What about freedom of speech?

[David_Tepper]

While there has been much obsessing on this board about the rights of privacy and free association re: private clubs,  what about freedom of speech? Is anyone troubled by the "cone of silence" AGNC imposes on its members about speaking publicly on ANGC affairs? What rights have you sacrificed to join your club?
It is a little ironic that Jack Nicklaus and Bill Gates, two guys who normally have an opinion on EVERYTHING, have been so quiet lately. Maybe Jack is afraid of losing his shower privileges!
Given the questionable decisions Mr. Johnson has made over the past few years regarding the dis-invitation of past champions, growing rough on the course and the alteratons made to the course, it is surprising more members have not publicly questioned his leadership. Saddam Hussein would be envious.

  

[Rick Shefchik]

A club can vote you in, and a club can kick you out. You are a member of a club because you've agreed to follow their rules. If one of the rules is "No talking to the press," and you blab to a reporter, they can terminate your membership. The club doesn't revoke your right to shoot your mouth off; they revoke your right to be a member of the club.

I'm not sure what Bill Gates has to do with this; I was under the impression that he is not a member of ANGC, despite his fervent, public desire to join.

By the way, I'm not a member of a private club, but I believe a private club has the right to establish rules for its members.

[Dan Kelly]

A club can vote you in, and a club can kick you out. You are a member of a club because you've agreed to follow their rules. If one of the rules is "No talking to the press," and you blab to a reporter, they can terminate your membership. The club doesn't revoke your right to shoot your mouth off; they revoke your right to be a member of the club.

Rick --

Right on.

One semantic quibble -- which I bother to make only because it's an important semantic quibble in this country at this time:

The club doesn't revoke your right to be a member of the club; they revoke your *privilege* to be a member of the club.

I know you agree with this: If we'd keep the distinction between rights and privileges clear in this country, we'd have a better country to live in.

And we'd all be siding with Augusta's right to make its own membership decisions -- even those of us who, were we in Hootie's shoes or in Hootie's circle, would've pushed for female members years and years ago.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David Tepper,

Random members can't speak "officially" for any club,
just as random employees can't speak for governments or employers.

The I.R.S. even advises taxpayors not to rely on verbal communications with its employees regarding tax matters.

In most organizations, a designated individual or individuals are charged with speaking for the organization, "officially".

With respect to unofficial communications, each member of a club is free to exercise their constitutional, freedom of speech, rights.   They can express their personal opinions.

There may be a higher degree of scrutiny, by their fellow members, with respect to how responsible or prudent their comments are, but they are free to speak.

Some may choose not to comment, others may choose to be diplomatic, such as Weill and Chennault.

Could there be more solidarity amongst the members than the media has led you to believe ?

You also have to ask yourself, has anyone who has ever spoken on a high profile issue, been misquoted, to their embarrassment, and to the embarrassment of others ?

If you were a member, what would you say to the press ?

[Kevin_Reilly]

What Patrick said.

Another example, "David" can edit/delete/ban/censor/put on probation anyone here at GCA.  We have no "rights" to say anything here.  We post at the pleasure of the webmaster.

[mjone]

Augusta members have every right in the world to express their views publicly........just as ANGC has every right to can that member for his views.  Ward and Chenault are talking their way into being non-members at ANGC and rightly so.  Hootie speaks for the club.....if other members dont like it....roll the dice.  Then they would have only Seminole or Pine Valley to play rather than Augusta.  I don't feel for a CEO who would get canned by ANGC....they have 4 or 5 other high-end clubs to play!

[Steve Lapper]

Gates has just become a member of ANGC and is on the first year cone of silence probation. 1st year there, new members are limited in the time they may spend at the club and are asked not to bring many guests. They are also asked not to talk about it (their invitation) either.

[David_Tepper]

Patrick-
Here is the statement a member who disagrees with ANGC policy might make:
"While I have been a loyal member of AGNC for many years, I am now troubled by the stance our club has taken regarding the question of accepting women as members into AGNC. There is no doubt that the prominence, status, presitge and success our club now enjoys is directly and inextricably tied to the Masters golf tournament hosted each spring. While this event has given much to the world of golf, AGNC has received far more in return. Because of this, AGNC has a responsibility both to the game of golf and to our country.  
For many years both the PGA Tour and the USGA have used a minimum level of social responsibility for selecting golf clubs hosting their events. While AGNC will continue to remain a private club, I would hope that our membership sees fit to accept and endorse this standard for the benefit of the game of golf and ultimately for the benefit of our club."    

I would hope that an AGNC member who felt that way could make such a statement without worrying about being "dealt with" or without it being considered "blabbing to a reporter."  

[Tim Weiman]

David Tepper:

Suppose a group of people come together to form a single sex sports club and one day a member decides she no longer wants to be in a women only club. Further suppose that there is an opportunity for this woman to join a mixed gender club.

Now wouldn't it make more sense for her to resign saying: "I suspect your right to form a women's only club, but it's just not my idea of fun anymore"?
 
Why is it the "right" thing for her to publicly criticize other members for preferring a women's only club?

[JakaB]

Dan,

I don't believe you when you say if you were in Hootie's shoes you would have pushed for female members years and years ago...simply absent political correctness I just don't see how a female member would improve the club...what if anything have you done in your own world that could possibly support such a statement that implies you are of higher moral character than Hootie...or other men who choose not to socialize with women on their free time.

[TEPaul]

"Is anyone troubled by the "cone of silence" ANGC imposes on its members about speaking publicly on ANGC affairs?"

I don't know about others but I'm not troubled by that at all. As far as the private club--ANGC--is concerned, I don't care if they put their members in a time capsule and blast them into outer space when it comes to talking publicly about the club's affairs! ANGC's private club affairs are their own to deal with anyway they want to and I couldn't care less how they deal with their private affairs or their members!

[Patrick_Mucci]

David Tepper,

Could you tell me the name of the member who allegedly made that statement ?

[Dan Kelly]

Dan,

I don't believe you when you say if you were in Hootie's shoes you would have pushed for female members years and years ago...simply absent political correctness I just don't see how a female member would improve the club...what if anything have you done in your own world that could possibly support such a statement that implies you are of higher moral character than Hootie...or other men who choose not to socialize with women on their free time.

JakaB --

I guess I'm required to answer you, lest it seem I cannot.

So:

(1) I don't care if you believe me. If you don't believe me, you are misleading yourself -- but that's entirely up to you, and of no concern to me.

(2) You don't see how a female member could improve a club. Fine. I believe you when you say that. I believe that you don't see how a woman could improve a club -- and I invite you to keep on not seeing that. But please don't presume to tell me what I see and don't see.
    Simple fact: I've enjoyed the company of the women I've known every bit as much as the company of the men I've known -- more, in many cases.
    It's my humble observation that a full society includes both male and female members -- and I see (note: I see; I'm not asking you to see) no reason, if I were to belong to a club, to belong to a club with less than a full society in attendance.
     I had enough boys-only stuff in high school. Thanks.

(3) I have never, ever implied (or thought, either -- as my God could tell you if you had access to him) that my preference for a mixed-sex culture makes me morally superior to Hootie Johnson or to any other man who prefers to spend his free time away from women.
     Please see my comment at the end of the "Why does this story have legs?" thread.
     I will never, ever tell you that your view is wrong and mine is right. And I won't tell you that because I don't believe it!
     You're entitled to your view of the sexes. I'm entitled to mine. Vive la difference!
    

[Guest]

Patrick, could you please give us factual information indicating where David implied an ANGC member actually made that statement?    

[Patrick_Mucci]

Guest,

It's sad that you don't have the fortitude to identify yourself,
that you are too embarrassed to acknowledge authorship of your own words.  
It's truely unfortunate.  
Hopefully, you'll feel better about yourself at some point in the future and stand, like a man, responsibly,
behind your words.  
Good luck in that pursuit, I hope you make it.

Dave suggested that a member might utter those words,
I asked for the name of a member who had uttered those words.  
None exists, that was my point.

After all these months, why do you think no member has uttered those words ?

[JakaB]

Dan,

Thanks for the reply...My point is based on you saying years and years ago you would have lobbied for a woman member...I will give you credit for not entering the savage profession of law in the pursuit of more noble undertakings in the search for truth and equity....but...I would have to think any golfer who if given a membership into AGNC ten years ago that would have protested the exclusion of women would not be sitting by warm fires on a cold Minnesota night and would instead be fighting the real fights of this evil world that people like me find it so convenient to ignore.   I onced asked my Priest..."If I really believe in all this stuff you spew out every Sunday...How can I go build roads everyday when I should be out feeding the poor and laying my body infront of abortion clinics?"...To my great relief he simply said "Everybody needs a good road...and thats my service."  If you are one of the few men who have ever lived that would have stood up to the members of AGNC for the sake of women members before it was a hot topic...congrats...you are a rare breed and should use your talents and courage to free the truly oppressed women in regions of the world without a free press where only you and your God are aware of your work...I don't have the balls to be one of the great men of our time...If you do...don't waste them.

[Guest]

Thank you Patrick.......your 'tough love' has convinced me to seek professional help.  What would I, and the rest of the group, do without you?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Guest,

Those that are not embarrassed to post under their own name don't need my help, except, of course, for TEPaul.  

Good luck.

[David_Tepper]

Tim Weiman-

First, Let me say that I am someone who quit a golf club because I did not like the direction in which it was going!

Next, does voicing a contrary opinion necessarily mean you are criticizing someone? The hypothectical statement I laid out above does not make a negative reference to any other person or persons that I can see.

Finally, let me present you with a hypothectical situation. Suppose you were a member of a golf club with a classic, intact, vintage golf course that you enjoy playing very much.  Then suppose a new board of directors decided one day that it was time to "bring our course into the modern era."
They retain your least favorite modern architect who proposes adding 500 yards to the course, tripling the size of the greens, eliminating all of the blind shots and topping it all off with a "signature" 50ft. waterfall behind the 18th green!
How would you, as a member, think you were entitled to react? Would your only options be to quit or stay and accept it? Would you consider staying a member but going outside the club to rally support for maintaining the course as it is? Could you then be accused of publicly criticising your fellow members? Is your loyalty to the golf course or the knuckleheads now running your club?      
I would be interested to hear what you think.

DT
    

[TEPaul]

David Tepper:

The situation you just cited as a 'hypothetical' is actually nothing of the kind. That kind of thing has and still does go on all over the place. There's adversity of opinion and contention in clubs all over the place--always was, always will be.

How clubs deal with things like varies with each case.

And it has virtually nothing to do with freedom of speech or infringing on anyone's right to free speech.

Sometimes Americans tend to get a bit exuberant, it would seem, about what our right of freedom of speech is exactly.

It seems to me the Bill of Rights protects our basic right to speak freely in all kinds of situations (even private clubs)  under the First Amendment but it certainly never intended to protect us from being unpopular (or in the vernacular, being considered an asshole by others--and whatever that results in).

And in this way a private club has every right (within their own by-laws, and ways of operating) to do with you whatever they want to.

But if you're basically asking this question on here to try to figure out how one can get others to do exactly what they want others to do, well, then, that will be a tough one to answer!

[Tim Weiman]

David,

If I joined a club based on the golf course, there is a good chance I would quit if the kind of changes you suggested were proposed. Likewise, if I joined a club because I wanted an all male environment, there is a good chance I would quit if that aspect were changed.

In both cases, I would first attempt to reason with fellow members, both those who shared my views and those that didn't.

Most likely, I would also selectively discuss the situation with some non members, but going outside of the club to "rally support" doesn't make sense to me. It implies outsiders, rather than club members should make the final decision.

After a reasonable time for discussion, a member should probably move on if changes at the club are contrary to the basic reasons he or she joined in the first place. If the member wanted a classic golf course or a single sex environment, the club, unfortunately, just might not be home anymore.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

Your example would represent a RADICAL departure from the way the club has existed and presented itself to prospective members over the years.

Under your example, I would suspect that a palace revolt would take place, or that the project would never wind its way through the membership approval and funding process.  

If your admissions policy over the last 15 years has attracted and retained members not in keeping with your club's traditions and values, and as a result there has been a dramatic shift in "the will of the membership", then I could see changes occuring, but then, you would have seen it coming too.

One can better effect change by remaining within the club.

Once you leave a club, your influence and your voice on club matters falls on deaf ears.