Clubs: More to Come

The nation’s most selective clubs--those bastions of dark wood paneling, deep upholstery and quiet good taste--can continue to be exclusive, but they cannot automatically exclude women, blacks and members of other minority groups: That’s the rather limited message in the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous decision upholding a New York City ordinance requiring private clubs with more than 400 members to obey the city’s public-accommodations law as if they were hotels, restaurants and bars.

The court’s judgment is fitting because, in most cities, private clubs function exactly like hotels, restaurants and bars: The managers are eager to lease space for weddings and parties that help pay the rent, the facilities are often open to members and nonmembers alike, and everyone arrives intent on transacting business over lunch, with the tab eventually going onto an office expense account. The justices have simply recognized the realities of the marketplace.

The 125 New York clubs that had banded together to challenge the ordinance had billed the case in advance as a crucial test of Americans’ rights to freedom of association under the First Amendment. Justice Byron R. White, writing for the court, dispensed with that argument quickly, concluding that the New York law violated neither the club members’ rights to band together to advocate their opinions--the original intent of the First Amendment--nor any rights to intimate association, like those within the family.

More difficult legal and philosophical problems are certain to emerge as New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco and other cities enforce their bans on discrimination. Once a club is on notice that it cannot exclude blacks, Latinos, Jews or women, how many must it include? One of each? A handful? A number commensurate with their percentage in the local population? And what happens if a club admits women but bars them from certain parts of the building, as has already happened with Los Angeles’ Jonathan Club? This decision offers little guidance on such issues, which means that more governmental supervision of private clubs --and more litigation--is unavoidable.

Some organizations already are applauding this ruling as a victory in the fight for racial and sexual equality in the business world’s upper reaches. No doubt the women and minorities already at the top of their professions, the few who can afford the clubs’ steep membership fees and costly monthly dues, will benefit, because the decision will force open doors previously closed. But the triumph may be more symbolic than real. The reality is that a generation after Congress banned discrimination in employment, only a tiny percentage of women or minorities have worked their way into upper management and become arguably eligible to join private clubs. And there’s no assurance that this decision will help any more up the ladder.

While this ruling gives the green light to state and municipal efforts to open private clubs to minorities and women, it would be a mistake to settle for so little. City councils and state legislatures that are truly interested in advancing equal employment opportunities for all, not just the elite, might pursue more vigorous enforcement of the anti-discrimination laws already on the books, might equalize pay for male and female government workers and might encourage affirmative action for the underrepresented segments of the population. If such steps were taken, that really would be worth celebrating.