Ivy League Sports

The title of an entry in the 1992 Brown yearbook, Liber Brunensis, would prove prophetic. Its author, senior gymnast Amy Cohen, called her reflection, ”Winning a Losing Battle”; she was about to link her name with her alma mater’s in a lawsuit that would permanently define the implementation of Title IX across the country. Cohen wrote:

It is hard to put into words what the Brown gymnastics team has meant to me. It has been my heart and soul for the last four years. I will miss gymnastics like I have never missed anything before: the excitement, the tension, the anticipation and frustration, the laughter and silliness, the hard work, and the dedication. I know of no feeling like that of nailing a routine after hours, days, years of practice.

But it is not just the sport that I will miss as I leave Brown; it is the team. The women on the gymnastics team have been much more than just my teammates; they have been my confidants, my advisors, my party buddies, and my study partners. They have helped me through the tough times and shared with me the good times. It is not enough to say that they are my friends. I have found here a group of people with whom I share a bond that I believe no one but another college gymnast could understand.

There have been many highlights for the Brown gymnastics team while I have been here. Winning the Ivy title for the first time ever, getting a new gym, beating Yale, University of Vermont, and Southern Utah, breaking team records on every event, but the accomplishment that I am most proud of is having a team this year. While we lost our funding and our varsity status, we did not lose our spirit and enthusiasm. During my four years on the gymnastics team, I have learned lessons and gained memories that will last a lifetime.

Cohen’s words were just what a university administrator would hope an athlete would write about her college experience: except for the jarring reference to “lost ... funding and ... varsity status.” What did that mean?

In the spring of 1991, Brown President Vartan Gregorian announced a series of fiscal measures designed to eliminate a structural deficit in Brown’s budget. As part of its share in this university-wide effort, the athletic department withdrew institutional funding from four varsity teams: men’s water polo and golf and women’s gymnastics and volleyball.

A year later, Amy Cohen and other members of the two women’s teams sued Brown, alleging that Brown violated Title IX by denying equal athletic opportunities for women; because Cohen was the "first-named" plaintiff alphabetically, the class-action lawsuit took her name, Cohen et al. v. Brown. The women argued that although equivalent cuts had been made to the men’s program, the men had started with a greater number of participants, and thus an unfair disparity existed in the offerings for men and women. The case began in 1992 and wound its way through the federal district court in Rhode Island, the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court of the United States, which in 1997 denied Brown’s request to review the lower court decisions. The trial and appellate courts had all decided in favor of the student plaintiffs.

That period was difficult for all involved: for the student plaintiffs, who as they were graduating felt compelled to sue the college they had proudly represented; for men and women athletes, coaches, and administrators at Brown, particularly those who were directly involved in the litigation; and for the wider Brown community, which saw its institution portrayed as an opponent of women’s equality even as it operated one of the country’s oldest and largest women’s athletic programs.

In all Title IX actions there are two issues to be considered. The first is whether or not the student-athlete complainants are being provided with sufficient resources, such as facilities, scheduling, coaching assignments, and travel arrangements. The second issue is whether there are sufficient opportunities to participate, as measured by whether "interest" is met, or by whether the ratio of women’s to men’s intercollegiate athletic opportunities is sufficiently "proportionate" to the ratio of women and men in the undergraduate student body.

Brown had taken steps to address the resource concerns, and the plaintiffs agreed to settle this issue, with the students acknowledging that women’s teams had adequate funding and access to other resources. The proportionality issue, which caused the original complaint, remained unsettled. The plaintiffs continued to argue that there was unmet interest among the women students and, since the proportion of women athletes did not match the proportion of women students, Brown was obliged under Title IX to provide additional opportunities.

Brown’s position on this matter took center stage so forcefully that the public barely remembered the enhancements that had been made as a result of the first phase of the litigation. In response, Brown argued that it was providing “equitable” opportunities as measured against women’s actual “interests,” in that there were places available on existing teams that women students were not filling and, that data showed that women students were less interested generally than men in participating in sport. Brown also cited its long history of increasing women’s opportunities and argued that the court improperly took from Brown the right to design its own

compliance plan by dictating which sports would be added. They contended that such an intrusion of judicial power into the academy had possible implications beyond athletics.

The courts recognized Brown’s historic commitment to women’s athletic opportunities, but held that an institution could not rely on past expansion, no matter how extensive. They also held explicitly that the proportionality standard should govern institutional obligations, rather than inconclusive assessments of potential student interest, as argued by Brown. The University, however, was willing to carry its arguments to the Supreme Court.

This case was unique in many ways and thus Cohen attracted substantial media attention. Brown’s “proportionate” differences were far smaller than those in any other case that had come before a court, and Brown had an overall record that demonstrated it had provided for women’s athletic participation much better and much earlier than had most other schools in the country. Ironically the public stance taken by Brown’s legal team — that women are not as interested as men are in athletics participation — resulted in widespread thinking that Brown was not supportive of women’s athletics. Brown was also the first institution to continue to pursue the matter at the highest court of the land in order to protect what it saw as its academic freedom to determine its own institutional programs.

Ultimately the Supreme Court declined to review these holdings, and in April 1997 the district court accepted a proportionality plan from Brown that restored institutional funding to women’s gymnastics and volleyball and elevated the women’s lightweight crew, water polo, and equestrian teams to varsity status. The plan thus added a total of 60 varsity places for women athletes and set minimum roster figures for all women’s and men’s teams, as well as maximum team numbers in all men’s sports.

Amy Cohen had indeed “won a losing battle,” both in restoring and expanding teams at Brown and in helping define a clear national standard for Title IX compliance. But by the end of the litigation, Brown too benefitted with women’s sports finding a new stability and greater success. In the same year that the final settlement took effect, Brown won four of the 16 Ivy League women’s championships, including volleyball, with a team comprised of the successors of the original plaintiffs. And NCAA figures show that it had one of the five most extensive athletic programs, for both men and women, in the country.

When more student-athletes play, everyone wins.