Augusta National: What Controversy?

           The 2012 Masters at Augusta National was magical.  Bubba Watson, a Georgia native and UGA alumni, defeated Louis Oosthuizen in a two-hole playoff with an indelible second shot from the pine straw to capture the green jacket, a $1.4 million purse, and a sacred spot in Master’s history.   From Magnolia Lane, to the frustrating and enthralling Amen Corner, Augusta National is analogous to baseball’s Field of Dreams.  The venerable and immaculate course is one of sport’s “seven wonders” and can be appreciated by golf and general sports fans alike.  Its storied tradition and elitist brotherhood has made it one of the most sought after championships in all of sports. 

            With that being said, its elitist nature has caused a controversy, one that made its way to President Obama.  Currently, Augusta National has a male only policy, i.e. they have never offered a female membership since its founding in 1933.  Their restrictive policy was illuminated when the new CEO of IBM, Virginia Rometty, was not offered membership to the organization, as it is customary for the CEO of their longtime sponsor to receive an offer.  Consequently, instead of wearing the iconic green blazer throughout the tournament, Mrs. Rometty ironically sported a pink blazer. 

When President Obama was asked for his opinion he stated: “We're kind of long past the time when women should be excluded from anything.”  He went on to say that the club should be allowed to decide, albeit it was his personal conviction that women should be admitted.  Prima facie, Obama’s comments strike a chord in the heart of every American given our long history of inequality.  However, they are disingenuous when you look at his track record.  President Obama was quoted saying that, “we didn’t have the luxury for [Michelle] not to work,” when he was serving as a Senator and raking in $162,100 from the U.S. taxpayer.  Sadly, he is in full force election mode and it is becoming harder and harder to take his remarks at face value.  Moreover, Obama misses the point: It is not about being sexist; it is about upholding the rights stated in the First Amendment – specifically, the right to assemble.  To be fair, Obama doesn’t have an adequate understanding of the Constitution (or maybe just a wanton disregard) given his affinity for objectionable legislation (e.g. ObamaCare and the reauthorization of the Patriot Act). 

            What is truly infuriating is that this “controversial issue” is controversial.  If we were to apply the same inane logic being used against Augusta to our own university, we would have picketers in Oak Lane demanding Delta Delta Delta to let men join their private sisterhood.  Now I know you want to immediately object to my analogy because we could say that unlike Augusta, sororities have a male equivalent – fraternities – and therefore both genders have been afforded the same opportunity to participate.  But upon further examination, I think it would hard for us to contend that they are the same, thus the equal participation argument is a falsehood.  I will use sports as an example: Under Title IX, no person can be excluded from participation on the basis of sex if those activities in question are receiving federal funding assistance.  Consequently, public schools have to have an equal number of male and female sports to satisfy the Title IX participation clause.   However, notice that we do not create a women football team, i.e. the direct male equivalent, we just add a women sport such as field hockey that indirectly satisfies the clause and provides an opportunity, but not the same opportunity.  Now I will admit that men and women’s soccer is the closest to meeting the equal equivalent because it is the same sport, however, it is still not entirely equal since market and social factors distort it.  To illustrate more clearly, it would be like comparing a Ferrari with a Ford – both have four wheels, an engine, and steering wheel but more times than not, consumers will choose the Ferrari.  In summation, when we anatomize gender dichotomies we have to accept the fact that men and women are inherently different and, moreover, the social constructs we have in place for these groups have different purposes and intentions making it impossible for them to ever truly be equal. 

            With that being said, the Title IX example only illuminates one aspect of the Augusta “controversy” because it observes the problem from the public sector and Augusta, along with Delta Delta Delta, are private associations.   A private entity has the autonomy, freedom, and discretion to discriminate among potential members and if for some reason they lost this right, we would no longer have private associations because they are predicated on exclusivism.  The private group is founded on a set of values and objectives that is particular to a cause and if a potential member does not meet their requirements then they should not be accepted for the sake of inclusion.  For example, if I started a private group with the sole purpose of running marathons together, I cannot be expected to admit paraplegics because they feel left out.  More specifically, in regards to Augusta’s membership, their organization was founded on the idea to create an elite fraternity composed of golf champions and other successful men.  By accepting a woman into their ranks, they would, in effect, be disgracing their founders and tarnishing their organization’s history and accomplishments.