It Took Highland Park's Dallas Country Club Just 13 Years to Welcome Black Private Equity Exec

Categories: Sports

KneelandYoungbloodPrinceton.jpg
princeton.edu
In retrospect, the Dallas Country Club's reluctance to admit then-Texas Ranger Alex Rodriguez seems less an expression of racial exclusivity than an act of justifiable caution regarding a man who would in short order become one of the most universally loathed figures in professional sports.

That doesn't make it any easier to explain why the city's most exclusive country club, located in Highland Park, has kept its membership so lily white.

The club guards its privacy, so it's impossible to know for sure how many minorities it counts as members. It told Mother Jones in 2011 that it has black members but declined to say how many or when they joined. When Lynne Cheney paid a visit seven years ago, ThinkProgress identified Ray Robinson, a former AT&T exec now living in Atlanta, as the lone black member, admitted some time between June and November 2007.

See also: The Dallas Country Club is Now Worth $36 Million, DCAD Says. Cue the Lawsuit in 3 ... 2 ...

But before you denounce Dallas Country Club as a racist enclave, hear this: Dallas Morning News columnist James Ragland reports this morning that Kneeland Youngblood, the African American leader of a Dallas-based private equity firm, has been accepted as a member. And it only took him 13 years! (The delay reportedly had to do with discomfort over his involvement with Jesse Jackson's Rainbow PUSH Coalition.)

Ragland counts Youngblood as the club's second black member. The club "granted a more limited out-of-state membership a few years ago to another black businessman," he writes, perhaps referring to Robinson.

So, now that Dallas Country Club has established itself as a veritable melting pot, let's everyone stop bitching about its absurd property tax breaks, OK?

Send your story tips to the author, Eric Nicholson.

My Voice Nation Help
106 comments
dfw_maverick
dfw_maverick

Is there a waiting list for membership or are white men admitted without a wait?

ruddski
ruddski topcommenter

What if the management of this club were to announce that it was planning to launch a program to improve the golf skills of young white men and women, would that be racist?

ruddski
ruddski topcommenter

Excellent question, so I looked around.

None of the professional journalists covering the story bothered to provide that information, they just describe the wait as "long". How they arrived at that conclusion with no comparative stats is anyone's guess.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@ruddski

only if the premise was that all young white men and women are not capable of playing golf.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@ruddski

a wait of 13 years can be considered "long" no matter what race the applicant is.

ruddski
ruddski topcommenter

@mavdog

And what if that were not the case?

ruddski
ruddski topcommenter

@mavdog

How could he ask the question if he didn't read the headline?

ruddski
ruddski topcommenter

One inch is long. One mile is short. On that we can agree.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@ruddski

the linked article from DMN mentioned his app "languished" for several years due to some members questioning Youngblood's relationship with PUSH and Jesse Jackson, and that another applicant was admitted years ago while Youngblood waited.

as I said, it is irrelevant how long an average app takes, 13 years is a long time. You are welcome to disagree and take the position that 13 years is not a long time if you wish.

ruddski
ruddski topcommenter

Fine.

But when defines "long time", they should present context, because their editor will say "compared to what?"

In this case, I checked, the info is not readily available, which is when a pro reporter uses a secret little reporter trick called, cryptically, "asking someone who has the information".

(I think they may teach that in J-school, being such a counter-intuitive strategy for getting info).

I maintain that the average wait is likely 18 years, and this guy's membership was rushed through. Go ahead and prove me wrong.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@ruddski

14 years is a longer time.

13 years is about 1/5 of a US male's average life.

20% of an average lifespan. that's a long time.

ruddski
ruddski topcommenter

13 years is not as long as 14 years, Mav.

Point being, there's no context to judge "long time", though I think we can assume it is.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@ruddski

the "average wait for membership" isn't relevant. the average wait for membership could be 13 years.

and still 13 years is a "long time".

ruddski
ruddski topcommenter

Finally, someone who knows the average wait for membership!

How long is that average wait, Mav?

I know the New Canaan CC is about 7 years now, so if he were joining there, he'd be 6 outside the norm.

ruddski
ruddski topcommenter

Mav takes a lot of yammering to say "I can't really think of a way to counter their argument that the words were exclusionary"

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

Ah, much ado about nothing.

Your blood pressure goes up and the criticism rises over a program that you (or the WaPo) knew very little about, which turns out to be little more than the Pres using his bully pulpit to organize help for young black kids who are shown to be at high risk for failure.

Horror of horrors....

At least now with the apparent stall in this program being rolled out you can take some deep breathes and calm down a little, until you find the next item to target with your unhealthy obsession.

ruddski
ruddski topcommenter

I only know the specifics reported by the Post. I can repeat that as much as you would like, and you can keep suggesting that the post has mis-reported, but I suspect they haven't.

If you have information showing poor reportage by the post, or misunderstanding the presidents words, you'd let us know, but my guess is that this program is as exclusionary as the President, in his own words, describes.

The initiative has now been postponed. Like much of the presidents brilliance, his own reflection seems to reveal flaws in his thinking, or the implementation by people who, by his own admission, are not quite as smart as he.

We're beginning to suspect that not even he believes he is as smart as he and those of video praise have told him he is, he keeps second-guessing the smartest man in the room. Which, I suppose, proves he's as smart as he thinks he isn't.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@ruddski

still no specifics? you're unable to tell what exactly the initiative's rules are? who gets help and who wouldn't be allowed?

when you are able, let us know.

I hope you can control yourself until then.

ruddski
ruddski topcommenter

Mav, I assumed you were able to access the same WaPo article from which I got the information I related. The Obama quote may have been truncated by the WaPo, but I doubt it. Maybe by "every young man of color" he meant the color white as well. Maybe he even mentioned old Asians.

I guess the KKK was "focused", that's a nice way to put it.

To de-tizzy your frustrations, here's the link I assumed you could find with the sly clues I left:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/president-obama-to-launch-major-new-effort-on-young-men-of-color/2014/02/11/cc0f0a98-92cd-11e3-b227-12a45d109e03_story.html

I really don't blame Obama for his exclusionary focus, as clumsy as it was - he's starting to get some murmurs of dis-satisfaction from blacks, since unemployment in that community has not been improved through his policies, and some blacks are claiming that race relations are worse than ever.

Some of them are even in a tizzy.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@ruddski

so you couldn't source the details of the program? you aren't able to explain the rules? no confirmation of who is to be included and who is not allowed to participate?

and you are all in a tizzy anyway? odd.

One perosn's view of 'exclusionary" is someone else's view as "focused'. unless you can show this proposal is detrimental to other's ability to get similar help, or that others can't get any help like the targeted kids are able to get, it seems that you are making much ado about nothing.

ruddski
ruddski topcommenter

Funny, I googled "Obama brothers keeper", took me right to the WaPo, and the announcement of the initiative 5 days ago.

I have no problem with anyone trying to help anyone of any color, I just think for the Lawmaker-in-Chief to characterize the program as essentially exclusionary is not smart politics. He could have said the same thing and left out "of color", because white boys can be disadvantaged too.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@ruddski

so you can't post a link to the specifics of the initiative? there isn't a set of guidelines that you can point to for criticism? you are just assuming a set of guidelines so you can level your criticism?

oh. interesting.

All I can find is this from the White House:

“In his State of the Union address, – as a part of his broader commitment to advance opportunity for all Americans – the President noted: “I’m reaching out to some of America’s leading foundations and corporations on a new initiative to help more young men of color facing tough odds stay on track and reach their full potential.” Continuing to make good on the President’s pledge to use his pen and phone to make 2014 a year of action, the President will invite foundation leaders, corporate executives, and community leaders to this East Room event to enlist a wide cross-section in the public-private partnership.


OMG! I see why you have your panties in a wad about this! Trying to help "young men of color"!

jeesh.

ruddski
ruddski topcommenter

Mav, the initiative aimed at "young men of color" is called "My Brothers Keeper".

While I think it's admirable for the president to launch the 4,567th version of Midnight Basketball, the optics of it suggest that young Duck Dynasty types need not apply, they ain't the brothers of whom he speaks.

It's like the tanning salon tax, which I believe was one of Obama's first decrees. It just looks racially exclusive.

ruddski
ruddski topcommenter

Does anyone read the news anymore?

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@ruddski

why don't you go ahead and tell us about this program for the "disadvantaged" that excludes whites by rule. You've been talking about it for 2 days, sort of biting at the bit to go on a rant, but you haven't shown a link that explains it.

goforit....

ruddski
ruddski topcommenter

I'm very partisan, and remembering the Bush hysteria of stuff he didn't do, that Obama actually does, in spades, makes me consider those who ignore abuse of power so easily as folks who, in the past, greased the way for totalitarianism.

Have a wonderful day, and remember to check out that mentioned initiative Obama intends for disadvantaged youth, just not white disadvantaged youth.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@ruddski

sheesh. I wasn't aware you were this obsessed and partisan.

the Wall Street Journal agrees with my statement on the IRS. the link shows the Bush Administration was proven to launch IRS investigations of the NAACP and Greenpeace. You can't dispute these facts.

I'm not going to continue with an argument that I have already won.

If you want to be dishonest, do it with yourself. I don't have time to waste with anyone who ignores facts such as you've done.

you've painted a very unflattering portrait of yourself.

tsk tsk.

ruddski
ruddski topcommenter

"Rather than admit this fact, you try and say it is only one party, when in fact it has been both parties.

Per two smoking-gun links, three democrats, and Nixon.

In the third salon link, What you have is allegations of abuse, that's it. No investigations, no resignations, no finding of wrongdoing. No Nothing.

And, in all the congressional non-investigations into Bush's IRS abuses (zero), did Bush ever state the outcome of the investigations while they were ongoing?

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@ruddski

you are showing a lack of intellect, and honesty.

the comment I made:

"You act like the use of the IRS is something that Obama or his administration came up with. Not the case, they weren't that original"

your sarcastic reply:

"Yeah, all presidents abuse the IRS."

which thru several articles was shown to be the case. Using the IRS to apply pressure to opponents has been done since its founding about a century ago.

Rather than admit this fact, you try and say it is only one party, when in fact it has been both parties.

You also asked the question

I can't find the link concerning Bush's IRS abuses, though. Got one?

Not only "one" but several, inc Greenpeace, using the SAME method of investigating the tax exampt status done by the Obama administration.

I've proved my case.

you are smothering in that sand your head is in. or maybe it isn't in the sand but up your ass?

ruddski
ruddski topcommenter

Third link, church non-profit status challenged because of political activity.

C'mon, can't you do better than that, sandman?

Are you Myrna's sock puppet?

ruddski
ruddski topcommenter

Second link, three democrats, and Nixon

ruddski
ruddski topcommenter

First article, three democrats, and Nixon

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@ruddski

"In almost every administration since the IRS's inception the information and power of the tax agency have been mobilized for explicitly political purposes"

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324715704578482823301630836

"If you think the IRS's targeting of Americans for their political views is something new, think again."

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/irs-irs-long-history-dirty-tricks/story?id=19177178

"Under George W. Bush, it went after the NAACP, Greenpeace and even a liberal church"

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/14/when_the_irs_targeted_liberals/

tell me, how does the sand taste?

ruddski
ruddski topcommenter

Yeah, all presidents abuse the IRS.

I can't find the link concerning Bush's IRS abuses, though. Got one?

Head/sand.

Jimbo
Jimbo

How about genocide?

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

"Mentally ill"? Not sure if obsessiveness can be catalogued as a mental illness. Probably more like the first step, but a long way from the real thing.

Interesting that you would react the manner you did btw....

You act like the use of the IRS is something that Obama or his administration came up with. Not the case, they weren't that original.

Frankly, the rules for the 501's need to be changed so this is less likely to happen. You can blame the auditors, but the problem begins with the tax code and its different rules for these groups.

ruddski
ruddski topcommenter

You called me mentally Ill for referencing very pressing issues affecting YOUR freedoms. That was a tactic employed by totalitarians, most memorably Stalinists, to essentially shut people up.

You referenced mental illness conveniently when I brought up an issue that is arguable, but not the way you argue, running deer.

Did you know that it was the horrible GOP who got the FCC to back off from their latest initiative to control the media? Do you know it's the GOP trying to hold the executive to rule of law?

Did you know that over 80% of investigated 501c groups targeted for investigation

were conservative? Did you know that 100% of the groups audited in that instance were Conservative?

And, regardless of the assurances from a proved serial liar, two people resigned from the IRS, with one taking the fifth.

You'd have be a little off to not notice a pattern

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@ruddski

apparently that wasn't intended for me, I never tell people to "shut up". including you

who were you speaking to?

.

ruddski
ruddski topcommenter

I appreciate your position based on ignorance as it is, but with all due respect, I laugh at people online or offline that tell me to shut up.

Have a nice day, tool.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@ruddski

you should get some help for your fixation on Obama, it seems to be to the point of obsession on your part.

There are court opinions relating to affirmative action, "quotas" and other initiatives based on race. the public sector has been hit by these rulings, as has the private sector.

really, seek help. you can thank me later.

ruddski
ruddski topcommenter

LOL. Really?

There's been a couple hundred changes to the "settled law of the land" since O'Care was rammed through. Which branch of gov't made those changes?

Beauty of it us, there's not much anyone can do to challenge a unitary executive on a roll, according to several lawyers I've been reading, because apparently no-one meets the requirements of "legal standing"

Obama, like Stalin, is one smart cookie.

That's why he can announce a program that excludes poor, disadvantaged whites with nary a peep of protest, which was my original impetus for this complaint.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@ruddski

think the courts disagree with your observations.

ruddski
ruddski topcommenter

Because the public sector can do what it wants, and one of the public sector's favorite pastimes is telling the private sector what to do.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@ruddski

Why would there be a difference between private and public sector in this regard?

ruddski
ruddski topcommenter

No, but if you pay attention to news, you'll know what I'm getting at.

Daniel
Daniel

@ruddski  So now the management of the DCC is the government?

ruddski
ruddski topcommenter

I think exclusivity can be interpreted as racism, especially when practiced by government.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@ruddski

hmm, would seem to be determined by the basis for exclusions. what do you think?

ruddski
ruddski topcommenter

So, if they announced this initiative which excluded whites, would it be racist?

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@ruddski

well, it clearly is not the case as young white men and women are capable of playing golf and doing well at it.

ruddski
ruddski topcommenter

Well, so what?

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@ruddski

no, you apparently don't get it.

the post was "so what?", indicating that the poster had ambivalence towards the story, yet they felt the need to scroll thru the "so what" story (likely reading the story along the way) to tell everyone they thought it was a "so what " story.

apparently it was much more than "so what" to cause such an action.

hope I was helpful to you....

ruddski
ruddski topcommenter

I get it, he was supposed to read the head, then pretend to have not read it so as to not upset the feng shui of proper commentary.

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...