California Club Dissidents Push Plan to Avoid Law

A group of 41 California Club dissidents, determined to restore admissions policies that excluded women and blacks, has written a second letter to the club’s 1,275 regular members appealing for support for a new “house rule” that would circumvent a Los Angeles anti-discrimination ordinance.

Most responses to the first letter were favorable, and the second letter, dated Sept. 29, was mailed “only to those from whom we have had no response,” the dissidents wrote.

But club members who gave The Times a copy of the letter said they think it points up more than anything that the dissidents failed to persuade a majority of the California Club to join their attempt to keep women and blacks out of the club.

The Sept. 7 letter that the dissidents circulated contained pointed references to a supposed threat that the club would be overrun with women members. There are no such references in the new letter, which says the proposed house rule would merely allow the club to continue to control its membership policies without government interference. Even with the rule, the members could choose later to change the club’s policies, the letter says.

Turn Over Results

If the dissidents persuade a majority of club members to signify their support for the new rule, they said, they will turn the results over to the club’s board of directors and ask it to take action.

In June, 90% of the regular California Club members voting approved a change in the club bylaws to allow the admission of women for the first time in more than 100 years. Two weeks ago, club president Lawrence P. Day said several women were going through the approval process. He also said one black has been approved and is awaiting a membership vacancy.

Day did not respond to calls for comment about the latest letter, nor would John M. Robinson, 77, a former club president who organized the 41 dissidents and has been in the forefront of efforts to maintain discriminatory membership policies at the California Club and other elite private clubs.

The proposed house rule would prohibit the use of California Club facilities for business purposes. It would also require that every member who signs a bill at the club certify that he has not been conducting business in purchasing club services.

City Ordinance

This, the dissidents contend, would allow the club to circumvent the city ordinance that applies to business clubs subject to state anti-discrimination laws. The ordinance defines business clubs as those with more than 400 members that serve regular meals and take payment for meetings attended by non-members.

The ordinance prohibits the clubs from excluding people from membership on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin and disability.

The latest letter from the California Club dissidents says, “The ordinance will, as a practical matter, deprive the club of the ability to exercise any effective degree of selectivity in the admission of candidates who are members of a class mentioned in the ordinance, with obvious consequence to the character of its membership. There is every reason to think that unwanted change will be forced upon the club quite rapidly.”

Conduct Business

The California Club, like many elite private clubs, is very frequently used to entertain business clients and conduct business discussions. The dissidents acknowledge that some members might quit if the proposed house rule is adopted, but they do not believe that would diminish the club.

“We point out that size is not synonymous with quality and that an operation somewhat reduced in size may be even somewhat improved in quality,” the letter remarks.