For those of you who have been following the Augusta National v. Martha Burk situation, here is another perspective on it for you.
http://www.golfdigest.com/features/index.ssf?/features/gd200303mensclub2.html
For those of you who haven’t been following it, here’s the “reader’s digest” version:
Augusta National is a male only country club in Georgia, founded in 1931. It is also the host of the Masters Tournament, and has been so for the entirety of the tournament’s existence. Listed as among its membership are CEOs of major corporations, Politicians, and not surprisingly, professional atheletes to name a few. Augusta National, however, is private, and new members are only invited to join by vote of their 300 members.
Martha Burk, President of the National Council of Women’s Organizations, has decided that Augusta National’s policies are unconstitutional and has called for a boycott of the tournament by all golfers (Golf being something that she has never played, nor knew any of its history before or even during the this battle), especially Tiger Woods whom she called out personally. She even suggested the Masters move from Augusta National, even though it has been there since the beginning.
Additionally, Ms. Burk has requested permission to protest outside Augusta National’s frong gate, and has even gone so far as to say that if she is not permitted to protest there with her 24 followers, then she will sue.
That is the short version. Now for opinion. Martha Burk is an idiot. Plain and simple.
First of all, Augusta National is a private club. It was my understanding that private clubs are able to decide who they do and do not want in their membership. That is a constitutional right. While this may be morally wrong and politically incorrect, it is in no way illegal. Ms. Burk is attempting to play politics with a man who is old enough and whose club is wealthy enough that to dismiss the sponsors of the Masters Tournament so that they do not get involved and/or tarnished in this fight. Regardless of the bad press, Hootie Johnson has already said that they will not be forced into accepting women, and who is to say that had she sent a private letter to Mr. Johnson she would not have gotten her point across better. As the saying goes, “you get more with sugar than with vinegar.”
Second of all, part of me thinks that she’s in this alone and really just wanted to do it for a fight. As the so called, “representative of all women groups”, we have yet to hear any other groups publicly proclaim their support for Ms. Burk’s actions. I have yet to see any organization support her. Not the ACLU, not NOW, no one supports her position. Is it possible that this is a personal crusade by a women who does not play, nor understands any of the history or tradition of golf and its tournaments?
Finally, while I think it might finally be time for Augusta to open its doors to women as members, I also agree that they should not be forced into it. If their MEMBERS ask for it and VOTE on it, then it might be time. Personally, while I do not play at men’s only clubs , it is not because I do not want to, it is because I have never been asked. Women are allowed as guests at Augusta National and last year women played more than 1,000 rounds of golf there without any restricted tee times. The time may come when Augusta National welcomes its first woman member, but it should be on the club’s own terms, not on Martha Burk’s.
March 9th, 2003 at 10:08 AM
And it will be on their terms. Martha Burk isn’t doing anything illegal or annoying. The fact that she is getting so much press indicates more that she has a point, not that she’s an idiot. The fact that people are uncomfortable indicates that they feel that she might have a point.
In the end, all she’s doing is protesting and raising awareness that the most significant tournament in golf is held at a club that has values that differ from much of the PGA’s fans and players. The lawsuits you have mentioned are if she gets denied permits to protest, which is a completely legal and honest thing to do.
I find this even more amusing:
He’s right… and he should remember that no one forces anyone to listen to Martha Burk, or to do anything about this. No one is “forcing” Augusta National to do a damn thing except, maybe, maybe, hold press conferences every now and again.
I also find it irritating to read that, oh, the women’s club didn’t survive the Great Depression because only men cared enough about golf to keep the club open. That’s just ignorant of about a half-dozen social and geographical issues. At the base of it all, to not recognize that men have had more money and more societal “consent” to play sports is just as stupid as Martha Burk’s protest ever could be. Golf is a sport of wealth (how much are your clubs again, Josh.
), and as such has as much of a historical bias against women and minorities as the boardroom (or tennis, swimming, or any other high expense sport).
So, while I don’t really care about women not being allowed to play at Augusta National, I find that I really just don’t care about Martha Burk being outside the National protesting. Honestly, she’s not harming anything, and she is raising awareness of an issue that is important to her. In the end, if people truly care, Augusta National will change and admit their first female member. If no one cares, all of this will fade away. Besides, if the National really would like to change, I’m sure there are a more than a few wealthy, white female CEO’s they could find.
March 9th, 2003 at 10:11 AM
that should be “most significant PGA event in the US” but you get my point.
March 9th, 2003 at 12:00 PM
While your logic makes sense, the point however, is not right or wrong, it is Augusta National’s choice.
She may want to raise awareness, and that is fine. However, I think that the sherriff may have a point, if he so decides, to not grant her a permit to protest right outside the gates of Augusta National. This is a sherriff who knows the area of the course (1 road in and out of the country club), knows the people who do come to the tournament (some of whom may not be so peaceful in their dissent of her protest), and knows the membership of the course much better than Martha Burk, a woman who, by her own admission, has not ever seen a golf tournament either on television or in person.
There are 45 total single-sex country clubs in the nation. There are 4500 country clubs in the nation. That is 1 percent, by my count. As I’ve said about television on numerous counts, “if you don’t like what’s going on, change the channel.” In this case, the Masters is one tournament out of the 30 or 40 that occur during the year, and while it happens to be one of the “Grand Slam” of golf, I believe Martha Burk should just move on to a new topic.
I did a search of major newspapers on the subject, I got 3 hits (two of which were op-ed pieces by women) on the NYTimes, with the most recent being 3 weeks ago, 2 hits on the Washington Post, and not surprisingly, no hits on the Atlanta Sun Times over the last month.
March 9th, 2003 at 3:25 PM
I wasn’t going to respond to this, and I think Sujal has made a number of the points I would make, but I had to comment on two things:
1) Josh states that Martha Burk “has decided that Augusta National’s policies are unconstitutional and has called for a boycott of the tournament by all golfers.” Nope. Try again. There is no constitutional issue with their admission policies, because there’s no state action. Ms. Burk admits this - she views these actions as discriminatory not unconstitutional, which is why she’s calling for a boycott and public pressure, rather than trying to sue for women to be admitted. And no, this isn’t merely an issue of semantics. There are a number of things that we as a society have decided are not acceptable from a social perspective, but which are nevertheless not prohibited by the constitution. Ms. Burk is perfectly within her rights to put public pressure on Augusta National, just as Augusta National has the right to chose whether or not to listen. I see nothing wrong with pointing out the tension between the public anti-discrimination policies adopted by many Fortune 500 companies, and the contradictory private actions of those companies’ CEOs. As a consumer who supports these companies’ bottom lines every time I make a purchase, I have the right to make my voice heard, and refuse to support companies that not only allow their CEOs to participate in such an act of blatant discrimination, but encourage these actions through paying their membership dues.
There is a constitutional aspect to this story, however: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Seems to me that what Ms. Burk is asking for is the right to peacefully assemble outside the gates of the Augusta National. Thus, a lawsuit to defend that right is appropriate.
2) The argument that private citizens should have the right to include or exclude whomever they chose has been used to perpetrate a number of abuses and acts of discrimination in this country’s history. Would you feel any differently if Augusta National were fighting to keep blacks from joining? If not, why does Augusta National get a pass that we as a country have said private restaurants, neighborhoods, hotels, etc. don’t get?
March 9th, 2003 at 8:28 PM
That all makes sense, however, before this goes any further, I want to make sure its understood that I believe it is time for Augusta National to admit women as members. I said this at the outset, but I wanted it known before this got any further. My first argument was poorly formed, and I should have thought it out better before I posted it.
Secondly, while, as I said above, it is morally repugnant to people that they do so, it is still their right NOT to accept women. While Martha Burk’s right to protest is ensured by the Constitution, it is also the right of the Sherriff to not allow a protest if it will ensure that there will be hysteria or there will be a “clear and present danger” to the members of the community/attendees of the tournament. That is his right.
I agree fully that it is a sham to hide behind, it has been upheld on numerous occasions that it is allowable for people to exclude whomever they chose from private organizations. Her ability to protest will not be the issue, its WHERE they allow her to that will be. If she choses to sue, it is her right, as you’ve pointed out, but should the sherriff decide that it is because of the danger that it would pose her and the other protesters, it is my hope that she would listen to them and chose another location.
I called Martha Burk an idiot, not because of her political views, or because of the cause she’s fighting for, its because she wasn’t fully prepared when she got into this “crusade” for the depth of the issue. She, on one side, criticizes these men who play golf and socialize together, and then gets women to write editorials who do the same thing. As was said in the article, Anna Quindlin (an enourmous hypocrite, in my mind) did the same thing, and still does today. I am very much in favor of people having the right to socialize with whomever they chose, and not have it mandated by the government. There are numerous other golf clubs in that area of Georgia, just as there are numerous other gyms on Commonwealth Ave. near the women’s one (I’m sorry, but the name is escaping me). I don’t believe that it is a fair argument to ask if Augusta National gets a “free pass” because other places do get those same passes.
I still believe that Martha Burk was not prepared for this fight. Had she known anything about golf she would have known that the Masters will not be moved from Augusta National (at least any time soon). Moreover, she would have known that Tiger Woods, the sport’s most visible ambassador, would not have chosen to remove himself or protest the event. He has played (and won twice) there before, and I’m sure, given that he is an intelligent man, that he knew of Augusta National’s policies before. Her request was asinine and she clearly underestimated the level of interest the country would have.