Yes, Brown very likely broke the law. The judge used a three-part fairness test, and Brown failed all three parts. First, the number of female athletes wasn't close to the number of female students, which is unfair. Second, Brown wasn't showing a history of trying to fix this imbalance by adding more women's sports. Third, by cutting two successful women's teams that students wanted to play on, Brown proved it was not meeting the athletic needs of its female students. The judge said that calling a team a 'club' team isn't the same as a real 'varsity' team because they lose all the support they need to compete at a high level.

Yes, Brown University was unfair. The judge said that Brown didn't give women the same chances to play sports as men, which is against the rules. The judge told Brown to make the women's gymnastics and volleyball teams important again and not to make any other women's teams less important until everything was sorted out. The judge also said that just giving the women's track team an indoor space wasn't enough and that the volleyball and gymnastics teams got worse after being made less important. The judge reminded everyone that it's important to follow the laws that Congress says are important.

—granting preliminary injunction after school demoted two men's and two women's varsity teams, affecting between 34 and 37 men and between 22 and 23 women

Subsequently, after hearing fourteen days of testimony, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, ordering, inter alia, that the women's gymnastics and volleyball teams be reinstated to university-funded varsity status, and prohibiting Brown from eliminating or reducing the status or funding of any existing women's intercollegiate varsity team …

In May 1991, Brown University reduced four teams, two men's and two women's teams, from varsity to intercollegiate club status

Thus, in determining compliance under § 106.41 (c)(1), a court must conduct a two step analysis. First, it should apply the three-part test, and second, it should apply the two questions on competitive opportunities. A violation of § 106.41 (c)(1) can occur in either one of these two steps, or in both

—stating that “Brown University is ordered to take the following actions immediately:(1) Restore women' s gymnastics and women' s volleyball to their former status as fully funded intercollegiate varsity teams in Brown' s intercollegiate athletic program

—dismissing the alleged addition of winter track as "a sport that merely involved providing indoor space to the existing women's track team

By contrast, the court noted the volleyball and gymnastics programs' continuing deterioration in the aftermath of the demotion.

At the preliminary injunction stage, the appropriate remedy when a school seeks to eliminate a women's team in violation of Title IX is typically an injunction that prevents them from doing so.

Brown University defended its elimination of two female athletic programs to meet budget requirements, by arguing that the three-part test discriminates against male athletes who are more interested in sports than women.

T] he public interest will be served by vindicating a legal interest that Congress has determined to be an important one

Yes, for the purpose of a preliminary injunction, Brown's athletic program is likely in violation of Title IX. A university fails to provide equal athletic opportunities under Title IX when it does not meet any part of the Department of Education's three-part test for accommodating the interests and abilities of both sexes. Brown fails the first part of the test because the percentage of female varsity athletes (36.7%) is not substantially proportionate to the percentage of female undergraduates (48%). Brown fails the second part because it has not demonstrated a continuing practice of program expansion for women; no new women's varsity team has been added since 1982. Finally, Brown fails the third part because by eliminating two viable and successful women's varsity teams where interest and ability clearly exist, it is not fully and effectively accommodating the interests of its female athletes. Demoting a team to 'intercollegiate club' status is not equivalent to varsity status, as it entails the loss of critical university support, funding, and recruiting advantages necessary for high-level competition.

Yes. Brown University violated Title IX because it did not provide women with equal opportunities in the operation of its intercollegiate athletic program. The court found that Brown's actions were not substantially proportionate to the gender distribution of the undergraduate population, did not show a history of program expansion for women, and did not fully and effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of women athletes. The court ordered Brown to restore the demoted women's teams to full varsity status and prohibited the reduction of other women's teams until the case was resolved on the merits. The court also dismissed Brown's addition of winter track as a sport for women as inadequate, noting the continuing deterioration of the volleyball and gymnastics programs after demotion. The court emphasized that the public interest is served by enforcing legal interests deemed important by Congress.

Cohen v. Brown University

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot