Jim Crow in Ohio

[Ixion]

A landlord in Ohio posted a sign on the apartment pool as "Public Pool: Whites Only". She claimed that hair products from a black girl clouded the pool, so she was "protecting her assets" by posting the sign.

A state panel, The Ohio Civil Rights Commission, upheld the decision (4-0 vote) to let the sign remain. The next action would be that the commission's findings could be passed to the state attorney general, who could bring it before an administrative court.

Though I am not likely seeing the whole picture, as I am basing my opinion off the news article, but how is this not racism?

Story here: Ohio upholds decision to allow "White Only" pool sign


ETA: I have re-read the article and it is confusing. The title suggests the sign is allowed, but the article suggests that the Civil Rights Laws were broken and the commission did not agree with the landlord. Anyone else get this feeling from the article?

 

[AdMan]

The title of the article is incorrect.

The Ohio Civil Rights Commission voted 4-0 against reconsidering its finding from last fall. There was no discussion.

The group found on Sept. 29 that Jamie Hein, who is white, violated the Ohio Civil Rights Act by posting the sign at a pool at the duplex where the teenage girl was visiting her parents.

I.e., The Ohio Civil Rights Commission voted to uphold its initial finding that the sign was discriminatory.

ETA: See this: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlin...scriminatory-not-decorative-commission-rules/

 

[crimresearch]

If it was about hair products, the sign should have read, 'No Hair Products'.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If it was about hair products, the sign should have read, 'No Hair Products'.

"You must shower and shampoo before using this pool."

 

[theprestige]

ETA: I have re-read the article and it is confusing. The title suggests the sign is allowed, but the article suggests that the Civil Rights Laws were broken and the commission did not agree with the landlord. Anyone else get this feeling from the article?

The title of the article has now been changed to something much more cryptic but also not blatantly contradictory to the article and to fact.

Comments in the article point out what should now be obvious: Somebody at the AP is a headline-writing idiot.