Sorry guys, things got busy so my response was delayed. Well Harvard and Yale were top institutions when they ONLY ADMITTED the best students or alumni of powerful alums who all happened to White-Protestant-males. In fact I’d bet each had 100+ years of being elite schools before they ever admitted anyone who did not fit that profile. They were pressured and persuaded (but not forced) internally and externally to change. I think most people think it is better that the top level institutions (including Hayes-Street below) focus on the best individuals period (men, women , white, non-white, Protestant, non-Protestant, rich, poor, and in between) and not only the best individuals among a specific religion, social group and gender. But the latter did NOT used to be the case as little as 70 years ago or so. Hayes, I could care a rat's behind about NCWO specific arguments, my own belief is that Augusta should change or be left in the dust (or at least non-influential) regardless of NCWO premises and goals. They may be a nutty organization (not my concern), but I agree with their position on this particular issue and that is what I am discussing. Also, I would protect NCWO right to say what they want, just as the Private Clubs rights, and the KKK’s rights. If you ask me one of the key premise of America is to protect the rights of detestable people and detestable ideas (even those with negative social influences in my view ). But that doesn’t mean you have to support them, or can’t try to diminish their influence through protest, persuation and economic means. Regarding your first paragraph, I really don’t think you think my argument itself is troubling, you believe my specific case is troubling (see below). Your second paragraph gets to the heart of things, and this is where we disagree. I hold the Master’s turney probably brings a lot of prestige and money and political power to the exclusionary club. You don’t agree with this and that is fine. You think my connection of whether it is reasonable for the outside to put pressure on the Augsta Club is very different than for whem private institutions like Yale and Harvard were pressured to give up their exclusionary practices (which you seem to agree this was the right thing because as you say they are immensely powerful political and economic agents). I won’t say the Augusta club/master’s is totally equivalent to the issue for Yale/Harvard—but I think the logic applies and I simply think that Augusta Club/Master’s turney is a more economically, politically and socially significant event (worthy of protest) than you do. It’s all cool—I think I see where we disagree, hopefully I expressed things in a way ya’ll can follow, but maybe I am rambling a bit much at this point.
Interesting that this thread came back up. Sports Illustrated published their editorial position on the controversy in this week's issue: For many golf fans, watching the Masters on TV is like dreaming in green. Next April it will only be better. Instead of four minutes of commercials per hour, there will be no ads at all. The first major of the year will still be on CBS, just as it has been since 1956. It will just seem like PBS. Or heaven. There is nothing serene, however, about what's going on behind the sponsor-free Masters, though matters started out genteelly enough in June. That's when Hootie Johnson, chairman of the Augusta National Golf Club, received a brief, polite letter from Martha Burk, head of the National Council of Women's Organizations. Burk asked Johnson 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." Women seem to have a powerful effect on the 71-year-old retired South Carolina banker who runs Augusta National. Burk's measured request got Hootie all hot and haughty. Perhaps it brought him back to the highly annoying year of 1990, when public pressure forced the club to admit its first black member. In his mind it also raised the possibility of boycotts of the tournament's sponsors and picketers at his gates. Johnson went public, issuing a statement saying that change at his club will not come "at the point of a bayonet." Last Friday he cut loose the three sponsors of the Masters broadcast -- Coca-Cola, Citigroup and IBM -- rather than force them to face the wrath of the feminists whom he intends to fight till. ... Wait a minute: How does Hootie think this is going to turn out, anyway? On his side he has the dwindling herd of club folk, who like to point out that they have the legal right to exclude anyone they want. The viewing public may still tune in the tournament, but not because they actively support Hootie's position. They just want to see one of the finest tournaments in golf, famous golfers and all those lovely azaleas. Arrayed against Johnson are Burk, her millions of constituents and, despite the lack of open animosity, CBS. A network spokesman told SI on Monday, "CBS will broadcast the Masters next April" and declined further comment. Even though Augusta will pay millions that the sponsors were set to shell out, Johnson is putting the network in an embarrassing position. Rest assured, CBS will not go on indefinitely presenting a two-day, 7 1/2-hour infomercial for the Good Ol' Boy Way. Hootie also could come under pressure from his own influential pals -- for example, Warren Buffett, a board member of Coca-Cola, and Sandy Weill, chairman of Citigroup, are Augusta members. These men are not the type to sit quietly by while Hootie turns a golfer's paradise into a hotbed of controversy. The view from here is that this problem won't last much longer; it's too easy to solve. Simply let that first woman slip on a green jacket. It won't be a great moment in fashion, but it will be a fine day for golf.
This is such a non-issue. The Masters will go on as it always has...and CBS will show it because it brings them prestige. Prestige will = profits down the line. A radical group like NOW will not change that. I'm not a golf fan and haven't watched the Masters...but I just might next time around. It will be my boycott of the NOW gang.
Your point is well taken, the NCWO is technically the group who brought up the issue -- not NOW. Yet if you think that NOW has no say as to what battles are fought -- even this one -- then I think that is somewhat naive of you. At any rate, I see no reason for you to make such a distiction; they are one an the same. The name ought to give you a clue to that, National Council FOR WOMEN'S ORGANIZTIONS (plural).
If anyone's interested... http://sports.espn.go.com/golf/story?id=1428918 Survey: Respondents willing to act against Masters A scientific survey commissioned by ESPN reveals that while most Americans are not aware of the current Masters policy of not admitting women as members, they are overwhelmingly against the policy after learning of it. According to the survey, conducted by Markitecture, respondents are increasingly willing to act against the Masters -- with a boycott of sponsors or even refusal to watch CBS' telecast next year. Augusta National Golf Club, which runs the sport's most prestigious and highest-rated tournament, has said it will not bow to pressure from activists and criticism in the media to admit women members. Only one-third of all Americans surveyed by Markitecture knew about Augusta National's policy. But as they learned of it, only 12 percent were in favor of it while 61 percent were against it. Notably, women were against the policy by a 2-to-1 margin and African-Americans were against it 3-to-1. The story first broke in June when Martha Burk, chairwoman of the National Council of Women's Organizations, sent Augusta National chairman Hootie Johnson a letter urging him to invite women to join Augusta National. Johnson has said the club has no exclusionary policies. While women often play at Augusta National, the club has not had a female member in its 69-year history, and a black did not join until 1990. Nearly half of all surveyed believe the issue is an important one, and 63 percent of those surveyed equate the policy against women to the club's prior exclusion of African-Americans. After issuing a three-sentence reply to Burk that said Augusta membership policies are private, Johnson blasted her intentions in a three-page statement to the media in which he said the club would not be "bullied" into taking a female member. Burk said recently she will not give up the fight until The Masters fades away as a major championship or until the club admits a woman. Johnson countered last week by saying he was dropping The Masters' three television sponsors -- IBM, Coca-Cola and Citigroup -- to shield them from any controversy over the club's all-male membership. Burk said she has received dozens of calls from women who are outraged that Augusta has an all-male membership and have inquired about going to the next Masters. Burk did not say what was planned during The Masters, to be played April 10-13, only that "cameras will have something to look at." According to the survey, there is significant support for either a boycott by players (41 percent), a public boycott against the corporate sponsors of players (45 percent), and, even though current plans are for a commercial-free telecast, 47 percent support a boycott of Masters sponsors. More than half of all surveyed, including non-sports fans, say they watched at least part of last year's Masters. The survey, which polled 702 people and had a margin of error of 4 percent, also found: That 46 percent say CBS should not broadcast the Masters with the current membership rule in effect, a number that jumps to a majority of women and 55 percent of African-Americans, and a majority (54 percent) would support their local CBS affiliate if it chose not to show the event even if CBS was broadcasting. That of those who did watch last year, more than a quarter of that television audience (27 percent) said that if Augusta's policy on women remains the same, they will not watch the Masters in 2003. That 46 percent agreed that CBS should not broadcast the Masters until women are accepted as August National members.
Major- If Tigers in contention they will watch. I'll watch it and most people I have chatte with in the last week will watch it, so I'm not sure if the poll is flawed or if I'm just int he minority of people.
I've heard exactly the opposite. Given that this is a poll supposedly conducted under benign circumstances, my guess is that we are both just hearing it from people we know and those people are skewed towards our points of view.
This sounds a lot like the discussion regarding a baseball strike. There are a lot of people that say that they'll never go back if they strike. Then they strike...things get interesting the next season...and viola!...they're right back at the ballyard. The point is that it is easy to SAY you're going to forego something you like...it is quite another thing to actuall GO THROUGH with it.
