Do many Sidwell families belong to the Chevy Chase Club?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am from what would be considered an old money DC family. I graduated from sidwell in the mid 90s and can count on one hand the number of people who belonged to any country club. It is really disgusting what the school has become.

I always thought I would want my kids to go there, but I heard it had changed so we didn't apply. We don't want the country club set.

Same here (I'm pp). It used to be an interesting place. Now it's full of social climbing wannabes.

Can't speak for Sidwell, but as a legacy & member the club but whose family has NEVER made the "country club" set a priority, I appreciate the diversity at the Cathedral schools. My kids are in the lower school at NCS & STA (and they previously went to beauvoir), One recent trend which I find refreshing and the opposite of "social climbing," NOT ONE of ds & dd's classmates are enrolled in the "invitation only" Mrs. Simpson's, but instead opted for the all-inclusive Capital Cotillion. I know I chose Cotillion over Mrs. Simpson's. From what I've heard the stonewalling of Mrs. Simpson's is quite new. Even a few years back, there would be a handful of students in each grade who attended to Mrs. Simpson's... in this year's 4th grade there are none (ZERO) Cathedral students at Mrs. Simpsons. We felt uncomfortable with the idea of sending dc to a dancing school where not all of his/her classmates were welcome. Take that social climbers!

Ok - this made me laugh. (this is not meant to be a dig...but sort of a reality check) Making a "bold statement" by snubbing Mrs Simpson's in favor of Capital Cotillion. Yes, Mrs Simpson's has a dubious past - but give me a break - Capital Cotillion is still in the genre of things that scream old money, elitist, and country club set. I'm not knocking you for it - as we know wonder families with kids in both programs - but it's a very "private school", "social status", "money" sort of activity to enroll kids in. Which is kind of the opposite of the point (I think?) you were trying to make about being "not one of them".

I had the same reaction. I actually did send my kids to Mrs Simpson's in part because I wasn't able to go as a kid, and there was some satisfaction in being able to send my own kids. I really don't see any difference between the two - Mrs Simpsons is hardly exclusive these days - anyone can get an invitation.

[Anonymous]

Difference between "getting an invitation" and simply signing up. It is still exclusive and divisive for social circles that are otherwise together. Glad you got your kids into the club.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Difference between "getting an invitation" and simply signing up. It is still exclusive and divisive for social circles that are otherwise together. Glad you got your kids into the club.

+1

You can "get an invitation" if you come begging. Not the same. And it is still awfully divisive for parents of entering 4th graders (its parents who do this) to choose who they deem to be from the right families.

[Anonymous]

All the hate on Chevy and Mrs. Simpsons.

I loved doing BOTH growing up. I had Jewish friends who went to Mrs. Simpsons, and especially in recent years have seen Jewish and black people at Chevy, and they are welcomed by everyone.

It's funny because I doubt people would get mad if there was a Jewish club that discriminated against Christians.

Not saying racism is okay, AT ALL. But the majority of people who go to Chevy bear no ill will to any groups. They just so happened to be raised in a certain set and want their kids to carry the tradition. All this hate over what are two lovely institutions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why all the spewing on the country club? If people want to use this as a social avenue, or to play golf or tennis, what exactly is wrong with that?

I think that there is some general opinion here, shared by a lot of people who have never been inside this circle and make assumptions about what goes on - I can assure you, it is a lot like going to a restaurant or bar where everybody knows you and you feel comfortable while sharing common interests.

Let me correct that for you--it is a lot like going to a restaurant WHERE EVERYBODY IS WHITE, PRIVILEGED, AND CAN'T BE BOTHERED TO THINK TOO DEEPLY ABOUT RACISM.

I'll be sure to share this observation with all of our black and Jewish friends at our club. Are you in some sort of time warp??

The person was commenting specifically about the Chevy Chase Club which has a history of exclusion to blacks and to Jews. One of the posters stated how nice it was to walk into the club isl ike walking into a restaurant and everyone shares common interests, meaning they share the same views regarding exclusion. Chevy may not openly discriminate but it is not the place you think of with a wide and varied type of membership.

Why is it assumed that the common interests are about exclusion? How about golf? tennis? kids involvement in swim team? This is what is meant by common interests.

Yes, racism is part of this club's history...but keep in mind it is part of our country's history. There are racists everywhere...you don't have to go to CCC to find it.

I was the PP that made the 'common interests' comment and this is exactly what I meant - golf, tennis, swim team, hockey - those common interests.


I think it says a lot that people automatically assume negative intent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.newgeography.com/content/00660-the-chevy-chase-club-real-estate-and-racism

A history regarding racism at The Chevy Chase Club written by a member.

This is an excellent oped piece that I wish more folks would read, especially those at my kids' private schools, one of which is St Albans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why all the spewing on the country club? If people want to use this as a social avenue, or to play golf or tennis, what exactly is wrong with that?

I think that there is some general opinion here, shared by a lot of people who have never been inside this circle and make assumptions about what goes on - I can assure you, it is a lot like going to a restaurant or bar where everybody knows you and you feel comfortable while sharing common interests.

Let me correct that for you--it is a lot like going to a restaurant WHERE EVERYBODY IS WHITE, PRIVILEGED, AND CAN'T BE BOTHERED TO THINK TOO DEEPLY ABOUT RACISM.

I'll be sure to share this observation with all of our black and Jewish friends at our club. Are you in some sort of time warp??

The person was commenting specifically about the Chevy Chase Club which has a history of exclusion to blacks and to Jews. One of the posters stated how nice it was to walk into the club isl ike walking into a restaurant and everyone shares common interests, meaning they share the same views regarding exclusion. Chevy may not openly discriminate but it is not the place you think of with a wide and varied type of membership.

Why is it assumed that the common interests are about exclusion? How about golf? tennis? kids involvement in swim team? This is what is meant by common interests.

Yes, racism is part of this club's history...but keep in mind it is part of our country's history. There are racists everywhere...you don't have to go to CCC to find it.

I was the PP that made the 'common interests' comment and this is exactly what I meant - golf, tennis, swim team, hockey - those common interests.


I think it says a lot that people automatically assume negative intent.

You're hilarious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am from what would be considered an old money DC family. I graduated from sidwell in the mid 90s and can count on one hand the number of people who belonged to any country club. It is really disgusting what the school has become.

I always thought I would want my kids to go there, but I heard it had changed so we didn't apply. We don't want the country club set.

Same here (I'm pp). It used to be an interesting place. Now it's full of social climbing wannabes.

Can't speak for Sidwell, but as a legacy & member the club but whose family has NEVER made the "country club" set a priority, I appreciate the diversity at the Cathedral schools. My kids are in the lower school at NCS & STA (and they previously went to beauvoir), One recent trend which I find refreshing and the opposite of "social climbing," NOT ONE of ds & dd's classmates are enrolled in the "invitation only" Mrs. Simpson's, but instead opted for the all-inclusive Capital Cotillion. I know I chose Cotillion over Mrs. Simpson's. From what I've heard the stonewalling of Mrs. Simpson's is quite new. Even a few years back, there would be a handful of students in each grade who attended to Mrs. Simpson's... in this year's 4th grade there are none (ZERO) Cathedral students at Mrs. Simpsons. We felt uncomfortable with the idea of sending dc to a dancing school where not all of his/her classmates were welcome. Take that social climbers!

Ok - this made me laugh. (this is not meant to be a dig...but sort of a reality check) Making a "bold statement" by snubbing Mrs Simpson's in favor of Capital Cotillion. Yes, Mrs Simpson's has a dubious past - but give me a break - Capital Cotillion is still in the genre of things that scream old money, elitist, and country club set. I'm not knocking you for it - as we know wonder families with kids in both programs - but it's a very "private school", "social status", "money" sort of activity to enroll kids in. Which is kind of the opposite of the point (I think?) you were trying to make about being "not one of them".

No, I'm sorry, you're just wrong here. There is a huge difference between an activity that is open to anyone who signs up and one that picks and chooses from the "right families." I get that the whole dance/etiquette thing makes your eyes role, I had the same reaction. But my DD enjoyed it and it was perfectly harmless, precisely because it was open to everyone. Mrs. Simpson's is just toxic.

I apologize that I didn't make it clear why I thought this was funny. I totally understand your point about the differences between Simpsons and Cotillion and see merit in that point. The point I was making was that you started out by saying you never put priority in the "country club sort of thing" and then went on to discuss Cotillion, which is still very much a "country club sort of thing". I realize that you are coming from the point of saying Mrs Simpson's is non-inclusive - as are some country clubs - and that Cotillion is more inclusive - as are other country clubs. But all in all - the example of etiquette/dance lessons struck me as funny because I'd be willing to bet there are a larger number of families in the area that belong to some sort of country club than there are families that would consider Cotillion. And, I suspect that many families would consider the whole idea behind both Simpsons and Cotiliion to be sort of elitist (this doesn't include me). Again, this was not meant as a dig from me, at all. If my child was interested, I'd have him/her join other classmates doing Simpsons/Cotillion - he/she decided against it. But the kids we know seem to have fun and talk more about the social aspects afterwards (which adds credence to it being the sort of activity that is done to "be included in the group" sort of thing) and the parents that were sort of wary of it - feel like it has been "fine". I just found Cotillion to be a very funny example under the circumstances.

[Anonymous]

PS - at our school everyone was sent an "invitation" to both Simpsons and Cotillion and we were asked by many many families to have our child join in with the others....it didn't seem like either was particularly exclusive in practice - although both invitations made it seem like a really "important" group to "join".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Difference between "getting an invitation" and simply signing up. It is still exclusive and divisive for social circles that are otherwise together. Glad you got your kids into the club.

+1

You can "get an invitation" if you come begging. Not the same. And it is still awfully divisive for parents of entering 4th graders (its parents who do this) to choose who they deem to be from the right families.

When DD wanted to join her friends after a couple of years, I just called and requested one. I agree that Capital Cotillion's approach is better, but if your child is interested in Mrs. Simpson's, I wouldn't be put off by the appearance of exclusivity.

[Anonymous]

I've never had that happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am from what would be considered an old money DC family. I graduated from sidwell in the mid 90s and can count on one hand the number of people who belonged to any country club. It is really disgusting what the school has become.

I always thought I would want my kids to go there, but I heard it had changed so we didn't apply. We don't want the country club set.

Same here (I'm pp). It used to be an interesting place. Now it's full of social climbing wannabes.

Can't speak for Sidwell, but as a legacy & member the club but whose family has NEVER made the "country club" set a priority, I appreciate the diversity at the Cathedral schools. My kids are in the lower school at NCS & STA (and they previously went to beauvoir), One recent trend which I find refreshing and the opposite of "social climbing," NOT ONE of ds & dd's classmates are enrolled in the "invitation only" Mrs. Simpson's, but instead opted for the all-inclusive Capital Cotillion. I know I chose Cotillion over Mrs. Simpson's. From what I've heard the stonewalling of Mrs. Simpson's is quite new. Even a few years back, there would be a handful of students in each grade who attended to Mrs. Simpson's... in this year's 4th grade there are none (ZERO) Cathedral students at Mrs. Simpsons. We felt uncomfortable with the idea of sending dc to a dancing school where not all of his/her classmates were welcome. Take that social climbers!

Ok - this made me laugh. (this is not meant to be a dig...but sort of a reality check) Making a "bold statement" by snubbing Mrs Simpson's in favor of Capital Cotillion. Yes, Mrs Simpson's has a dubious past - but give me a break - Capital Cotillion is still in the genre of things that scream old money, elitist, and country club set. I'm not knocking you for it - as we know wonder families with kids in both programs - but it's a very "private school", "social status", "money" sort of activity to enroll kids in. Which is kind of the opposite of the point (I think?) you were trying to make about being "not one of them".

No, I'm sorry, you're just wrong here. There is a huge difference between an activity that is open to anyone who signs up and one that picks and chooses from the "right families." I get that the whole dance/etiquette thing makes your eyes role, I had the same reaction. But my DD enjoyed it and it was perfectly harmless, precisely because it was open to everyone. Mrs. Simpson's is just toxic.

I apologize that I didn't make it clear why I thought this was funny. I totally understand your point about the differences between Simpsons and Cotillion and see merit in that point. The point I was making was that you started out by saying you never put priority in the "country club sort of thing" and then went on to discuss Cotillion, which is still very much a "country club sort of thing". I realize that you are coming from the point of saying Mrs Simpson's is non-inclusive - as are some country clubs - and that Cotillion is more inclusive - as are other country clubs. But all in all - the example of etiquette/dance lessons struck me as funny because I'd be willing to bet there are a larger number of families in the area that belong to some sort of country club than there are families that would consider Cotillion. And, I suspect that many families would consider the whole idea behind both Simpsons and Cotiliion to be sort of elitist (this doesn't include me). Again, this was not meant as a dig from me, at all. If my child was interested, I'd have him/her join other classmates doing Simpsons/Cotillion - he/she decided against it. But the kids we know seem to have fun and talk more about the social aspects afterwards (which adds credence to it being the sort of activity that is done to "be included in the group" sort of thing) and the parents that were sort of wary of it - feel like it has been "fine". I just found Cotillion to be a very funny example under the circumstances.

I wrote the last little bit about the difference between the two dance classes and eye rolling but I am not the previous poster with the club. I do not belong to any club.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Woodmont and Lakewood discriminate against Christians
The Anacostia pool discriminates against whites

Chevy is a PRIVATE club, it can do whatever the heck it wants. That's what makes this a great country

Wow looks like someone is woefully misinformed re: civil rights laws.

Yep, someone is woefully misinformed re: civil rights laws. Clubs can discriminate however they want. Thus, you have all female sororities or all black fraternities, etc. And country clubs are free to include or exclude anyone they want. It's called freedom of association, guaranteed by our Constitution's 1st Amendment.

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/hce/title2.php

PS- Legally, private schools could discriminate too, as long as they don't take federal money. Thankfully, most of them have policies against discrimination. However, it is these policies, not the law, that prevent discrimination.

You may want to educate yourself before calling people on civil rights laws.

Sorry, you obviously weren't paying attention in law school. First of all, CCC gets tax benefits that are absolutely a grant from the government and therefore a basis for a civil rights lawsuit. plus there are federal and local laws banning discrimination by private organizations. Clubs cannot discriminate all they want.

And, seriously, do you think the CCC would have any Black or Jewish members if it wasn't for these laws?

[Anonymous]

A country club clearly falls within the definition of a public accommodation. That limited exception for private clubs does not apply.

[Anonymous]

I agree. Not good public policy today. But, OP seems status conscious and more interested in running with the "it" crowd, whomever they are in her mind, so probably does not matter to her.