Article: Are Your Pool Rules Accidentally Keeping People Out?

Most aquatic facilities did not write their rules with exclusion in mind. That's actually the problem. Rules written decades ago, copied from another facility's handbook, or inherited from a previous director often reflect the assumptions of a very specific kind of swimmer - and quietly make everyone else feel like they don't belong.

This isn't about blame. It's about auditing what we've inherited and asking whether it's still serving the communities we're supposed to welcome.

Here are some of the most common pool rules that unintentionally create barriers - and what to do about them.

"No Street Clothes in the Pool"

This one shows up everywhere, and the intent is usually about water quality and filtration. But the enforcement is almost always inconsistent and often discriminatory. What counts as "street clothes"? Board shorts purchased at a surf shop are fine, but the same style bought at a dollar store raises eyebrows. Modest swimwear - including burkinis, rash guards, and leggings worn for religious or personal reasons - gets flagged constantly, even though it poses no greater risk to water chemistry than a standard swimsuit.

If your rule is actually about fabric type or water contamination, say that. Rewrite it to be specific. "Clothing not designed for swimming may affect water quality - please ask staff if you have questions about your swimwear" is enforceable, clear, and doesn't single anyone out.

"No Head Coverings in the Pool"

This one needs to go, full stop, unless there is a documented safety reason tied to a specific piece of equipment. Swim caps are allowed. Wetsuits are allowed. A hijab or other head covering worn for religious reasons is not a safety hazard. Enforcing this rule selectively - or at all, without clear safety justification - exposes your facility to discrimination complaints and sends a message to Muslim swimmers and staff that they are not welcome.

Review your policy. If you can't cite a specific, documented safety reason for the restriction, remove it.

"Swim Test Required to Access the Deep End"

Swim tests as a safety tool make sense. Swim tests as a gatekeeper that disproportionately screens out communities with less access to swim instruction do not. Research consistently shows that Black and Latino children have significantly lower swim proficiency rates, largely due to historical exclusion from public pools and limited access to lessons. A blanket deep-end swim test applied without context or accommodation options can quietly replicate that exclusion inside your facility.

This doesn't mean eliminating swim tests. It means thinking about how they're administered, who administers them, whether accommodations exist for nervous swimmers, and whether the test itself is designed for safety or for gatekeeping.

"Infants Must Wear Swim Diapers"

This is a reasonable hygiene rule - but the way it's enforced matters enormously. Families who are new to pools, who speak languages other than English, or who have never been to an aquatic facility before may not know this rule exists or where to get a swim diaper if they don't have one. If your facility enforces this rule by turning families away at the door without offering any solution, you've just made a family feel humiliated in front of their kids. Stock a small supply at the front desk. Post the rule in multiple languages. Make compliance easy instead of punitive.

"No Food or Drinks on the Pool Deck"

Reasonable for safety. Often enforced in ways that aren't. Families managing diabetes, neurodivergent swimmers who need sensory regulation tools, or nursing and chestfeeding parents all have legitimate reasons to have food or drink accessible. A blanket no-exceptions policy without a clear accommodation process creates unnecessary conflict and can put people's health at risk. Build in a simple accommodation request process and train your staff on how to handle it.

How to Audit Your Own Rules

Go through every rule your facility enforces and ask three questions. First, what is the actual safety or operational reason for this rule? Second, who does this rule most affect, and is that impact equitable? Third, is there a way to achieve the same goal with language that includes rather than excludes?

If you can't answer the first question, the rule probably shouldn't exist in its current form. If the answer to the second question reveals a pattern, that's worth examining. And the third question is almost always yes - there is almost always a more equitable way to say what you mean.

Your pool rules are a direct reflection of who your facility believes it's for. Auditing them is one of the most concrete, immediate equity actions a facility can take - and it doesn't require a training budget or a consultant. It just requires someone willing to read what's already on the sign and ask whether it still makes sense.

If you want help walking your team through that audit process, that's exactly what I do. Reach out to bring this work to your facility or conference.