Gov. Ehrlich says discrimination is ‘not my business’

July 6, 2005

When a politician gets caught hosting an event at an all-white country club, he or she has a choice on how to respond. Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich (R) is not choosing wisely.

Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. addressed criticism yesterday of a fund-raiser he hosted at an all-white country club by saying its membership is “not my business,” and he complained of a “double standard” because there was no outcry when prominent Democrats held events there. […]

Ehrlich, who said that he has spoken at the Elkridge Club “many, many times over the years sponsored by different groups,” said he was not concerned about who belonged to the club.

“I don’t know what their membership is, and guess what? It’s not my business,” Ehrlich said in the radio interview.

Wrong answer. Ehrlich may have been on to something by noting that a Dem held an event at the same exclusive club, but the Dem’s response highlighted how misguided Ehrlich’s response was.

“[Democratic Baltimore County Executive James T. Smith Jr.] has never belonged to a country club in his life. He was not aware of the country club’s membership composition, and as the leader of a diverse county, he appreciates that it has been brought to his attention. Clearly he will not have future campaign events hosted at this location,” said Rachael Rice, a fund-raising consultant for the Smith campaign.

Right answer. If you’re using an all-white facility in the 21st century, and you didn’t know about the club’s racist policies, it can be excused as an honest mistake. You learn of the club’s problem, you express regret, and you avoid the club in the future.

But Ehrlich had to take things one step further by lashing out at Dems and insisting that he’s not at all concerned about a facility in his state discriminating on the basis of race. Instead of decrying racial prejudice, Ehrlich essentially said he doesn’t care whether private clubs exclude African Americans or not.

One has to wonder what this guy’s thinking.

Update: Kevin Drum makes an important point. My post here was looking at this from a poltical perspective — Ehrlich screwed up and had a ridiculous defense. In the bigger, and more important, picture, the fact that there are country clubs that continue to discriminate is more than outrageous; it’s pathetic and a national embarrassment.

I want politicians to stop visiting these racist facilities, but I really want politicians to show some leadership on this issue and change discrimination laws to make club policies like these a thing of the past.

Um, isn’t this the guy whose Lt. Governor, Michael Steele, is African-American and has been courted by state Republican leaders to run for Sarbanes’ Senate seat next year (and, IIRC, is far more popular than Ehrlich himself)?

Wonder how he–or Maryland’s large and increasingly affluent African-American population–feels about this Ehrlich shrug.

  • Ehrlich also said the decision to hold the fundraiser there was “made by his campaign staff, not by him.” (Ehrlich did admit that he had spoken at the club ” many, many times over the years.” No word whether all those decisions were made by his staff as well.
    -Via American Progress

    Poor Gov. Ehrlich. He is a zombie at the mercy of his nefarious staff. What is a governor to do but show up at any venue toward which he is pointed? The good governor is simply at the mercy of his underlings, he doesn’t have to think at all.

    jeffstoned: A quote from the Lt. Gov. from the same American Progress piece…

    Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, an African American, said, “I don’t know that much about the club, the membership, nor do I care, quite frankly, because I don’t play golf. It’s not an issue with me.”

  • Neither Erhlich nor Steele care about discrimination on the basis of skin color, as the Club members’ money is green, lots and lots of green. THAT is the only color that matters to Rethugs; provided, of course, that you have enough of it.

  • I mostly agree with your concession to Drum’s point. I don’t want racist clubs, but I’d like to be able to keep women’s-only clubs. So, I’m not unwilling to allow some men’s only clubs–especially if they’re turkish baths or something like that.

    Massachusetts ended them a while ago, but it was never airtight before. Women were allowed as guests, and widows could be members at the men’s city clubs. I think it’s okay to have some separate places for men and women as long as business is kept out of it. (I think that this could be accompllshed if no women were allowed in as guests.)

  • What about schools? We have women’s and men’s schools.

    I don’t think it’s outrageous to have “all-blankâ€? anything. We have black colleges, black clubs, and a white guy was recently disallowed from a black social workers’ conference because he wasn’t black (the irony, of course, was that he was going specifically to learn more about how to help serve the black community—keep that guy out!).

    Look, the PC-Worldview is just wrong. People are NOT the same, particularly not genders, not races, not anything. If people want to surround themselves with people they feel more comfortable with, LET THEM. It’s called freedom. Now, this doesn’t extend to public (or publicly funded) issues, of course, but private is just that: private. If you don’t want the government telling you what part of your lover you can kiss, then you can’t let the government tell you who you can exclude from your party.

    The response shouldn’t be to outlaw something, it should be to shame them. Forget what the policy of the club is—that’s irrelevant—focus on who the members are. That’s the embarrassment, that the club is doing well enough to stay segregated.

  • Wow, you want laws to end discrimination at private clubs. I guess the constitution and liberty are dead.

  • I want politicians to stop visiting these racist facilities, but I really want politicians to show some leadership on this issue and change discrimination laws to make club policies like these a thing of the past.

    Here is my problem with the elite liberals (bloggers, newsmen, etc.): I agree completely that the existence of these clubs is a disgrace and they should not exist at all. However, I think it is dangerous (and unconstitutional) to allow the government to have say over the rules of a private club. The government is not a solution to every problem, and this would be an attrocious abuse of government power. I consider myself a moderate liberal, but I also believe in limited government. The unbound exercise of government power is far more insidious than a few Maryland racists getting together (with or without a Governor in attendance). I also agree with Carpetbagger and Drum’s points in regard to Ehrlich’s conduct and the shame of racism. However, if you allow the government to get involved, how far away is it until the government is allowed to mandate that everyone have at least one black friend. I think everyone should get to know people from outside of their culture, but I don’t think the government should be able to make me.

  • Another point, have you noticed how common a GOP tactic it is to blame staff to avoid criticism. Mel Martinez had a number of potential crippling gaffes, but he was able to blame every single one on a staffer/speech writer/etc. How do they get away with this so consistently (or are they really that clueless).

    Liberal medua indeed

  • Did anyone ever actually find out why the club is all-white? I mean, does a poll of the club reveal that the members happen to be all white, or is there an express policy of “whites only”? Because the presence of no black people cannot be considerd proof of the KKK. According to the article, there is no rule prohibiting minorities and no rule saying “whites only.” So the lesson here is that absence of darker skin is automatically evil intent?
    And in any case, if the club is private and not public, isn’t that their choice? People give out private scholarships to blacks only, or Hispanics only, or Italians only, or of Jewish decent only, etc. I thought these were all legal?

  • We shouldn’t legislate the club rules, but the club should change them. So every member doesn’t have any non-euro decended friends?

    The change needs to be within the group, not from without.

  • Most private clubs CAN discriminate, provided that, as Eadie noted above, there is no public, governmental, or interstate commerce “rights” or “benefits” or “contacts” involved with the club. That includes: no non-profit or tax-exempt status is conferred; it is not incorporated under state law; it does not have a liquor license to sever alcohol — that’s regulated by the ATF; no federal funding of any kind; and so on. It’s possible to meet this standard, to demonstrate that there has been no “state action” in favor of the club and thereby permitting the discriminatory membership practices, but it’s difficult.

    As to single sex schools, or blacks-only organizations, I don’t know how these may have been approved against legal challenges, but there are solid academic studies for single sex schools, and a history of discrimination that race-exclusive organizations could permit them to be sustained.

  • Hi AL,

    Aside from whether or not a club can discriminate, doesn’t someone have to prove that it did? I mean, the fact that a club happens to have no minority members is not conclusive proof of discrimination, is it? I hope our country hasn’t abandoned standards of proof just yet….

  • I’m sympathetic to those who object to the idea of trying to use the police powers of the state — that is, government action — to ban discriminatory clubs. As several posters above note, such things as “all white clubs” might well be part of the price of freedom.

    There is, however, a problem with such discrimination that they neatly ignore … espcially in the more hoity-toity country clubs. Historically, a LOT of business and business networking occurs in such facilities. This is not a trivial point: frequently, one can NOT get seriously ahead in business without many ample opportunities to hobnob with the various business interests in one’s community, and the country club is often enough the place where that happens.

    For a short while I was a contractor, aiming my business at replacing deteriorating siding on large multi-residential complexes. Never really got very far in the business before a dubious economic outlook and capitalization problems made me rethink the whole idea. But, I know of at least one job (very large) we might well have gotten had I been a golfer willing to spend a leisurely afternoon on the links or in the clubhouse with a couple of the more affluent property owners in the community. God only knows how many MORE jobs might have floated up had I been a regular. (I’m not a minority, but I also didn’t have the cash for membership in most private country clubs, so there was a barrier there even for me).

    If blacks and Hispanics find themselves excluded (by exorbitant fees, or simply an environment that is extremely unfriendly, and certainly if excluded by club rules), then they are also excluded from a major part of the lifeblood of business. Same holds true for women confronted by men’s-only clubs where lots of business is transacted, as a poster above alluded to.

    I’m not offering this comment as some final argument for or against using government power to open such facilities up … merely pointing out that the issue isn’t cut-and-dried, and that standing on some interpretation of a principle of freedom can easily end up masking a defacto means of discrimination extending far beyond the confines of the club.

  • Daniel,

    No, fortunately or not, most cases of alleged discrimination require some factual evidence, and maybe even demonstration of intent (although the requisite intent is usually deemed a given by the end results). Some crimes, and even some torts, are so-called “strict libability” offenses, where one’s intent is not relevant to establishing the violation. This is not the case with respect to discrimination allegations.

    One would need to first establish that nondiscrimination is required for the club, and second that the club took steps to implement their discriminatory nature: almost automatic rejection of minorities, different initiation fees for minorities, ostracizing minorities that happen to be admitted, and other more subtle measures. It is a difficult burden of proof, which leads to…

    Roger,

    You’re absolutely right, that there is a lot of “officially ignored” discrimination that goes on throughout America — probably the best known case is Augusta National Golf Club, home of the annual Master’s PGA Championship each April. Is it right? Of course not. Notwithstanding that, yes the use of the governmental “police powers” IS the price of freedom, but many victims of discrimination would call that a BENEFIT of the proper exercise of the police powers. Just look at the callow refusal of Frist and other Rethugs to take a roll call vote on the Senate’s “apology” for failing to outlaw lynching; had the Senate actually overridden the three filibusters in the past and adopted the anti-lynching legislation, that would have been a proper use of the government’s police powers.

    As for your personal experience, I commend you for your integrity for refusing to step on someone else’s neck (by rubbing elbows with the powerful at discriminatory clubs) for your own personal economic benefit. That is called personal character and integrity, which is a REAL American value. Not surprising that you would be a (welcome) visitor at this site!

  • Let’s not go down this path. We all know bigotry
    when we see it, and we should do our best to stamp
    it out.

    But there is also nothing wrong with people of like
    interests or characteristics banding together simply
    because of that, and not because of some pernicious
    hatred of outsiders.

    This is a situation where wisdom might come into play, and a good heart as well.

    Not a bunch of rules that might prevent a few stamp
    collectors from forming a club that rejects coin
    collectors if they don’t have any stamps.

    I’ve got to believe there are better ways to fight
    for the rights of all Americans, and everyone else
    in the world, for that matter, than some kind of
    set of complicated rules that will never work.

    We know it when we see it.

  • Analytical Liberal,

    Thanks for the compliment … which, actually, surprised me, because I wasn’t putting myself up as any paragon of virtue. You are right that, even were I loaded to the hilt, I would NOT be willing to join a country club (or any exclusive association) that effectively cut off women and/or minorities. Such places are repugnant.

    But, still, I’m not sure that boycotting them is the best thing for progressives to do; that just leaves them entirely to the rightwingers, who can then cheerfully cut deals with each other without once worrying that some of the profits might accidentally flow toward a liberal, a minority, or a woman. Somehow, we need to open these places up to everyone. Not that I have any particularly brilliant ideas about how to do that, as the posts above make clear.

    • Comments are closed.