WASHINGTON — And part of my uncertainty is the fact that, while both may be odious, men-only rules aren’t quite in the same category as white-only rules.
The line appeared in a recent column that was (in part) about Tiger Woods and the men-only membership policy of the Augusta National Golf Club. The responses — virtually all of them from women — have shocked me about as much as Harry Belafonte’s out-of-the-blue attack on Colin Powell must have shocked the secretary of state.
"I agree with your view most of the time, and I liked (this column)," said one, "until I read this sentence: ‘And part of my uncertainty … ’ "
Said another, a professor of ethics and theology who flattered me by saying she has often used my columns in her classes: "I am befuddled. … You state that there is a difference between men-only rules and white-only rules. What do you see as the difference? They are both based on our biology."
One reader said I broke her heart with my not-quite-the-same-category statement, another was "completely stunned," and yet another put it more bluntly: "Are you saying that it is bad to discriminate against a group of which you are a member, but not quite so bad to discriminate against a group of which you are not a member? Hmmm. Maybe you should examine your own biases."
Fair enough. I start with the confession that I thought the offending sentence rather obvious. I belong to Kappa Alpha Psi, a historically black fraternity that does not have a no-whites rule. But it does "discriminate" against women. Does that make us bigots? Does the fact that we are also mostly members of a racial minority give us special exemption from the charge of bigotry?
Then what of my Caucasian friend who is a member of a men’s choir — a choir, that is, whose membership is expressly closed to women. Should I be as offended by that "slight" against women as I would be if I learned that my friend’s choir expressly excluded blacks? Is it the fact that I am black but not female that makes me believe that "men-only rules aren’t quite in the same category as white-only rules"?
But why shouldn’t they be? Aren’t my disappointed readers right, that discrimination is discrimination is discrimination?
Well, I’m not so sure. To get to the issue that prompted all this, I do find it odious that Augusta National should, this late in the day, cling to a men-only membership policy. I wish the club would change it. I suspect many of Augusta’s members would agree with me, even while resisting the notion of being forced into the change.
The question my correspondents want answered, though, is why should gender discrimination by a private social club (though undoubtedly with tax-paid benefits) elicit only a tsk-tsk from me while racial discrimination by the same organization might have me demanding revocation of its public privileges?
The answer is that racial exclusion usually implies contempt in a way that gender exclusion usually does not. I don’t believe the men who belong to men-only social or athletic clubs are contemptuous of their wives, mothers, sisters and sweethearts. And those wives, mothers, sisters and sweethearts don’t seem to believe it either, else how could so many of them see their men’s induction as a point of pride? Could I conceivably be proud that a white friend had been inducted into a whites-only association?
But it’s even more complicated than that. Couldn’t my white friend be pleased that my son (but not his) had been invited to join the Boys Choir of Harlem? Couldn’t I be pleased that my wife (but not I) had been invited to membership in the Junior League or Delta Sigma Theta?
Is it a form of "Animal Farm" pigheadedness to insist that all discrimination is odious but some discrimination is more odious than others? Or is it reasonable to rank life’s various exclusions in terms of their odiousness — to count racial exclusion as worse than gender exclusion, to hold exclusion from professional associations as worse than exclusion from private and social organizations?
And what about exclusion based on class or, more crassly, on money? But that’s another conversation.
William Raspberry can be reached at The Washington Post Writers Group, 1150 15th St. NW, Washington, DC 20071-9200 or willrasp@washpost.com.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
