Students from Washington University say they have complained to state and federal agencies that a Chicago, Illinois, nightclub barred six African-American members from their senior class trip celebration while admitting nearly 200 white classmates.

Bar personnel cited dress code violations -- specifically baggy jeans -- when barring the African-American students, according to Washington University senior class president Fernando Cutz, who was among students admitted to the bar.

A white student and a black student exchanged jeans to see what would happen, and the white student was admitted while his classmate still was kept outside, Cutz said.

Cutz said his group from the St. Louis, Missouri, school filed complaints with the Chicago Human Rights Commission, the Illinois Attorney General, the U.S. Department of Justice and other organizations after the incident on October 17. The school planned to hold a town hall meeting Monday night to discuss the incident and a possible protest, he said.

Calls by CNN to the nightclub, Original Mother's bar, were not immediately returned.

But a representative of the bar told the Chicago Tribune on Thursday that security concerns, not racism, guided the decision. One day later, a bar representative told the paper the club was taking the issue "very seriously," conducting an internal investigation and that disciplinary action would be taken if necessary.

Cutz said the celebration at Original Mother's in Chicago's Gold Coast section was to have been the culminating event of a two-day senior class trip to Chicago. The party had been arranged with the bar in advance by the student class board, which includes two of the African-American students who were later denied entry, Cutz said.

Cutz said he was already inside the bar with some 200 other students, none of whom are African-American, when the first group of African-American classmates arrived. He said he learned that the manager of the bar denied entry to the six students, and he said the manager told the students their baggy pants violated the bar's dress code.

Cutz, who is white, said he confronted the manager.

"These six [students] were better dressed than I was," Cutz told CNN.

Nevertheless, Cutz said, he told the students to "go back to the hotel and change." But the manager of the bar stepped in to say that he had made his decision and that the six men could not return to the bar even if they changed clothes, Cutz said.

The students became "more agitated" and "set up an experiment," Cutz said. Class treasurer Regis Murayi, who is black, exchanged jeans with a white student, Jordan Roberts, who -- being 3 inches shorter than Murayi -- looked "substantially baggy."

Roberts approached the same manager who had turned away the African-American students, paid the entry fee and was allowed in, Cutz said.

Washington University Chancellor Mark Wrighton sent a letter to Chicago Mayor Richard Daley to express his "most intense disappointment" about the incident. In the letter -- a copy of which was provided to CNN by Cutz -- Wrighton told the mayor that he "can only imagine the humiliation and discouragement these six young students felt ... when they were turned away from this establishment because of their race."

Students also contacted the Anti-Defamation League and the Chicago Urban League. The two organizations jointly sent a letter to the bar, writing that they "strongly suggest that Mother's re-examine its dress code, conduct immediate retraining of all employees to avoid any future racial discrimination or appearance thereof, and issue a formal letter of apology to the six students who were denied entry."

It's private property so, even though I think it's wrong, the manager/owner(?) should get to deny entry to whoever he wants for whatever reason he wants.

...except that the student board arranged with the bar beforehand in a contract for their services to the students which included the black students denied entry.

Didn't notice that part, sorry. Then yeah, they should be reprimanded for breaking the contract.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/25/illino...ions/index.html



Actually very clever on the part of the students in doing that 'experiment' of sorts. Kind of stomps on any true dress code argument that the nightclub would have mounted.

What do you think? I'd been under the impression segregation had been illegal for the better part of 50 years, but apparently it has just taken on a different name.


also, hello, i haven't been here in a while. how are things?

They should also be reprimanded for BEING HUGE RACISTS AND HOLDING UP A POLICY OF SEGREGATION.

But that's just me.

I thought this question was settled 50 years ago, when blacks were being barred en masse from lunch counters. Private property doesn't give the establishment the right to enforce segregation and prevent millions of people from living a normal life. If people like you had gotten their way we would still have separate bathrooms and water fountains. Would you be comfortable with such a world?

They should also be reprimanded for BEING HUGE RACISTS AND HOLDING UP A POLICY OF SEGREGATION.

But that's just me.

I thought this question was settled 50 years ago, when blacks were being barred en masse from lunch counters. Private property doesn't give the establishment the right to enforce segregation and prevent millions of people from living a normal life. If people like you had gotten their way we would still have separate bathrooms and water fountains. Would you be comfortable with such a world?

the law is constantly telling people what to do with their private property, hence there being health codes for restaurants, etc. Why should the law be allowed to tell the restaurant how clean its kitchens should be, but not be allowed to tell them not to bar black people from entering?

I thought this question was settled 50 years ago, when blacks were being barred en masse from lunch counters. Private property doesn't give the establishment the right to enforce segregation and prevent millions of people from living a normal life. If people like you had gotten their way we would still have separate bathrooms and water fountains. Would you be comfortable with such a world?

Private property doesn't give the establishment the right to enforce segregation and prevent millions of people from living a normal life.

It's private property so, even though I think it's wrong, the manager/owner(?) should get to deny entry to whoever he wants for whatever reason he wants.

They should also be reprimanded for BEING HUGE RACISTS AND HOLDING UP A POLICY OF SEGREGATION.

But that's just me.

It's private property so, even though I think it's wrong, the manager/owner(?) should get to deny entry to whoever he wants for whatever reason he wants.

...except that the student board arranged with the bar beforehand in a contract for their services to the students which included the black students denied entry.

However, race is a protected class. And it is illegal to discriminate and deny business to someone based on their race, religion, or sex.

I would. Private property is private property. No matter how I feel that club isn't mine and I'm not going to use force to tell the owner how to run it. If people care - and I do, and would follow my following advice - they shouldn't give them any business.

So what you are saying is that property rights should take precedence over civil rights. It has been clearly established that if enough businesses discriminate on the basis of race, that effectively turns minorities into second class citizens who do not enjoy the same rights and privileges as the majority. You apparently think that should be allowed.

I would like to test the limits of your beliefs. Imagine a scenario in which every super market, restaurant, and food chain in the United States issues a policy that they will not do business with African-Americans. As a result, African-Americans are driven in desperation to eating pet food and fighting over leftover scraps. Millions are malnourished and thousands starve to death. Would you in that situation defend society's right to treat blacks in such a manner based on ownership of private property? Would you defend such flagrant human rights violations?

So what you are saying is that property rights should take precedence over civil rights. It has been clearly established that if enough businesses discriminate on the basis of race, that effectively turns minorities into second class citizens who do not enjoy the same rights and privileges as the majority. You apparently think that should be allowed.

I would like to test the limits of your beliefs. Imagine a scenario in which every super market, restaurant, and food chain in the United States issues a policy that they will not do business with African-Americans. As a result, African-Americans are driven in desperation to eating pet food and fighting over leftover scraps. Millions are malnourished and thousands starve to death. Would you in that situation defend society's right to treat blacks in such a manner based on ownership of private property? Would you defend such flagrant human rights violations?

However, race is a protected class. And it is illegal to discriminate and deny business to someone based on their race, religion, or sex.

So what you are saying is that property rights should take precedence over civil rights. It has been clearly established that if enough businesses discriminate on the basis of race, that effectively turns minorities into second class citizens who do not enjoy the same rights and privileges as the majority. You apparently think that should be allowed.

So no senior citizen or student discounts right? Or ladies nights at bars/clubs? We have to eliminate discrimination, after all.

And Vaal's hypothetical is so silly it isn't worth discussing.

Offering discounts to the elderly and students =/= racial discrimination.

You're not denying people who don't fall in the category of students or elderly a chance to eat at your restaurant, or to watch a movie in your movie theater. You're simply giving those two groups a slight discount in order to attract more customers. So, if you wanted to equate the two, it would be like allowing only white people to sit on the patio of your restaurant in order to attract more white customers. Non-whites can still come to your restaurant, but since they don't fall into the white category, they can't sit on the patio.

In this scenario, black students were denied entry simply based off the color of their skin (assuming the report is correct, of course). They weren't denied a student discount, or weren't denied access to the VIP section...they were denied entry.

I don't consider Vaal's example to be incorrect. If you defend the bar owner on the principle of property rights then you would have to extend that defence to a society-wide level of discrimination even if it had severe social consequences. You don't have to go too far back in history to see this in operation -- indeed, that's why these laws were brought in in the first place.

I don't consider Vaal's example to be incorrect. If you defend the bar owner on the principle of property rights then you would have to extend that defence to a society-wide level of discrimination even if it had severe social consequences. You don't have to go too far back in history to see this in operation -- indeed, that's why these laws were brought in in the first place.

This is one of those cases, I think, where reductio ad absurdum seems just that. Isn't such an argument atleast a little self-serving?

So no senior citizen or student discounts right? Or ladies nights at bars/clubs? We have to eliminate discrimination, after all.

And Vaal's hypothetical is so silly it isn't worth discussing.

So even without racist government policies most Jewish people would probably have lived incredibly difficult lives.

As far as your silly theoretical, it sounds like an excellent business opportunity to me.

So what you are saying is that property rights should take precedence over civil rights. It has been clearly established that if enough businesses discriminate on the basis of race, that effectively turns minorities into second class citizens who do not enjoy the same rights and privileges as the majority. You apparently think that should be allowed.

I would like to test the limits of your beliefs. Imagine a scenario in which every super market, restaurant, and food chain in the United States issues a policy that they will not do business with African-Americans. As a result, African-Americans are driven in desperation to eating pet food and fighting over leftover scraps. Millions are malnourished and thousands starve to death. Would you in that situation defend society's right to treat blacks in such a manner based on ownership of private property? Would you defend such flagrant human rights violations?

It's as silly as saying "If space aliens would blow up Earth if you held true to your convictions, would you really hold true to your convictions?" I mean really Vlad, you can't mean that you're a socialist because that would doom Earth!

What a stupid hypothetical.

In such an occurrence, I see a market opportunity, open a business, and capture an enormous market in the black community. (Not just African-Americans, obviously, but all blacks, since that's usually what people discriminate against)

Read the rest of the thread next time before you post. The scenario was a reductio ad absurdum, and was not intended to be entirely realistic. It is meant to ascertain the extent to which people such as Mack believe property rights should trump human rights.

I understand you're making an argument not based in reality. That was my point.

In reality, the hypothetical doesn't make sense and leads to a non-issue. The lack of reality in your hypothetical is illustrative of why property rights should be respected.

Vlad - change aliens to the capitalist class. If your socialist revolution goes through, the capitalists will destroy all life on earth with nuclear weapons. Still a socialist?

I don't think you're familiar with this type of argument. It is not supposed to make sense. For instance, in the age of consent thread Loki posed the hypothetical of a 3-year-old with the mind of an adult. No one in their right mind would believe that such a thing were possible under any circumstances. That wasn't the point he was making. He was using the example to test the logic behind the assertions of others.

So if you are asking me if I truly believe that the scenario I posed is remotely possible in the future, I would of course answer that it is not. But asking me that completely misses the point of the post, which is to ascertain whether property rights are more important than civil rights.

This seems to be quite in line with the response Vaal would expect from you -- that in view of the social consequences you would reject the principle.

Since no one seems inclined to take my hypothetical seriously

I don't think you're familiar with this type of argument. It is not supposed to make sense. For instance, in the age of consent thread Loki posed the hypothetical of a 3-year-old with the mind of an adult. No one in their right mind would believe that such a thing were possible under any circumstances. That wasn't the point he was making. He was using the example to test the logic behind the assertions of others.

So if you are asking me if I truly believe that the scenario I posed is remotely possible in the future, I would of course answer that it is not. But asking me that completely misses the point of the post, which is to ascertain whether property rights are more important than civil rights.