Newly Uncovered Documents Reveal Brown University Plan to Dismantle Title IX Agreement
PROVIDENCE, R.I. â A series of made public today reveal an intentional plan by Brown University officials to undermine and ultimately destroy a long-standing consent decree to comply with federal Title IX laws that ensure equal opportunity for female athletes at the university. In the documents, filed as part of a in following Brownâs decision this year to cut five womenâs varsity teams but only three menâs teams at the school, the officials express a desire to âkill this pestilential thing,â referring to the consent agreement. The documents also make clear that Brownâs officials preferred to force a dispute over the decades-old settlement of the litigation guaranteeing equality in athletics programs at Brown rather than comply with its terms.
Brown University President Christina Paxson, according to the documents, was focused on doing so in a way that would avoid riling up âthe [Amy] Cohens of the world,â a reference to the lead plaintiff in the original 1992 lawsuit against Brown that resulted in landmark rulings against Brown. The lawsuit settled in 1998, when the school agreed to guarantee gender equality in athletics opportunities. The materials referenced in the court filing today were obtained through a discovery request by the ÌÇĐÄVlogof Rhode Island and Public Justice, the organization that brought the original suit on behalf of Cohen and Brownâs female athletes.
âWhen we filed the motion to enforce the Courtâs order in June, we expressed concern that Brownâs commitment to gender equity and its women athletes was insincere and simply window-dressing. Through discovery, we learned the unfortunate truth: Brown does not care. Brown would rather dismantle the entire process that it claims prompted the downsizing than provide its women athletesâits own students--the program required by law and by the Courtâs order,â said Lynette Labinger, cooperating counsel for the ÌÇĐÄVlogof RI and the lead attorney in the original suit.
Under the existing decree, if Brown eliminates any womenâs varsity team, it must offer women and men student-athletes opportunities to participate in intercollegiate athletics within 2.25% points of womenâs and menâs undergraduate enrollment rates. That measure cannot be met with Brownâs proposal to eliminate womenâs varsity fencing, golf, squash, skiing and equestrian teams, while cutting only three menâs teams. Such cuts would result in a disproportionate impact on womenâs representation in the Brown athletics program that runs afoul of the maximum gender disparity allowed under the original agreement.
Email communications quoted in todayâs filing show that, after considering multiple proposals to cut athletic teams in a way that would comply with the agreement, Brown University Chancellor Samuel Mencoff ultimately suggested knowingly violating it as a way of challenging the decree in court, asking, âCould we use this moment, where anger and frustration, especially from track and squash, are intense and building to go after the Consent Decree once and for all? Could we channel all this emotion away from anger at Brown to anger at the court and kill this pestilential thing?â
Mencoff went on to explain that, âThe argument would be that the Consent Decree is forcing us to eliminate these sports, and the court would then be bombarded with e-mails and calls as we are now.â The Universityâs ultimate goal, the emails make clear, was to pit support for the originally-canceled menâs track, field, and cross-country teams, which include large numbers of Black athletes, against female athletes and the Court overseeing the litigation regarding compliance with the agreement.
âBrown University should be ashamed of itself,â said Arthur Bryant of Bailey & Glasser, LLP, the womenâs co-counsel and counsel in the original suit along with Leslie Brueckner of Public Justice. âTrying to turn anger over the mistreatment of Black athletes against women athletes, Title IX, and the Court? Outrageous. That is not how a responsible â or respectable â institution acts. Brown should be keeping its agreement to follow Title IX and provide gender equity, not trying to, as Brown put it, âkill this pestilential thing.ââ
âI am disappointed in how Brown has decided to approach this case. It seems to have little interest in doing what is right and is treating these young women as if they are nothing more than numbers on a page that can be manipulated in any way the University wants. Iâm also very concerned by the fact that Brown wants to end the consent decree so it can operate its athletic department in a way that will almost certainly violate Title IX again and provide less opportunities for female athletes. Brown tried to avoid admitting anything about its plan by fighting discovery attempts that would shed any light on it,â said Lori Bullock of Newkirk Zwagerman, co-counsel in the suit, along with the firmâs Jill Zwagerman. âIt took not one, not two, but three different discovery requests before Brown complied with any level of appropriate transparency. Its repeated attempts to hide the truth only underscores how damning it knew the truth to be.â
âThis Court should not tolerate Brownâs decision to use its women athletes as pawns in its bid to avoid compliance with the Joint Agreement,â the legal team says in yesterdayâs filing. âThese students are not âparticipation opportunitiesâ; they are human beings. Defendantsâ efforts to avoid responsibility for Brownâs illegal gender discrimination this year should be no more successful than they were when this suit was filed nearly 30 years ago.â
âBrown University's clear disdain for promoting gender equity in its athletic program is deeply disappointing,â added Steven Brown, Executive Director of the ÌÇĐÄVlogof Rhode Island. âI am hopeful that the judicial system will hold the university accountable and vindicate the important goals underlying Title IX.â
âWe proved Brown was violating Title IX over 25 years ago when it cut two thriving womenâs teams for crass budgetary reasons,â concluded Leslie Brueckner, Senior Attorney with Public Justice. âThis time around Brown doesnât even have that excuse. We are going to keep fighting for these female athletes for as long as it takes.â
A copy of todayâs as well as other supplemental filings (, , and ) containing excerpts from other documents and email conversations in addition to those quoted here, are available on the .