ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1997, Roanoke Times
DATE: Tuesday, April 22, 1997 TAG: 9704220094
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A-3 EDITION: METRO
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
SOURCE: KNIGHT-RIDDER NEWSPAPERS
The gender discrimination case began in 1991, when Brown University was accused of violating Title IX.
Women athletes won an important affirmative-action victory Monday in the Supreme Court.
Without comment, the justices let stand a lower-court ruling that the nation's colleges and universities said would subject them to a quota, forcing many schools to open new opportunities for female athletes - and cut men's teams.
The ruling requires a school to have ``gender parity between its student body and its athletic lineup,'' or show steady progress in that direction, or accommodate qualified women seeking to participate in sports. Under the ruling, at a school where half of the students are women, half of the participants in university-funded sports should be women.
As a result, universities with tight budgets will be forced to expand women's sports programs ``even if that means giving women ... a larger slice of a shrinking athletic-opportunity pie,'' Martin Michaelson, a lawyer for national associations of colleges and universities, told the high court.
The gender discrimination case arose in 1991 when Brown University, an Ivy League school in Providence, R.I., stopped supporting the men's golf and water polo teams and the women's gymnastics and volleyball teams.
Female gymnasts and volleyball players filed suit. They ultimately obtained a ruling that requires the university to restore the women's teams and increase athletic opportunities for women.
A Boston-based appeals court concluded that Brown had violated a federal civil rights law barring gender discrimination in government-run schools or private schools receiving government money.
The law, known as Title IX, is widely credited with revolutionizing women's sports by increasing participation and producing new respect for female athletes.
``One need look no further than the impressive performances of our country's women athletes in the 1996 Olympic Summer Games to see that Title IX has had a dramatic and positive impact on the capabilities of our women athletes, particularly in team sports,'' Senior Circuit Judge Hugh Bownes wrote for the appeals court in November.
Maureen Mahoney, in appealing to the Supreme Court on behalf of Brown, said the ruling left the university ``no choice but to set aside up to 51percent of its varsity opportunities for qualified women because 51 percent of its students were women.
``That stark numerical quota was required without regard to the fact that women do not represent 51percent of all interested athletes,'' Mahoney said. In fact, she told the court, in recent classes, only 42percent to 45percent of the Brown applicants interested in participating in sports were women.
But in the court opinion left intact Monday, Bownes said that evidence of lower interest among women than men could not justify fewer athletic opportunities for women. His reason: A lower level of interest is itself the result of ``women's historical lack of opportunities to participate in sports.''
Lynette Labinger, a Providence lawyer representing Brown's female athletes, said the dramatic growth of women's sports proves that ``once participation opportunities are provided, women athletes readily step forward to fill them.''
LENGTH: Medium: 68 linesby CNB