Text 11370, 203 rader
Skriven 2005-04-11 13:44:36 av Alan Hess
Ärende: Martha and the Masters
==============================
Martha Burk is back, with her protest against Hootie Johnson and Augusta
National's policy of not alllowing female members.  While I am against
discrimination, I feel private organizations that don't receive federal or
state funding are free to admit or bar anyone they choose.  I'm not comfortable
with banning people based on race or religion, but, for some reason, I don't
consider a country club or the like being male only or female only the same
(maybe because I think men and women need places where they can bond without
the presence of the opposite sex getting in the way.)
***********************


www.suntimes.com

Back to regular view
http://www.suntimes.com/output/slezak/cst-spt-carol10.html

Print this page

Masters at silencing a voice

April 10, 2005

BY CAROL SLEZAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

The following commentary was written by Martha Burk, who heads the National
Council of Women's Organizations. Burk initially wrote the piece for Sports
Illustrated -- at the magazine's invitation -- but SI deemed it unfit to print.

The annual gathering of the Green Jacket Klan is taking place this weekend,
with Hootie Johnson, the Lester Maddux of sex discrimination, guarding the
doors of the Augusta National Golf Club using a putter instead of an ax handle.
The return of sponsors for the Masters Golf Tournament undoubtedly makes the
boys feel vindicated in their fight to keep the penis prerogative at Augusta.

In 2002, sponsors Citigroup, Coca-Cola, and General Motors (the official car)
told me they were ready to pull out if the policy of barring women from club
membership didn't change. IBM alone stood with Augusta, directly contradicting
the policy it had touted in withdrawing from the PGA Championship in 1990 over
race discrimination. But at least IBM wore its gun outside its pants, for
everyone to see. The others weren't so brave.

Never publicly denouncing the sex discrimination at Augusta National, the
sponsors allowed Hootie to save face by firing them, and just incidentally
gained a chance to return when the unpleasantness with the ladies had blown
over. Stockholder complaints, and the National Council of Womens Organizations
investigation of sex discrimination on Wall Street (resulting in a class action
lawsuit) no doubt foiled the deal for Citigroup, which won't return.
Coca-Cola's decision not to come back likely was because of an existing consent
decree from a record-breaking discrimination settlement. So this year, SBC and
ExxonMobil -- both headed by Augusta National members -- will join IBM in
showcasing the club on national television. This double standard, of courting
women as customers while backing sex discrimination with sponsor dollars, will
not go unnoticed when women pay at the pump.

Still, corporate duplicity pales in comparison to that of the golf
establishment. The ruling bodies of golf ignore their own bylaws to give the
club a pass. With Augusta National members sitting on the PGA Tour board and
heading the United States Golf Association, it's no surprise that these
organizations disregard their written policies against holding events at venues
barring women and minorities. And that attitude gives the players a pass, too.

Two years ago, I was careful not to blame Tiger Woods alone for failing to
speak up -- I thought all the golfers had an obligation to denounce sex
discrimination at Augusta. I still believe that. A handful of top players could
have ended the controversy with one joint statement. If they were too chicken
to champion fairness, they could have said if was for the good of the game. But
it's apparently too much to ask Vijay Singh, who wears his sexism like a
talisman, or Phil Mickelson, whose two daughters are mere props for his public
relations machine, to take a principled stand.

It's too bad only one green jacket will be handed out at Augusta. Like kids
teams where each member gets a trophy for just showing up, every participant in
this sorry tale deserves an award -- for hypocrisy. Whatever golf is about, its
not about honor.

Martha Burk gives an in-depth analysis of the Augusta National controversy in
her new book, Cult of Power: Sex Discrimination in Corporate America and What
Can Be Done About It.

A matter of taste

The magazine that gives us the annual swimsuit edition killed Martha Burk's
commentary for purposes of taste.

Sports Illustrated had invited Burk, chair of the National Council of Women's
Organizations, to write a piece about the Augusta National controversy for
publication in the current issue's ''Golf Plus'' section. Upon submitting her
commentary, Burk received positive feedback from the magazine.

''It definitely was going to run,'' Burk said, adding that S.I. asked her for a
photograph to run with the piece, and also sent her a contract.

But Burk's commentary didn't run, because managing editor Terry McDonell killed
it.

''I didn't like the Klan reference,'' McDonell said Friday.

Asked why he didn't simply edit those parts he found objectionable, McDonell
indicated he just didn't feel good about Burk's piece.

''The definition of an editor is a person with no friends,'' he said.

Burk thinks there might be more to S.I.'s decision to kill her commentary. Was
it motivated at least in part by fear of reprisal from corporate America? Ad
sales drive publishing, after all, and Burk's piece mentions several big
corporations by name. Perhaps someone didn't want to risk angering potential
advertisers.

''That is complete [b.s.],'' McDonell stated. ''That never happens here. I have
no interest in protecting [advertisers].''

McDonell pointed out, rightfully so, that that the magazine has never shied
away from covering the Augusta National controversy. He also noted that the
magazine has previously provided Burk a forum for her views. He added that he
personally sides with Burk.

''I admire her politics,'' McDonell said. ''I'm with her. [The decision to kill
Burk's piece] is not political or anything like that. It has to do with
taste.''

For those of us who believe S.I.'s annual swimsuit edition epitomizes poor
taste, this explanation serves as a reminder that taste is a subjective
concept.

McDonell objected to a couple of other things in Burk's piece. He particularly
didn't like the reference to Phil Mickelson's daughters, feeling Burk is saying
Mickelson doesn't love his kids.

The Sun-Times did not find Burk's piece so objectionable (see shaded box), so
you can read it and make your own decision as to whether it is in poor taste.
McDonell, a person with authority at S.I., has made his.

For Sporting News Magazine, the decision to kill Burk's piece had nothing to do
with taste. Following the S.I. snub, Burk's office sent the commentary to
Sporting News. As Burk recalled, Sporting News liked the piece and was excited
about running it in print and on its Web site. Then came the ''just one little
thing'' phone call.

''[Sporting News] told me I had to take the names of the [corporate sponsors]
out of the piece,'' said Burk, who told the magazine she'd pass.

Sporting News publisher Pete Spina referred my questions to Drew Kerr of Four
Corners Communications, the magazine's public relations firm. Kerr confirmed
Burk's basic version of what had transpired.

''Understand that unlike S.I. we had no agreement or contract or anything with
[Burk],'' Kerr added. ''And it's the magazine's policy in op-eds that we do not
permit people to disparage the company's corporate sponsors.''

Publications, including newspapers, must constantly make decisions on what to
include in their pages and what to exclude. The mere possibility that these
choices might be influenced by advertising dollars is troubling. At Sporting
News, at least, it is reality.

''The influence [advertisers] have is unbelievable,'' Burk said.

Suit filed vs. Smith Barney

Last week, the NCWO, along with the law firm Mehri & Skalet, filed a sex
discrimination lawsuit against the Smith Barney division of Citigroup. The
lawsuit resulted from an NCWO investigation of several financial firms whose
executives are members of Augusta.

The NCWO also announced an initiative to seek information about employment
practices at IBM, SBC Communications and Exxon Mobil, the three companies
sponsoring this year's Masters.

''I doubt [the Smith Barney lawsuit] will be our last lawsuit,'' Burk said.

Thinking about IBM's continuing sponsorship of the Masters, I am reminded that
in 1990, when the fact that Shoal Creek had no black members was made public,
IBM quickly withdrew its advertising support from the PGA Championship.

''Supporting even indirectly activities which are exclusionary is against IBM's
practices and policies,'' an IBM spokesperson explained in 1990.

IBM has offered no reasonable explanation as to why Augusta National and the
Masters are any different than Shoal Creek. Perhaps because there is none.

Maybe you don't think Augusta's discriminatory practices are a big deal. Maybe
you wonder why they should matter to you. Symbolic reasons aside, they should
matter to every woman who wants an equal paycheck and to every man who believes
she deserves one.

There is a link between Augusta and the world the rest of us live in. In an
effort to explain this link, Burk has written a book called, Cult of Power: Sex
Discrimination in Corporate American and What Can Be Done About It.

Unlike her commentary, Burk's book wasn't killed in the editorial process, but
was actually published last week.

Imagine that.

Letters to our sports columnists appear Sunday. Send e-mail to
inbox@suntimes.com. Include your full name, hometown and a daytime phone
number.

Copyright + The Sun-Times Company
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten,
or redistributed.

--- Msged/2 6.0.1
 * Origin: tncbbs.no-ip.com - Join the CROSSFIRE echo - all welcom (1:261/1000)