Holland v. Rooney, round two

Going through my own archives, it seems I took some time off, waiting for Rooney to put his foot in his mouth again. He did, and this column ran in December 2002:

Call this point/counterpoint or whatever, but one Mr. Andy Rooney and I find ourselves on different sides of the fence when it comes to Augusta National and its policy of not admitting female members.

Rooney feels that clubs which are single-gender only should open their doors to those from the opposite side of the fence. He uses Augusta National, currently the subject of a national media attack perpetuated by Martha Burk, leader of the National Organization of Women.

Now, I’m all for progressive attitudes. When Rooney said he didn’t like baseball because there weren’t enough white folks playing, I countered that the globalization of the game is one of its strongest points.

But this is America, and if a bunch of rich, white, southerners want to build a fancy golf club, entice well-known players to attend an invitational tournament and make their own rules, aren’t they entitled to? Augusta National does not discriminate against non-Caucasian men. Nor does it forbid women from playing its 18 holes, as do some clubs at which women are not permitted, ever, under any circumstances.

Conversely, nothing is preventing a group of rich, southern women from following the same formula that created Augusta National and keeping the men out. As long as they admit people of African, Asian, Canadian descent, or those with disabilities or differing religious or sexual preferences — what’s the problem?

In fact, as long as either one of these clubs — Augusta or the non-existent women’s haven — prohibit based strictly on a person’s affection for golf and ability to pay club dues, then what is the problem? Private golf club membership was not guaranteed in the Bill of Rights or the Ten Commandments.

I have golfed with men. I have golfed with women. I have golfed with my wife (though she’s worse than I am). I have golfed with my father. Golfing is not some sacred ritual the like of admittance to a major state university or the availability of high-profile professional jobs. Golf is a game, and it amazes me that so many women are concerned with what the menfolk at Augusta are doing.

Telling off-color jokes, using foot wedges, using poor arithmetic to lower their handicaps and probably, horror of horrors, overserving themselves is the type of behavior seen when most people play golf and why many women I know ask not to be included. But at Augusta, women are permitted to play. They are just not members, and it seems to me that the women don’t so much want to join as they want to be able to join.

To suggest that CBS has some moral obligation to not telecast the Masters tournament (which is simply held at Augusta National — the two are not synonymous) is buffoonery. When was the last time a major television network did anything out of any principle besides greed? CBS knows that the Masters is a cash cow, and unless hundreds of thousands of Americans turn off their TV sets, nothing else will change.

When Augusta National told its sponsors that their dollars were not needed for the 2003 tournament, most golf fans probably ushered sighs of relief that they would be even less encumbered by commercials. I only wish Major League Baseball would say the same thing to its advertising clients.

And let’s look at a mostly overlooked point — how is Augusta National’s invitation to a woman to join going to change things in America? Their rules do not prohibit women members, they just haven’t found the right woman to admit. Rest assured that when they do, it will be someone who fulfills the same social standards as the current members, which seem to be someone of great wealth and prominence.

Does Hillary Clinton getting into Augusta National change the future of women in America? Not nearly as much as if she mounted a successful campaign for president of these United States.

In my perfect world, Martha Burk would stop trying to break into Augusta, choosing instead to spend her time and money building a golf club so posh that everyone would want in, then telling the men they couldn’t come in. KInd of like the Sneetches, those famous characters created by Suess. You know the ones, who banish others because they don’t “have stars upon thars?”

Then both sides would have what they want — the opportunity to belong to a first-rate golf club. That is what you want, Martha, isn’t it?

If not, then let’s work on some serious issues, such as why professional women’s sports don’t draw enough advertising dollars, or why a woman running for president has as much chance as a Socialist.

If we’re fighting for equality, let’s do it right. I believe women deserve as much opportunity as men. But is a Georgia golf course the place to pick up the sword? All you’re doing by fighting them is making them feel so much better about keeping you out.