Ivy, T.I. told to go coed

Photo by Daily Princetonian Staff

The first page of a two-page special edition of the 'Prince' on May 27, 1987.

This article is reprinted from the May 27, 1987 edition of The Daily Princetonian.

TRENTON — Pamela Poff, director of the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights, announced at a press conference yesterday that she has ordered Ivy Club and Tiger Inn to admit women during next year's bicker.

Poff's decision was the final ruling by the division in the Sally Frank '80 suit.

John O'Brien '65, president of the Tiger graduate board, said his club planned to appeal the ruling. Ivy officials said they were unsure of the club's plans.

Poff also ordered the clubs to report to her office twice during the next two years in order for the division to monitor their compliance with the ruling.

She also directed Ivy and Tiger to pay Frank $5,000 in compensatory damages for pain and humiliation.

The clubs' reports to the civil rights division would include a statement of the number of women who have bickered as well as the number rejected by each club, according to Poff.

Though the reports will also include explanations for the rejection of female bickerees, Poff stressed that the clubs could reject women whom they felt did not meet club standards for membership.

"At the end of two years we will evaluate whether further monitoring will be required," she added.

Poff declined to speculate on what specific factors would be involved in that evaluation.

In awarding $5,000 in damages, Poff doubled the amount Miller had determined in his January ruling.

"In reviewing the record, I find evidence that (Frank) was made to feel uncomfortable, upset and angry as a result of her pursuing her civil rights complaint," Poff said in her decision.

With her decision, Poff overturned much of Administrative Law Judge Robert Miller's Jan. 28 recommendation, in which he determined that the clubs could remain all-male by severing their ties with the university.

Poff did uphold, however, Miller's decision that Frank did not meet club standards and would not have been admitted even if she were male.

She noted that [Frank's] "radical philosophy and ideology" did not match those of either club. Frank did not, in fact, desire membership in either club, according to Poff. Instead, she acted against the principle of sex discrimination.

Poff ruled that because Ivy and Tiger have retained their ties with the university, they are subject to state laws prohibiting sexual discrimination in public accommodations.

The clubs have not severed their ties with the university. Instead, they have served as an essential part of the university community by feeding a substantial portion of the student body, according to Poff.

"(Ivy and Tiger) have clearly been supported by Princeton University, encouraged by Princeton University, in effect have assisted Princeton University" by providing meals for their members, she said.

Poff noted, however, that the clubs could alter the nature of the case by severing their remaining ties with the university. Such an action could remove the clubs from consideration as public accommodations, Poff explained.

She also criticized Miller's recommendation as "fundamentally flawed," because it ignored the historical ties between the clubs and the university.

"The relationship upon which (Miller) relied extends far beyond those ties which (Frank) seeks to sever," Poff argued in her decision, quoting from the exception the university filed to Miller's January recommendation.

Miller's recommendation also ignored "the larger question in (Ivy and Tiger's) role in feeding Princeton undergraduates," Poff said in her decision.

Mela exchanges between Ivy and Tiger and other coed clubs "link (Ivy and Tiger) to the club system at Princeton University (and) are as significant, if not more significant, than the ties noted by (Miller)," Poff added.

In ordering the clubs to report to the division each June for the next two years, Poff said she had determined that the university had no enforcement responsibility.

Though the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court would ordinarily be the next step in the appeals process, university counsel Thomas Wright '62 suggested that the clubs might appeal directly to the New Jersey Supreme Court in order to expedite the case. Further appeals would then go to the United States Supreme Court.

An appeal would probably allow the clubs to remain all-male until a final ruling is made, according to Wright. He said he thought the case could be resolved before next year's bicker.

New Jersey Attorney General Carry Edwards noted that appeals could keep the case in court for up to two more years.

Frank said yesterday that while she was encouraged to "finally have an order to admit women ... I would have liked membership."