Should Hate Speech Be Tolerated At A Private Club

[Jim_Coleman]

    I realize this is way off topic, and will understand if it is deleted or ignored.  But, in these times, I think it is worth discussing.
    Hypothetical -  A member utters a blatantly racist epithet in the men's grill (maybe alcohol is involved).  A complaint is registered and the board is asked to decide if the offender should be reprimanded - say suspended for a period of time.  You are on the board.  What say you?
   I don't believe this would be tolerated in the workplace, the classroom, or in most homes.  Should it be tolerated at a club?  I say no.
   p.s.  I'm afraid this happens way more than many are willing to admit.

[Sean_A]

Is there a club code of conduct?  Do members agree to abide by the (a) code? Is the club member owned?


Ciao

[Rees Milikin]

I'd report them to my local Antifa chapter

[Jim_Coleman]

Sean:  Assume no code of conduct beyond a dress code and common courtesy, and assume member owned.

[Sean_A]

Jim

If the behaviour you suggest is widespread, I would suggest a gentle reminder of proper decorum to all members in a email etc. Then I would immediately get cracking on a code of conduct which members agree to adhere to when they pay their subs.

Ciao

[JMEvensky]

If said to an employee--immediate suspension (at the least). A club has to look out for the staff.


If directed at nobody in particular but just thrown out in a casual (possibly alcohol abetted) conversation, a least a letter from the Board,with a suspension promised for a second offense.

[Mike Wagner]

Jim -


Do you honestly think any rational person on planet earth would answer "yes" to the title question? 

[Jim_Coleman]

   I know of one board that would do nothing.  I suspect most would (and do) do nothing.  Slippery slope comes up.  But you're right.  No one would admit it.

[Peter Pallotta]

Good for you, Jim, for raising this.
It's important. And it puts the focus where it should be - not on our own image of ourselves as good people or our desire to be seen as such, but on the person who might thus be spared from hearing a diminishing/hurtful comment (and then being told to lighten up and to not be so sensitive).
Peter

[Rees Milikin]

Jim -


Do you honestly think any rational person on planet earth would answer "yes" to the title question?

We can't let common sense get it the way.


Why not ask the person why they feel the need to say disparaging things about someone else and then let them know why you believe it to be wrong.  Having an honest discussion is the best way to handle these situations.

[Ed Brzezowski]

What if the comment is self deprecating?

Is it still hurtful? Or just poor taste?

[Peter Pallotta]

What if the comment is self deprecating?
Is it still hurtful? Or just poor taste?

Ed - if you or I made what we thought was a self-deprecating comment, and a friend or acquaintance or club-member or staff person standing near-by said, "That's a hurtful comment for me", shouldn't we believe them? Couldn't we quite easily put *their* needs ahead of our own in such a case? I mean, what could I possibly *lose* by accepting them at their word? How would I be lessened and what could be wrong with me saying: "I'm sorry. My apologies"? I mean, what does it really matter what we *intended* (even assuming we really were coming from a good place) if a person tells us that, intentional or not, our words hurt them? In short: isn't it easier and better to always put a *person*, another human being, ahead of an *idea* -- especially when the ideas are usually something like: 'Oh, everyone is so PC these days" or "I'm free to say whatever I please - if others get offended it's their problem" or "People need to develop thicker skins - it's a tough world out there".
Peter 

[Jim Franklin]

Not tolerated. I believe a suspension would be in order at our club. I know we have had members suspended for a multitude of reasons.

[Paul Jones]

Jim,


I agree, no one would answer Yes to your question...


Just to blur the lines a little... What about cursing, dirty jokes, or anything else offensive?  Where do you see the line drawn?


I do not know the answer and would assume a line would be drawn when someone files a complaint.

[Mike Sweeney]

Jim,


I agree, no one would answer Yes to your question...

Actually, I might disagree with this. I am open to alternative conversations and I like that the ACLU has defended some 'hate groups'. Now they have adjusted:


http://thehill.com/homenews/347053-aclu-revises-policy-to-avoid-supporting-hate-groups-protesting-with-firearms


For me, I am cool with "hate speech" at the local club. I will personally "move on down the road" with my Autistic son, and I have in two very specific instances.


Living well is the best revenge....

[Steve Lang]

    the Klingon proverb, "Revenge is a dish best served cold"

[corey miller]

My experience is that it does not happen often if at all. 

[Sean_A]

My experience is that it does not happen often if at all.

My experience is that I hear harsh stuff about nationalities/religions practically everyday.  Often times I understand the context and can therefore better judge what the intent is, but when terrorism is involved it opens an entirely new box.
People can sometimes think and act like it is war and if one is at war there is no such thing as hate speech...jingoism comes with the package.  Plus, jokes are often directed at nationalities/religions.  Where one draws the line is a personal matter and I dare say most people are either "understood in the context of conversation" or savvy enough to stay away from these conversations in public.  To me, it makes sense to create a code of conduct even if it only gets people thinking about the detrimental impact on diverse communities that can be the result of inflamatory remarks...often merely for "sport" rather than to achieve any greater goal.  Plus a code offers a board some legs to stand on should they wish to take action.  Its a very simple process that is very common.

Ciao

[David Lott]

If made to an employee? Strong discipline and public reprimand. Termination is the proper remedy, though that is hard to do at residential private clubs. Ditto if directed at another member or a guest. Any abuse of an employee, guest or other member, have speech or not, should be accounted for. By and large reprimands should be public.


As to general crude or bigoted speech, it depends somewhat on the circumstance, but it should always be accounted for in some way, even just crude profanity in a setting where others can't avoid hearing. An exception could be a comment made only within the hearing of a small group engaged in conversation, which should be self policing. But if that conduct persists it should be accounted for officially.


Examples: Within recent memory Secession in Beaufort finally cracked down on some crude and carousing members whose conduct at the club and within the City of Beaufort was really out of control. Several years ago Fox Chapel Goff Club suspended some members whose children were being repeatedly abusive to staff. A letter was circulated to members, not naming the suspended parties but everyone knew who they were. The membership widely approved the FCGC board action. I'm sure the staff did too.

[Charles Lund]

Why would anyone want to be a member of a club which tolerated hate speech?

Any well run club would have some principles and standards of behavior for members.  There are dress codes and mobile phone policies. The Board can take up issues related to general standards. I'd think having an active board would relieve members of being in a situation where they perceive some responsibility on their part for another member.

On the other hand, it is realistic for members to be responsible for their quests following club policies.

Clubs would not tolerate cheating in competitions or disregarding rules of golf in competitions.  it seems realistic to have generic standards and policies involving respect and courtesy to members and employees.  And it seems boards boards should be willing to take up issues when necessary.

Charles Lund

[Ian Mackenzie]

Simply ridiculous question.


"Should hate speech be tolerated"...?


Wow....

[corey miller]

Perhaps this is the reason there are Admissions Committees? 

[Peter Pallotta]

My guess is that Jim C is not an idiot, and doesn't need to be told about club rules and committees etc or to be informed that no rationale/decent person would tolerate hate speech. My guess is that he is telling us that, in his recent experience, he finds that it *does* go on and that it *is* being tolerated -- and so he just wanted to bring that out into the open lest we all get too smug and complacent. Reading some of these posts, it's as if some folks believe that golf clubs *never* excluded Jews or Catholics or Blacks -- and as if that (well documented) exclusion was just accidental/innocent and reflected nothing at all about the broader culture...
Peter   

[Ian Mackenzie]

My guess is that Jim C is not an idiot, and doesn't need to be told about club rules and committees etc or to be informed that no rationale/decent person would tolerate hate speech. My guess is that he is telling us that, in his recent experience, he finds that it *does* go on and that it *is* being tolerated -- and so he just wanted to bring that out into the open lest we all get too smug and complacent. Reading some of these posts, it's as if some folks believe that golf clubs *never* excluded Jews or Catholics or Blacks -- and as if that (well documented) exclusion was just accidental/innocent and reflected nothing at all about the broader culture...
Peter   

Fair point.
But it sounds like a rhetorical question to which the answer is an obvious "No".


As pointed out, who in their right mind would make a cogent defensive case. Oh, sorry, I forgot - our POTUS would...;-)

[Mark Pearce]

If the OP was about actual instances, wouldn't the correct response not be to ask an apparently rhetorical question but to name and shame the club(s) in question?