Thursday, March 15, 2012

Racism still exists...even at pools

            Today I read the article “Ruling over controversial pool sign stands.” In Columbus, Ohio, a pool landlord put up a sign saying “Public Swimming Pool” then under it reading “White Only.” The landlord claimed that “a black girl’s hair products clouded an apartment complex’s swimming pool.” When I first read this article I was simply disgusted. After everything this country has been through, we do not need these racist people walking around. They bring up problems that were starting to be diminished before I was even born. I cannot even imagine what it must have been like for that teenage girl to walk up to the pool of her parents’ apartment complex and read a sign that said she wasn’t allowed in because of her skin color. I know I would not have it for a second.

            Jamie Hein is the white landlord of the complex and the court found that she “violated the Ohio Civil Rights Act.” Hein’s defense was that “she posted it because the girl used chemicals in her hair that would make the pool ‘cloudy.’” In my opinion, this was a drastic and unnecessary way to deal with a girl using hair products that clouded a pool, if that was even the case. Hein said “I was trying to protect my assets.” Hein could’ve gone to either the girl or her parents and told them that her hair products were affecting the pool and asked her to either wash her hair out before she went in the pool or use a swim cap or anything other than posting a sign that attacked the girl’s skin rather than her hair.

            Michael Gunn, the girl’s father, was disgusted by the sign. He said “his daughter was saddened months later to learn the reason they moved from the apartment complex ‘was in a way related to the color of her skin.’” Hein’s actions were not right and could not be justified in any way. I believe that it was right for the court to find this woman guilty. She was completely wrong and she had other options for dealing with the ‘problem’ at hand, which shows that her actions were not to ‘protect her assets,’ but to protect her pool from an innocent teenage girl.

No comments:

Post a Comment