OK, I confess. I was brought up in a politically liberal household—before the word "liberal" somehow came to carry negative connotations. It wasn’t unusual for family dinner-table talk to touch upon issues of the day, including civil rights, the separation of church and state, gun control and freedom of the press.
Though my views have evolved to in some cases stray from the classic "liberal" stance on pressing societal matters, there are several family conversations—strangely enough, about professional sports—that stick in my mind to this day. My family revered the Brooklyn Dodgers and Branch Rickey for breaking the color barrier with the late, great Jackie Robinson. Paradoxically, the Los Angeles Dodgers were viewed in quite the opposite manner, related to the Dodger Stadium deal—its impact on poor, disenfranchised residents who had to vacate the area—and the late, not-so-great Walter O’Malley. I remember the departed Howard Cosell describing O’Malley as having "a cash register where his heart should be."
Another sports conversation at home centered on the Masters golf tournament, held at the fabled Augusta National Golf Club. My parents were aghast that CBS’ coverage of the event year after year never mentioned the fact that Augusta didn’t have a single member who was African American. This against the backdrop of a progressive civil rights movement that had taken hold in this country in the 1960s. I remember my dad being dismayed that the Masters telecast was able to draw advertisers whose sponsorship decisions weren’t at all influenced by Augusta National’s track record on minorities.
Fast forward to last week, when Augusta National announced that it would forgo commercial television sponsorship in order to avoid pressure from women’s groups to admit female members to the club. That pressure was in the form of women’s rights groups organizing boycotts of Masters advertisers. According to a Los Angeles Times report, Hootie Johnson, chairman of the Augusta National Golf Club, said it was unfair to put the Masters’ media sponsors in the position of having to deal with threatened or actual boycotts. So he notified Citigroup, IBM and Coca-Cola—the sponsors of the 2003 tournament—that their support wouldn’t be needed.
The decision comes at a time, ironically, when the absence of commercials is being regarded—in relationship to Sept. 11—as a show of respect. Indeed, advertisers and agencies have been grappling mightily with how to handle the one-year anniversary of the 9/11 tragedy (see story, p. 1).
But there’s nothing respectful or remotely virtuous about the prestigious Masters tournament running sans commercials. The decision by Augusta National to go spot-less is the latest volley in an ongoing exchange between Masters organizers and the National Council of Women’s Organizations.
The back and forth started in June when Martha Burk, chairwoman of the National Council of Women’s Organizations, took issue with the lack of female members at Augusta National. She urged Johnson to open the club to women before next year’s tournament or have Masters’ sponsors risk being subject to boycotts and charges of supporting discrimination.
In a written response to Burk, according to the Los Angeles Times, Johnson called her stance "coercive." He insisted that Augusta National would eventually admit women, but on its own timetable—"not on the point of a bayonet," Johnson declared.
The problem, however, is the timetable, as history attests. Augusta National admitted its first African American member in 1990.
