If progressive Brown violates Title IX, do we?
By Robb Smith
Staff Writer

Editor's note: This is part one of a two-part series. Information on the lawsuit was compiled from 1995 issues of the Brown Daily Herald, Brown's student newspaper.

Brown University learned the hard way that male and female sports must be represented equally.

Brown's problems began in April, 1991. The university decided to demote women's gymnastics and volleyball teams - along with the men's golf and water polo squads - from varsity to club-varsity standing. Members of the women's teams argued the decision discriminated against women, and therefore violated Title IX.

Title IX is part of the 1972 Federal Education Amendments, that outline, "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex ... be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal assistance."

This includes all athletic programs.

On April 9, 1992, Brown University was hit with a class-action lawsuit. So started Amy Cohen, et. al. vs. Brown University, et. al.

Anticipating lengthy court delays, the plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction that would reinstate the women's sports to varsity standing on Oct. 26, 1992.

The appointed judge, Raymond J. Pettine, granted the motion. Brown reinstated the teams to varsity status and was prevented from cutting funding from any female athletic programs until the suit was settled.

Brown appealed the decision, but Pettine's judgment was maintained by the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston.

The plaintiffs and the university agreed to an important settlement before the trial started. On Sept. 28, 1994, Brown guaranteed female athletes treatment equal to the treatment of male athletes. "Treatment" includes coaching, use of facilities and trainers.

The plaintiff's initial predictions turned out to be true. The trial began Sept. 25, 1994 - 30 months after the charges were brought up.

On March 29 of this year Pettine ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. He found that Brown was violating the Title IX statute. Pettine wrote a 68-page ruling describing how Brown's athletic program discriminated against female students.

The plaintiffs charged that Brown did not provide enough opportunities for women in athletics. They used a civil rights interpretation of Title IX that requires the ratio of male-to-female athletes to be "substantially proportionate" to the ratio of male-to-female undergraduates. The university's ratio of athletes failed to "substantially mirror" its ratio of students, Pettine said.

Brown then submitted a plan to restructure its athletics for women according to Title IX. Pettine rejected the offer.

The two sides are now waiting for Brown's appeal to reach the Federal Appeals Court in Boston.

Implying that the university cannot afford to fund additional women's teams, Vartan Gregorian, Brown University president, said, "I have said - and the university governing body has concurred - that Brown cannot and will not devote any additional discretionary funds to athletics."

To abide by Pettine'sruling, it will likely reduce the size of men's athletic teams or eliminate some teams rather than expand women's athletics. This allows Brown to close the gender gap between athletes without additional funds.

Brown University's trial sends a warning to athletic programs across the nation.

Brown has been considered one of the most gender-equal schools in the country. If its program violates Title IX, then a majority of other colleges' programs are also in violation.

Albion does offer an equal numbers of sports for men and women, so its situation is not similar to Brown University's.

But, there are questions about the number of full-time coaches hired by the college.

Currently, the 1995-96 coaching staff for Albion athletics includes nine men and four women, with two sports yet to name coaches.

Concerns about Albion's compliance with Title IX will be explored in more detail in the second half of this two-part series.