relied on the annual stream of money coming from the tournament. This money is often used for course maintenance and keeping member fees low. A sudden stoppage of a large percentage of a club’s revenue will make a profitable, appealing, and thriving club become just the opposite in no time. Private clubs are businesses, and this solution threatens the business aspects of the clubs in order to reduce the social injustices at the club.
Legal action has been taken to stop discrimination at clubs by using the Civil Rights Act and bringing light to the challenge private clubs present to civil rights. The Philadelphia Inquirer’s article about discrimination at Pine Valley mentions New Jersey’s response to the ongoing issue: “The Division on Civil Rights continues to work tirelessly to end the abhorrent legacies of exclusion and misogyny… New Jersey will not tolerate gender-based discrimination, and those who violate our laws will be held accountable” (Vadala). New Jersey is trying to encapsulate private country clubs in the “public places” referenced in The Civil Rights Act of 1964. This work, if successful, would make the clubs’ discriminatory practices illegal. In the case of Pine Valley, New Jersey’s actions are purely an attempt to stop gender discrimination, as that is the most prominent issue at the club. These actions have been very successful: Pine Valley has paid $100,000 to The Division on Civil Rights and another $100,000 in scholarships to enhance women’s participation in golf as a settlement to the lawsuit filed by The Division on Civil Rights (Vadala). Also, in recent years, Pine Valley has admitted its first female members. The subsequent changes to Pine Valley and its longstanding traditions of gender discrimination provide evidence that discriminatory practices at any club can be abolished. Attempts at solutions have been successful by attacking the clubs’ finances, taking their liberties by revoking liquor licenses, and challenging the legality of their discriminatory practices.
While some solutions can succeed in challenging discrimination present at private clubs, solving the problem is extremely difficult because white men strive to keep their clubs unchanged regarding gender and ethnic membership rates. At Plainfield Country Club, a woman seeking change “was kicked off her committee ‘in retaliation for her open advocacy for women’s golf’ and ‘to thwart her goal of seeking to change the stranglehold that men had’ on the club” (Bichao). It’s always challenging to make changes that disrupt longstanding practices, but it is far more difficult when the perpetrators hold positions of power. Ta-Nehisi Coates clarifies in Between The World And Me that America, initially created by white people, is made for white people. Similarly, white men originally made private clubs; they generally run private clubs, and thus the clubs are made for white men. Coates makes it clear that the issue in America can only be solved by white people, and it is just the same for private clubs. White men must break down their own discriminatory practices to solve the issue. As much as legal, financial, and social attacks can help, it takes the white men in positions of power at the club to start giving women and racial minorities fair chances at acquiring membership. In America, we have laws that make discrimination illegal. Still, in this institution where white men can get around the anti-discrimination laws, we see indicators of racism and sexism on a large scale. This highlights Americans’ intentions, more specifically white men, when unregulated. The discrimination at private clubs shows that discrimination would occur across all American industries if possible. It makes me think that American society hasn’t progressed on civil rights issues; the laws have forced Americans to reform their actions, but their intentions remain unchanged.
Works Cited
Axley, Eric. “In Golf, Whites Only Need Apply.” Bleacher Report, 17 Aug. 2010, bleacherreport.com/articles/437816-golf-whites-only-need-apply. Accessed 15 May 2023.
Bichao, Sergio. “Plainfield Country Club in accused of discrimination against women.” Asbury Park Press, Nov 15, 2013. ProQuest, https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/plainfield-country-club-accused-discrimination/docview/1458731610/se-2.
McCann, Michael. “Why Private Golf Clubs Are Legally Still Able to Discriminate Against Women.” Sports Illustrated, 1 July 2019, www.si.com/golf-archives/2019/07/01/private-golf-clubs-muirfield-augusta-women-discrimination. Accessed 15 May 2023.
Osborn, Claire. “Ex-manager of country club alleges racial bias: Lawsuit claims he faced discrimination at work.” Austin American Statesman, Jun 01, 2021. ProQuest, https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/ex-manager-country-club-alleges-racial-bias/docview/2534833783/se-2.
Schudel, Matt. Hootie Johnson, who resisted admitting women to Augusta National, dies at 86: As chairman of the private golf club that hosts the Masters, Mr. Johnson battled changing times in the name of tradition. ProQuest, Jul 14, 2017, https://www.proquest.com/blogs-podcasts-websites/hootie-johnson-who-resisted-admitting-women/docview/1919041120/se-2.
United States Census Bureau. “QuickFacts Chicago City, Illinois.” United States Census Bureau, 1 July 2022, www.census.gov/quickfacts/chicagocityillinois. Accessed 4 June 2023.
Vadala, Nick. “Pine Valley Golf Club agrees to settlement in gender-based discrimination lawsuit.” The Philadelphia Inquirer, 10 May 2023, www.inquirer.com/news/pine-valley-golf-club-discrimination-lawsuit-settlement-20230510.html. Accessed 15 May 2023.