University fears loss in Frank sexism suit

High University officials privately have expressed concern in recent weeks that the N.J. Division on Civil Rights will uphold senior Sally Frank's charges of sex discrimniation against the University and three Prospect Ave. Eating clubs, informed sources say.

Since Dec. 19, when the civil rights division reversed its earlier decision o dismiss the case, Frank's year-old complaint — which could force the University to break all ties with Cottage Club, Ivy Club and Tiger Inn — has fueled renewed apprehension in Nassau Hall, according to sources.

University counsel Thomas Wright '62 has briefed at least two trustee committees on the issue — the ad hoc committee on social alternatives on Jan. 24 and the Executive Committee last Friday.

Sources familiar with the Jan. 24 briefing, who asked to remain anonymous, said yesterday that Wright told the trustees he fears the University will lose the case at the level of the civil rights division.

"There didn't seem to be any doubt that he thought Frank was going to win," said one participant.

Wright denied yesterday "that characterization" of his statement to the trustees. "I don't think I've ever said flatly to anybody that we're going to lose this case," Wright said.

"I don't remember exactly what I said," Wright said. "I don't want to report what I said in the committee. We are talking about lawsuits and privileged information between a lawyer and a client. I don't want to comment on it."

Frank's complaint to the civil rights division alleges that the three selective eating clubs are not strictly private, but are associated closely with the University. The clubs and the University maintain they are autonomous for legal purposes.

The civil rights division now must determine whether there is "probable cause" for action on the complaint. If it rules for Frank, Wright said, the division first will bring the parties together in conciliation talks.

If the talks are unsuccessful, the cases will go to N.J. Superior Court for disposition.

Frank said yesterday she is encouraged by the University's reported concern.

The sex discrimination complaint could affect more than University-club relations. Because any ruling for the activist senior must assume that Princeton is a "public accommodation," the University would fall under scrutiny by state agencies monitoring admissions, housing, food services, hiring and scholarship programs.

Get the best of ‘the Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

This is no pleasant prospect for the University, which already must deal with similar federal agencies. "It's never an advantage to deal with another agency of the government," Wright said.

It is unclear how a decision against the University would affect proposals made by the Committee on Undergraduate Residential Life.

Meanwhile, to combat the possibility that her case might be declared moot upon graduation in June, Frank reported enlisted one or more women in the classes of 1981 and 1982 to consider joining her complaint.

A knowledgeable source, who declined to name the women involved, said they attempted to bicker this year at the three all-male eating clubs. They reported are considering joining with Frank as inidividuals or in a class-action complaint.