This topic has gotten so much attention over the last two days, there is even a Deadspin item about it. I didn’t link to it on purpose – the item didn't have much to offer and if you want to read the misguided garbage in their comments, you can find it yourself. You would be better advised to read the original Beth Ann Baldry article and then savor the varied opinions of Ryan Ballengee’s GNN article and The Constructivist at Mostly Harmless plus the links to others that TC provides.
My opinion? I am sad that America’s isolationist (or is it elitist?) tendencies have backed the LPGA into this corner. The Tour is stuck between its home society which insists that the other 90% of the world conform to its words and rules, and a remote one which delivers a large portion of its product and revenue. I am a little surprised that the Tour sided with the former in this case – what happened to “money talks”? Like TC says, this choice begs the question of how the media and sponsors in Asia and Mexico should be catered to. It’s not like the majority of American media paid attention to what Yani Tseng or Ji Young Oh said after they won, anyway. Bivens and Company must have known that any gains this policy would make in that area would be countered by the negative publicity of their “insensitivity”. And give me a break on the pro-am excuse – if players not being able to speak good English to pro-am partners is that big of a deal, DON’T ASSIGN THEM TO PLAY IN THE PRO-AM! That goes for the Stanford Pro-Am event, too. Geez, how tough was that to figure out?
To summarize, it was a bad move. Take it back, Carolyn and we’ll try to forget about it.