Current Event
Jamie Hein a landlord in Ohio had a complaint filed against her, on a discrimination charge with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission. On Memorial Day weekend in 2011 Michael Gunn a 40 year old man and also a tenant of Jamie Hein’s filed the complaint. He said that he had his daughter over to swim and then after that day Jamie Hein accused his daughter of fogging up the pool with the chemicals in her hair. After this he said that she put up a sign on the gate saying “Public Swimming Pool, White Only”, and was dated 1931 from Alabama. Jamie Hein claimed that it was just an antique and was on the fence before, and that they just had never noticed it. Also she stated even though the sign says “Public Swimming Pool” you still need to ask for permission to use it. Michael Gunn said that before this he and his family always could use the pool whenever they had wanted. On September 29, 2011 the Ohio Civil Rights Commission found that this did violate the Ohio Civil Rights Act made in 1959. This Act was intended to end segregated business, along with that it also guaranteed all people fair access to public facilities and private business. So the question is if the pool is actually a public pool or since it is on her private property do they not have a right to use it. Since then Michael Gunn moved out and said it was “in order to not expose my daughter to the sign and the humiliation of the message”. In this time Jamie Hein has not apologized and said that “If I have to stick up for my white rights, I have to stick up for my white rights. It goes both ways.” The commission will meet and make their decision on January 12, 2012.
So my question is do you agree with the Civil Rights Commission? Should she be allowed to keep up her sign? And if you had to decide, what would your decision be on the issue?
ABC News
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/12/exclusive-white-only-pool-sign-owner-explains/
I do not agree with the Civil Rights Commission. There should not be any charges against her for the accusations that people have made so far in this case. It never says anything about Jamie purposely putting stuff in her hair to make the water in the pool a different color. Jamie also proclaimed that the sign was up on the fence before she re-posted it. However, she could easily be lying about this situation. I think that this is a really tough case that is going to have an intense debate. For now, Jamie should be able to keep up her sign because it is a "public pool". I do not think that I could make a decision on this issue because there are too many circumstances as of right now. I do think that Michael Gunn needs to ease up on his accusations.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with the Civil Rights Commission. I think that the sign contradicts itself, making it seem public by placing those words specifically on the sign. Then following those words, the sign says "whites only." I believe that this a case that really needs to be considered because if the Civil Rights Commission is responsible for guaranteeing all Americans equal access to private and public facilities, this clearly isn't abiding by the Commissions rules, by allowing a single race access to the pool. Then by arguing that you still need to be given permission to use the public pool is also sort of misunderstanding to me. I can see her wanted to regulate who can and cannot use the pool for reasons to protect the safety of the water, but if she is denying people of certain races from using the pool that is an issue. This not mentioned in the article but using key clues it may be easy to defend that Jamie Hein could be racist. To avoid racism I would order the sign to be removed, even if she followed other regulations, I just feel that this is the most sufficient way to maintain equality even if harm isn't intended.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the Civil Rights Commission. I do not think she should be able to keep the sign up. It was not good to put the sign up even though she knows blacks live in her building, that was racist of her to do so. Even thought she clams that the sign has been there for a long time, its weird that they didn't notice before. She should never put it up because of the Civil Rights commission says that everyone is equal. The sign she be taken down right away its hurtful to people. If I could make the choice I would make her take the sign down because it is racist.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with the Civil Rights Commission. The Ohio Civil Rights Act was created to end segregated business, and this sign is a perfect example of the business not being ended. A "White's Only" swimming pool is a complete violation of the Civil Rights Act because it is segregating who is able to swim in that pool. However I agree with most of my classmates by saying the sign in contradicting. Like Cassandra, I am not in a firm position for this case because there are to many un-answered questions and a battle of who is right. I would probably ask the landlord to take the sign down, just for the sake of not starting a huge issue.
ReplyDeleteI too, also agree with the Civil Rights Commission. I do not think that it was right of this women to put up this sign stating, "Public Swimming Pool, White Only." And I do agree that it goes against the Ohio Civil Rights Act, that was put in place to stop segregated businesses. Even though Jamie Hein says that it is just an antique sign and has no meaning towards it, it is still very racist and hurtful to people who live in the apartment. This case though is very controversial because there are still many unsure questions that need to be answered, like if the sign has really been up on the fence since the pool has been open like Hein stated. So I think just to avoid a huge issue that should not even be started, the sign should be taken down and she should apologize for the inconvenience to Michael Gunn and his daughter.
ReplyDelete