A simple plan

Augusta National should elevate members' wives

Augusta National Golf Club used to be known simply as the home of the Masters Tournament. Right or wrong and deserved or not, Augusta National now has become the symbol for discrimination against women, much the way in which Shoal Creek became the symbol of discrimination against minorities prior to the 1990 PGA Championship. Congratulations, Hootie Johnson. Is this what you wanted? As I wrote last week, this issue isn't going away. The women aren't going to go away (well, except when I enter a room, usually). This media snowball is already picking up speed as it rolls down the mountain. Billie Jean King was the latest to speak out against the club's policy on women. And, she added, the club's minority membership smacks of tokenism.

The issue, as I predicted, has already evolved away from the facts and the rights of clubs to this: Augusta National discriminates against women. Are you for or against discrimination?

That's a no-win situation, and we probably ought to have an office pool to guess how soon Augusta National caves. I think it'll be sooner than you'd expect, given the club's bluster. Let's face it: A black eye clashes with a green jacket, and that's what Hootie and the club have gotten so far -- a black eye.

Here's a suggestion that could defuse the situation: Elevate the wives of all current members to full-fledged members. They're all known quantities, so screening for new members would be necessary. In addition to the playing privleges they already have, they would get voting privileges, a locker room -- the works, just like their husbands. It's an instant solution. No one could charge tokenism because the club suddenly would have 200 or so women members. And given the intimidating way in which the club is run (as a benevolent dictatorship), the ladies aren't likely to play a whole lot more than they do now. In other words, not much would really change.

Admitting outside women as new members would simply feed the media frenzy. Tons of space would be devoted to speculating on who might become the first woman member (it's none of our business -- at least, it shouldn't be), and tons more to whomever actually gets the nod. The same goes for the second woman member. And the third. Eventually, with luck, interest may wane after five or six. But in the meantime, this public-relations carnage would continue for months. Make the wives members and it's done. Women at Augusta would no longer be a story, at least for a while. This is the easiest way out of hole from which there is no true escape.

When your topic becomes an issue for sports-talk radio shows (I was asked to do several last week) and cable network talk shows, and you have non-golfers involved, it's all over. I stand by my previous statement that Hootie and his pals already have lost the battle, and that it's just a matter of time before Augusta welcomes its first woman.

A lot of you responded to that column, along with my Top 10 list on why Hootie doesn't want women members, so let's go to the Mailbag for some cheap shots and cheaper thrills:

You are a sick damned Dutchman. Go to hell, you bastard.
—Rev. John D. Smith, Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

So does that mean you didn't like my Top 10 list?

Your commentary on the controversy surrounding the admission of women to Augusta National was dead-on. How right you were to discuss the much broader discrimination and underrepresentation of women in the golf establishment, which shows how insignificant the current fervor is. Now if only more people would use this current issue to explore expanded opportunities for women in golf. It's always refreshing to see a sportswriter who can actually analyze the sports world and give the reader a different perspective.
—Chris Windsor, Bethesda, Md.

I guess you missed the above sermon, Duke.

Who is this woman fighting for? Is she fighting for Bill Gates? They won't let him be a member. Only two past champions are members. Exclusivity is something that has been part of private clubs for as long as they have been around. Why isn't this woman complaining about women not being able to be in men's fraternities, which also have elitist admissions standards? It boils down to one thing: publicity. Attack someone with money and the spotlight, and you get noticed. Plain and simple.
—Joe Madden, Anoka, Minn.

Congratulations to the Other Madden. You've hit on the real motivation behind this crusade -- getting the attention necessary to improve your group's profile, increase its importance (previously near zero) and raise donations. Because as I wrote before, admitting four women into Augusta isn't going to affect the rest of the golfing world at all. It's irrelevant.

I've checked out a few online polls and have to scratch my head in amazement. I can understand the backlash against Augusta being pressured to change, but what are people really saying? That it's acceptable in our society to discriminate on the basis of a person's sex? I read a surprisingly dumb comment from PGA Tour player Scott Hoch that suggested it was all right for private clubs to discriminate on any basis, including race. Golf's legacy of discrimination and elitism is one of its worst aspects.
—John Sumi, Madison, Wis.

The only thing worse, John, is when you've got to hit a bunker shot and the wind is blowing in your face.

Since you apparently missed your civics classes while earning a journalism degree, I direct you to a long forgotten document known as the U.S. Constitution. If you wade through it you'll find that, in spite of the media, citizens in this country still have the right to associate with whomever they choose. If Ms. Burk and her followers want to belong to an Augusta National, why don't they build one? Why is it that the media for the last 30 years find no fault with the socialists and their crusades yet have such difficulty supporting or explaining that in the U.S. privacy is still a valid right even if you are wealthy? So to you and Ms. Burke I would say that in this country, you have the same rights today as Bobby Jones did then -- all you have to do is find the land, raise the money and take the same risks as the members did back then, and in a few decades you, too, can have an Augusta National. But of course, if you are only interested in cashing in on others' hard work, that could be a little more difficult.
—Paul F. Brown Jr., Indiana, Pa.

You were a lot smarter when you coached the Bengals.

Since you've obviously caved in to (and also become a spokesman for) political correctness re: Augusta (notwithstanding the facts, which even YOU stated couldn't be discussed), explain to me the rationale for keeping women off the PGA Tour. No difference in the situation -- unless, of course, you want to discuss the differences between men and women. But since when did that matter in a world of political correctness?
—Mike Turner, Long Beach, Miss.

If a woman wants to play the PGA Tour, bring it on. I think that would be great. Also, you may want to read my column from last week ... for the first time. I analyzed what's happening and how it's going to come down. I hardly sided with Burk. I thought I made it clear that both sides were missing the point, as you also did.

I read your column on the Masters admitting women members. You sound bitter that you can't become a member there yourself. Maybe you should apply for membership in one of Martha's clubs. I am sure they would accept a turncoat golfer, and maybe you could also join the LPGA Tour and march down the street with banners held high describing how terribly women are treated in this world. They are already in men's locker rooms, men's military schools, aboard ships at sea, and now they want to be in private men's clubs. You disappoint me, Gary. I hope you don't shave under your arms.
—Noble Reid, Las Vegas

I disagree, Ig-Noble. Obviously, you didn't read my column on the Masters admitting women members.

What do you and Ms. Burk expect Augusta National to do? Admit a few wealthy women? Double the membership and admit 300 women? And even if the board did so, what difference would that make to the truly oppressed women who could benefit from the attention and efforts of the NCWO? It's really you and Ms. Burk who are on the losing side of this issue. The Masters has many options, including pay-per-view, plus the law is on Augusta's side! It seems to me that you and Ms. Burk are suffering from a lack of attention and need to trump up an issue like this to keep yourselves in the limelight.
—Jim Warren, Dallas

It seems to me, Jim, that you are suffering from a reading problem. Trying reading the stories, not just the headlines

If CBS/Viacom, in a cowardly effort to placate the irrelevant and misdirected demands of Ms. Burk and her cohorts, attempts to strongarm Augusta National and the Masters into admitting a female member as a condition of broadcasting next spring's tournament, Mr. Johnson and the membership of Augusta National should thank CBS for its 46 years of support and move the 2003 Masters to pay-per-view.
—Padraic F. Moore, Vienna, Va.

That is a distinct possibility. Although I don't think CBS is going to let go.

Next time you write an article, do some research. I personally know a couple who are members at Augusta National. The wife has all the same rights and privileges as her husband. They go to club functions several times a year and play golf there as a family as well. You make it sound as if women are not allowed on the grounds, period. What I think Ms. Burk is bent out of shape about is that there are no unmarried, wealthy women members. What she does not understand is just because a person has enormous wealth does not mean he or she automatically is invited to join Augusta. Bill Gates is not a member, and for that matter, none of the top 10 wealthiest people in America are members.
—Philip Bailey, Greensboro, N.C.

I did some research, Bailmeister. Augusta has no women members. Duh.

I think eventually Augusta will have its female member, but I don't know one woman who would step into this mess and put her career or self-esteem on the line. All we're talking about here is affirmative action. She would be nothing more than a figurehead, a statistic for the government.
—Joseph, American Fork, Utah

Sounds like it's got Hillary Clinton's name all over it, Fork Fella.

I agree with your conclusion that Hootie and Blowhards will lose this fight. The more important question is, Should they? While I believe private clubs should be allowed to do whatever they please, the players have an obligation to stand up for what is right. There is no difference between discriminating against women or minorities with regard to golf-club membership. One elite player -- it doesn't have to be Tiger, but that would be nice -- stepping up and saying it is wrong (and even better, boycotting the tournament) would get a woman member admitted to Augusta. It would take guts, but that man would be a hero in my book.
—Bill Marsan, McLean, Va.

Sorry to disappoint you, Bill, but the PGA Tour is all about selfishness, money and entitlement. Nobody on tour ever takes a stand on anything, unless he thinks the issue is taking money out of his wallet. Remember, this is the tour where hardly anybody spoke up in support of Casey Martin, who won his case in the Supreme Court.

I think you are absolutely right. Hootie apparently had too many bad experiences with girls wanting to play on his son's Little League teams, or finding women in the hallowed halls of the YMCA! Whatever the reason for his making public Ms. Burk's demands, he missed the point. The fact that Ms. Burk misses a completely different point is a topic that will not make headlines. It will definitely be interesting to see how all this unfolds between now and April.
—Jerry Walker, Atlanta

The countdown to the cave-in continues. ... And say hello to Mr. Bojangles for me.

Regarding your suggestion that Augusta National should have quietly negotiated with Ms. Burk, I wonder what your position will be if she demands that Sports Illustrated drop its annual swimsuit issue and increase the percentage of its pages devoted to women's sports.
—Don Pugh, Atlanta

She might have a pretty good point about the swimsuit issue, Jethro. As for percentage of pages devoted to women's sports, it should probably be proportional to the attendance and TV ratings of women's sports. But then, that might mean a cutback in coverage.

I'm a production worker from Wisconsin earning around $43,000 a year. What do you think my chances are of becoming a member of Augusta National Golf Club? If your answer is, None whatsoever, what would be the first step I should take in forming a lower-middle-class lobbying group to end this horrible discrimination?
—Kevin, Marshfield, Wis.

Sign us up, Kev, for a great class-action suit. Count me in. I'm tired of being discriminated against just because I'm a jerk. It's not fair.

Sports Illustrated senior writer Gary Van Sickle writes for the magazine's Golf Plus section and is a regular contributor to CNNSI.com. Click here to send him a question or comment.

 

Related information

Stories

Gary Van Sickle's Underground Golfer Archive

Multimedia

Visit Video Plus for the latest audio and video