Gus Puryear on Belle Meade Country Club's Lady Problem
If you want to be a judge, you should think about being as honest as possible. But this week Gus Puryear, who was nominated by President Bush to be a judge in Tennessee's Middle District and now faces vigilant opposition, is being purposefully vague, if not flat-out dishonest, in his correspondence to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee on the topic of whether the Belle Meade Country Club discriminates against women. The short and plain answer is that it does—but Puryear refuses to concede that point. In fairness, he's placed himself in a tough situation. If he admits that the club does not allow women to vote on club matters or hold official leadership positions, then he outs himself as a member of an antiquated, backward institution. But if he says anything else, well, he’s lying—or all but.
After his unimpressive hearing before the judiciary committee, Puryear fielded a series of written questions from several senators, including Ted Kennedy, one of the three of four most powerful legislators in the country. Now turning his gaze on a 39-year-old Nashville attorney, Kennedy flat-out asked Puryear the following question:
“Is it true that the Belle Meade Country Club does not permit female club members to vote?”
My answer: Yes, it is true that the club does not allow women to vote. In fact, women have their own class of membership—they're called “lady members”—and lady members can't vote or hold office, even Martha Ingram, who is listed on the club's membership rolls. The only people who can vote are the club's resident members and, lo and behold, all of them are men. The club's “constitution,” which Puryear, as a judicial candidate essentially completing a take-home test, must have reviewed before answering Kennedy's questions, notes the following about resident members: “They alone, to the exclusion of all other classes of membership, shall have the right to control, manage, vote and hold office in the club.” So that means that non-resident members, associate resident members (younger members like Puryear) and, of course, lady members can't have any say in the governance of the club.
Of course, if Puryear used this (my) answer in his response to Kennedy's question, it would have opened him up to further scrutiny. Here, instead, is his Clintonesque response:
“I understand that the only category that may vote is the ‘Resident Member’ category. (I am not a Resident Member, so I may not vote, either, nor may I propose new members. I am also not permitted to be involved in the governance of the club.) At present, there are no women who are in this membership category; however, I understand that the bylaws of the club do not restrict eligibility for the ‘Resident Member’ category except by age (18 years and older) and geography (within 100 miles of Nashville). Thus, I do not believe there is a policy to restrict a woman from being proposed as a ‘Resident Member.’ I am not aware, nor have I been made aware, that any woman has been proposed or has sought to be proposed as a ‘Resident Member.’ ”
Do you understand any of that? I don't. I think my answer above, in addition to being coherent, had the additional advantage of being honest. Then again, I don't have to defend my membership in a discriminatory institution before the Senate Judiciary Committee. So it's a little easier for me to be so scrupulous.
More after the jump.
Kennedy also asked Puryear about the “racial diversity of the Belle Meade Country Club?"
Here's my answer. Well, no one who belongs to the club and attends its functions ever sees a black person at the club unless they're busing tables. The club, however, does have a single black member who conveniently enough lives out of town.
Here's Puryear's answer: “I am advised that the club does not track its members based on race, nor does it respond to such requests. I am personally aware that there are minority members, but I do not myself know the number. Should the club respond to my inquiry, I will forward any such response.”
I'm sure the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee are going to love hearing that the Belle Meade Country Club may or may not be answering any questions about its racial diversity to members of Congress.
It's looks like a lovely little drama is unfolding before us: A local judicial candidate won't come clean about his country club's discriminatory practices, setting the stage for the likes of Ted Kennedy to ask why exactly one of Nashville's most exclusive and prominent social institutions can't move past the 1950s.
Comments
Actually they can vote if they swim well.
Posted 03/06/2008 at 08:24:48 PMEisenhower: "Governor Maddox. Does the Little Rock High School allow Negro children to attend?"
Lester the Axeman: "To the best of my knowledge, there are surely no restrictions against them."
Ike: "Well, are there any Negroes in attendance?"
Lester: "Ah'll have to defer to the school on that, but if'n they get back to me, Ah'll surely let you know, Mr. President. Meanwhile, no need to send those troops."
Posted 03/06/2008 at 08:26:24 PMExcellent article and great cover illustration of the baby elephant!
Posted 03/06/2008 at 09:03:39 PMI don't think that fat-ass punk Kennedy who should be in jail for vehicular homicide is in any position to pass judgement on the Belle Meade Country Club or Puryear for being a member of it.
Posted 03/07/2008 at 01:06:42 PM^ Irrelevant ad hominem attack.
Obama is right when he says we have to stop re-litigating the '60s.
Get over it.
Posted 03/07/2008 at 02:02:17 PMIs this the same grilling Bruce Dobie got when he joined the Belle Meade Country Club or is this because Puryear has Republican's backing him?
Speaking of glass houses, Matt. Next time you want to write a letter to Frank Sutherland, fire one off to Dobie asking him to come back so the Scene can be relevant again.
Posted 03/07/2008 at 05:27:37 PM"Irrelevant ad hominem attack.
Obama is right when he says we have to stop re-litigating the '60s."
What is irrelevant is Kennedy's questions about the Belle Meade Country Club in the first place.
The job of a judge is to enforce the law literally and exactly as it is written according the original intention of those who wrote it at the time they wrote it.
The job of a judge is not to be a social "reformer" of either private institutions or society as a whole.
Puryear's membership in the club or the club's rules have nothing to do with his ability and willingness to capably enforce the law.
As for Obama - he's just another socialist twit. He's never been right about anything in his entire life.
Posted 03/08/2008 at 12:12:04 PMWhat's irrelevant are boring old farts like you.
Posted 03/10/2008 at 10:58:28 AMWhat's old was this exact story in Mother Jones last month getting a cover in this bland retread. Amazing resemblance, really.
Add an unrelated Vandy professor. A Democrat who can't find anything wrong with the guy. Finally, an ex-con in a Members' Only jacket being backed by a George Soros front group who is stalking the guy because he had the temerity to suggest that jailhouse lawyers *gasp* have a tendency to file frivolous claims. Who's ever heard of such nonsense?
The important thing is that his Members' Only jacket doesn't discriminate against women or blacks. That and that we never need to know backstory of the attempted murderer who's done his time and is now fightin' for librul justice.
Posted 03/10/2008 at 07:10:54 PMFor more on the Puryear nomination, and reasons why his confirmation isn't a good thing, please visit: www.againstpuryear.org. You'll be glad, and sorry, you did!
Posted 04/12/2008 at 10:50:28 AM