Gov. Deval Patrick cancels appearance at a club that does not accept women

[graywarrior]

Decades have passed since a group of crusading women battled the city’s many all-male social clubs and venues, forcing establishments from the St. Botolph Club to Locke-Ober to allow women through their doors.

But when Governor Deval Patrick abruptly canceled an appearance last week before a black-tie dinner group known as the Clover Club because it does not accept women, he not only avoided another night of banquet food and bad jokes, he also reignited a debate that most people thought had long ago been resolved.

The decision by Patrick, a former federal civil rights official and the state’s first black governor, has again raised the question of what types of exclusionary associations are acceptable in the eyes of the law and the culture. The debate has flared in the very same week that the state’s Democratic voters nominated Martha Coakley to be the first female senator from Massachusetts.

“The saddest thing to me is that it’s almost the year 2010 and we’re still dealing with this issue,’’ said Alice E. Richmond, who, as the first female president of the Massachusetts Bar Association in the 1980s, helped lead the charge to allow women into the city’s social clubs. “I did what I did, and women did what they did, with the hope that things would change and these problems would become history. If they haven’t become history, that’s really sad to me.’’

But Richmond said the Clover Club, unlike the private men’s clubs that were forced to open their doors to women 20 years ago, is not vulnerable to legal challenges because it has no building, bar, or dining room. Founded in 1883 by Irish-Americans responding to their own exclusion from Brahmin social clubs and made up of several hundred men, the Clover Club meets for dinner at the Park Plaza three times a year.

“There is no law that says you can’t have a club that’s limited to anything you want to limit it to - one-eyed people of Pakistani descent,’’ Richmond said. “At some point, you need to draw the line and say people are allowed, entitled, and permitted to associate with the people they want to associate with.’’

(more at link)
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/12/11/debate_anew_on_policies_of_exclusion/

[Tobin S.]

1. Fraternal organizations are still common here in Ohio

I used to be a member of one called the Moose. Wives of members were allowed in the club, but only as guests and women could not be members. Also, the Masons here in Ohio are still a fraternal organization.

“The saddest thing to me is that it’s almost the year 2010 and we’re still dealing with this issue,’’ said Alice E. Richmond...

I agree.

[Buzz Clik]

2. Sorry, but I've never understood the passion about this.

Social organizations are just that -- an opportunity to sit around and bullshit. Some groups do charitable things, and some have other functions. There are women's groups, and there are men's groups. There are groups that have members of both genders.

So, why is this important?

[Boojatta]

3. "is not vulnerable to legal challenges because it has no building, bar, or dining room"

They could have buildings, and serve alcoholic beverages (such as wine) without becoming vulnerable to legal challenges, provided that they are or become a religious organization.