Chicago tribune opinion piece
By Andrew J. LeVay. Andrew J. LeVay is a lawyer in New York City
Published September 6, 2002
`This I did not expect."
That was the response of Martha Burk, chair of the National Council of Women's Organizations, to Augusta National Golf Club's announcement last week that it would drop all commercial sponsorship from the 2003 installment of its famed Masters tournament. Given the current dominance of what could be called corporate correctness, Burk's response may be the understatement of the year.
Divots were already flying a few weeks ago in Georgia after Burk publicly chastised the club for its lack of women members. The membership of Augusta National, which first presented the Masters in 1934, is an exclusive list of about 300 individuals, allegedly including such heavies as Warren Buffett and Louis Gerstner. Although the club has no formal policy prohibiting women, pointing to the lack of women members, Burk--a so-called political psychiatrist, gender-equity expert and admitted non-golfer--offered this thinly veiled threat to club chairman William "Hootie" Johnson: "We urge you to review your policies and practices ... and open your membership to women now, so that this is not an issue when the tournament is staged next year."
In a surprising and refreshing rebuke of Burk's coercion tactics, Johnson replied publicly that "there may come a day when women will be invited to join our membership ... that timetable will be ours and not at the point of a bayonet."
In other words, he continued, "[w]e do not intend to become another trophy in your display case."
Johnson could well have stopped there; his principled response was likely enough to cement him in the hearts and minds of those who support the private club's right to determine its own membership. Indeed, intentionally or otherwise, Johnson's recent actions have served as an effective defense of the constitutionally protected right of free association.
A concept once hailed by the left when the Supreme Court used it to protect groups like the Communist Party and NAACP, freedom of association has come under fire from many of these same people, most recently when the Boy Scouts erected it to dismiss a gay scoutmaster.
Tiger Woods felt the brunt of this liberal backlash when he stated after the British Open that, rightly or wrongly, Augusta National as a private club is free to do as it wishes. Those who degradingly assumed Woods, a minority, would fall in line with the likes of Burk, were outraged by his insolence (The New York Post dismissed him with the back-page headline "Hypocrite.").
This past week, however, Johnson went a step further, stating that the club would drop its three television sponsors--IBM, Coca-Cola, and Citigroup--rather than subject them to any of the controversy relating to its membership (Burk's organization had already threatened boycotts.). "We are sorry, but not surprised, to see these corporations drawn into this matter," Johnson said. "Augusta National is NCWO's true target. It is therefore unfair to put the Masters media sponsors in the position of having to deal with this pressure."
Johnson's decision makes the Masters the only commercial-free sports telecast.
Undeterred, Burk and NCWO have vowed to continue their attempted shakedown. Burk has already had "a conversation" with CBS officials during which she gently asked them "whether they want to broadcast an event in a venue that discriminates against half the population." Furthermore, she intends to contact individual club members who "represent some very powerful [public] corporations," most certainly to inquire about what their shareholders might think of their abhorrent membership. Thus far, CBS has encouragingly maintained that it will televise the 2003 tournament.
Augusta National's decision (and tentatively that of CBS) represents the proverbial white glove slap across the face of those who, lacking any legal standing, seek to achieve their political goals by pressuring corporations and their officers into acquiescence. Burk's Jesse Jacksonesque approach of institutional intimidation --complete with threatened boycotts and manufactured public shame--has enjoyed great success in recent years. Augusta National's choice to forgo substantial advertising profits to stand up for its right to define the nature of its existence is thus unprecedented and worthy of commendation.
Much to the chagrin of Burk and her cronies, the Masters tournament has traditionally been the most watched golf tournament on television; the lack of commercial interruptions will likely only increase its viewership. This is the case because despite their efforts to galvanize the public, unlike when Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in baseball, the issue here is not equal access to the sport of golf or even the Masters itself. The sole issue is whether Augusta National, a private club that exists independent of the Masters tournament most of the year, should be free to determine its very limited membership.
By Andrew J. LeVay. Andrew J. LeVay is a lawyer in New York City
Published September 6, 2002
`This I did not expect."
That was the response of Martha Burk, chair of the National Council of Women's Organizations, to Augusta National Golf Club's announcement last week that it would drop all commercial sponsorship from the 2003 installment of its famed Masters tournament. Given the current dominance of what could be called corporate correctness, Burk's response may be the understatement of the year.
Divots were already flying a few weeks ago in Georgia after Burk publicly chastised the club for its lack of women members. The membership of Augusta National, which first presented the Masters in 1934, is an exclusive list of about 300 individuals, allegedly including such heavies as Warren Buffett and Louis Gerstner. Although the club has no formal policy prohibiting women, pointing to the lack of women members, Burk--a so-called political psychiatrist, gender-equity expert and admitted non-golfer--offered this thinly veiled threat to club chairman William "Hootie" Johnson: "We urge you to review your policies and practices ... and open your membership to women now, so that this is not an issue when the tournament is staged next year."
In a surprising and refreshing rebuke of Burk's coercion tactics, Johnson replied publicly that "there may come a day when women will be invited to join our membership ... that timetable will be ours and not at the point of a bayonet."
In other words, he continued, "[w]e do not intend to become another trophy in your display case."
Johnson could well have stopped there; his principled response was likely enough to cement him in the hearts and minds of those who support the private club's right to determine its own membership. Indeed, intentionally or otherwise, Johnson's recent actions have served as an effective defense of the constitutionally protected right of free association.
A concept once hailed by the left when the Supreme Court used it to protect groups like the Communist Party and NAACP, freedom of association has come under fire from many of these same people, most recently when the Boy Scouts erected it to dismiss a gay scoutmaster.
Tiger Woods felt the brunt of this liberal backlash when he stated after the British Open that, rightly or wrongly, Augusta National as a private club is free to do as it wishes. Those who degradingly assumed Woods, a minority, would fall in line with the likes of Burk, were outraged by his insolence (The New York Post dismissed him with the back-page headline "Hypocrite.").
This past week, however, Johnson went a step further, stating that the club would drop its three television sponsors--IBM, Coca-Cola, and Citigroup--rather than subject them to any of the controversy relating to its membership (Burk's organization had already threatened boycotts.). "We are sorry, but not surprised, to see these corporations drawn into this matter," Johnson said. "Augusta National is NCWO's true target. It is therefore unfair to put the Masters media sponsors in the position of having to deal with this pressure."
Johnson's decision makes the Masters the only commercial-free sports telecast.
Undeterred, Burk and NCWO have vowed to continue their attempted shakedown. Burk has already had "a conversation" with CBS officials during which she gently asked them "whether they want to broadcast an event in a venue that discriminates against half the population." Furthermore, she intends to contact individual club members who "represent some very powerful [public] corporations," most certainly to inquire about what their shareholders might think of their abhorrent membership. Thus far, CBS has encouragingly maintained that it will televise the 2003 tournament.
Augusta National's decision (and tentatively that of CBS) represents the proverbial white glove slap across the face of those who, lacking any legal standing, seek to achieve their political goals by pressuring corporations and their officers into acquiescence. Burk's Jesse Jacksonesque approach of institutional intimidation --complete with threatened boycotts and manufactured public shame--has enjoyed great success in recent years. Augusta National's choice to forgo substantial advertising profits to stand up for its right to define the nature of its existence is thus unprecedented and worthy of commendation.
Much to the chagrin of Burk and her cronies, the Masters tournament has traditionally been the most watched golf tournament on television; the lack of commercial interruptions will likely only increase its viewership. This is the case because despite their efforts to galvanize the public, unlike when Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in baseball, the issue here is not equal access to the sport of golf or even the Masters itself. The sole issue is whether Augusta National, a private club that exists independent of the Masters tournament most of the year, should be free to determine its very limited membership.
Facebook
Twitter