Brown Defends Sports Cuts, Says Lawyers for Brown Women Are Offering “Spurious Conspiracy Claims"
GoLocalProv News Team
Brown Defends Sports Cuts, Says Lawyers for Brown Women Are Offering “Spurious Conspiracy Claims"
Brown is now making serious charges, claiming plaintiffs "resorted to baseless accusations" and “spurious conspiracy claims” after Brown said it supplied clear data showing that it remains in full compliance with both Title IX and also a 1998 joint settlement agreement in the Cohen v. Brown case.
Last week, emails were released showing an effort by top administrators at Brown University and powerful alumni strategizing on how to minimize the impact of the 1998 agreement which dictates participation in women’s sports.
GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLASTBrown's Latest Legal Action
In a legal filing by the University in federal court supporting Brown’s decision to revise its roster of varsity sports, Brown “sharply rebutted claims against its strong commitment to female athletes and gender equity in athletics.”
Brown President Christina H. Paxson, whose statements appeared in recent filings, asserted that Brown’s concern over the restrictiveness of the Joint Agreement “is entirely separate from our unwavering support for equal opportunity for women in athletics.”
In May, Brown announced that is was cutting more than ten men's and women's sports -- and then decided to restore men's track and cross-country.
“Twenty-two years ago, Brown was clearly in violation of Title IX, and the Cohen agreement served an important purpose in creating opportunity for women athletes, but Brown’s engagement with issues of gender has changed,” Paxson said. “Since the original agreement, Brown has had two women presidents, our general counsel was a two-sport female varsity athlete at Brown, and we have one of the best records in varsity athletics among our peers for providing opportunities for woman student-athletes.”
The emails unveiled last week however showed Samuel Mencoff, a billionaire co-founder of Madison Dearborn Partners, one of the country’s leading private equity firms in the United States, expressing his frustration over the consent decree.
“But here’s an idea. Could 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?" wrote Mencoff in an email to Brown Christina Paxson.
Lynnette Labinger, an attorney for the Rhode Island ACLU representing the plaintiffs, told GoLocal that she has not seen Brown's filings but that "the University's [latest] claims are ridiculous."
“They have to come up with a plan, not a prediction. We believe that the need to put all of the teams back until they have a plan,” said Labinger.
“Brown’s claims are just ridiculous. If it was not so important it would be laughable, “ said Arthur Bryant, co-counsel with Labinger, who has been representing the plaintiffs since the inception of the case in the 1990s. Bryant is the former Chairman and Executive Director of Public Justice, a national public interest law firm created by trial lawyers.
“We have never claimed a conspiracy,” added Labinger, “This is utter desperation.”
According to Brown in a statement Wednesday, ”The Joint Agreement, which specifies that the fraction of varsity athletics opportunities for women must be within a fixed percent of the fraction of women in the undergraduate student body, is being used to challenge changes in Brown’s varsity sports lineup.”
“When they filed their Emergency Motion in June, Plaintiffs did not yet have access to the most recent roster Declaration Forms which unequivocally show that Brown will once again be in compliance with the Joint Agreement in the 2020-21 academic year,” Brown stated in its filing. “It is perhaps unsurprising that since Plaintiffs came into possession of that data, they have resorted to spurious conspiracy claims and focused their energies on the process that led to Brown’s decision, rather than the hard data that makes Brown’s compliance with the Joint Agreement all but a certainty.”
The University asserts, "The Joint Agreement, which settled a lawsuit filed by female athletes in the 1990s, established requirements at Brown for promoting equity in 'participation opportunities' for women and men student-athletes. The agreement is separate from the federal Title IX Education Amendments of 1972, the law prohibiting sex discrimination at federally funded institutions. The Joint Agreement imposes unique constraints on Brown’s athletics program that are not faced by any other college or university in the country, including the schools against which Brown’s teams compete."
Brown in their statement went on to claim, "The plaintiffs in the case have filed a motion asking the court to overturn Brown’s decision to transition five women’s varsity sports and three men’s varsity sports to club status, and to add two new varsity teams that provide significant participation opportunities for women. Plaintiffs claim this decision violates the 1998 Joint Agreement and claims it’s a so-called plan to 'dismantle' it."
Paxson said, “As someone who loves sports, routinely goes to the games and cheers these women athletes on, I have no intention on backsliding on our commitment to equity for women. It’s not only our legal obligation, it’s the right thing to do.”
“When you compare the percentage of opportunities Brown provides for female varsity athletes with the percentage of female undergraduate students, which is one of the standards in higher education that Title IX sets for meeting equity requirements, Brown is a leader,” Hayes said.
“The tactics being employed by the plaintiffs in this case have been shocking,” he said. “By making inferences and connections between unrelated statements, the plaintiffs, in this case, have built an absolutely false narrative about Brown’s commitment to diversity and gender equity."
Brown said its court filing presents "extensive data in a series of tables to demonstrate that plaintiffs provide no evidentiary basis for finding any violation.”
By the Numbers
With the recent changes in its varsity program, the Joint Agreement requires that the percentage of women’s participation in sports and the percentage of undergraduate women enrolled at Brown vary by less than 2.25%. For 2020-21, putting aside disruptions in athletics due to COVID-19, Brown expects this “variance” to be only 0.29%.
"Not only is this expected variance within the established limit, it is roughly seven times less than what is required under the agreement," said Brown. Also, Brown’s athletics rosters show an overall composition of 52% women student-athletes and 48% men student-athletes — "far exceeding participation numbers of women student-athletes at peer institutions and across the nation," the university asserted.
Brown’s filing states, “This is not a proceeding about whether Brown would prefer to be governed only by Title IX, rather than navigate the dual and different requirements of Title IX and the Joint Agreement. Brown officials are entitled to their subjective views on the Joint Agreement, even while they are committed to complying with it. Nor is this a proceeding about whether Brown followed Plaintiffs’ preferred process in deciding to transition certain varsity sports to club status."
“This is a proceeding about a single provision in the Joint Agreement — specifically, whether Brown unequivocally intends to commit a gross violation of the gender proportionality requirement for the 2020-21 academic year," said Brown. "Brown’s witnesses all stated that Brown intends to abide by the Joint Agreement, and the best roster information available demonstrates that it will in fact do so.”
This story was first published 9/2/20 5:55 PM