Princeton Clubs Must Go Co-Ed

The state of New Jersey Wednesday ordered the last two all-male eating clubs at Princeton University to begin admitting women because the state considers them places of public accommodation rather than private organizations.

The New Jersey Division of Civil Rights also required the Tiger Inn Club and the Ivy Club to pay $5000 in damages to Sally Frank, who filed a sex discrimination suit against the clubs as a Princeton junior in 1979.

The decision was based on a New Jersey state law that forbids discrimination in places of public accommodation, so it does not have any direct effect on Harvard's nine all-male final clubs, legal experts said.

In addition, the eating clubs have a much closer relationship with Princeton than the final clubs do with Harvard, so the same laws may not apply, civil rights activists said.

Nearly three-quarters of all Princeton juniors and seniors eat their meals at the eating clubs, and 10 of the 12 clubs already admit women. Princeton has not severed ties with the clubs and the organizations have continued to receive benefits such as snowplowing and telephone services from the school.

About 10 percent of Harvard's male undergraduates are members of the exclusive final clubs. Two years ago, Harvard cut ties with the nine clubs and no longer provides heat and access to the Centrex phone system.

Deputy Director of the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights Jesus A. Rodriguez said that the eating clubs' close ties to Princeton played a crucial role in the state's decision to class the clubs as public accommodations.

The state rejected an earlier plan for the clubs to sever ties with Princeton because the university said it would not be feasible, Rodriguez said. "It would be very difficult to sever the relationship because members can bring student guests and the clubs receive assistance from the school," he said.

In addition, Rodriguez said that the idea ofsevering ties in order to avoid admitting womenran counter to the spirit of the state lawprohibiting discrimination. "That would be sayingthat disassociation gives them a license todiscriminate," he said.

While civil rights activists said the Princetondecision represents a blow against all-maleundergraduate clubs, they added that the Harvardfinal clubs may not qualify as publicaccommodations under Massachusetts law, so itcould, be difficult to bring a similar suitagainst them.

"The clubs clearly are private groups so theyare a much thornier issue," said John Roberts ofthe Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts.

However, attorney Arnold Bloom, who representsthe graduate council of the Harvard clubs, said,"The final clubs will really have to meet andconsider the [Princeton] decision."

The clubs will also have to consider theimplications of a recent Supreme Court decisionwhich upheld a California ruling that the RotaryClubs must admit women because the clubs qualifiedas public accommodations under a stateanti-discrimination law, Bloom said. The SupremeCourt found that the ruling did not violate RotaryClub members' freedom of association.

Wednesday's decision marks the culmination ofFrank's eight-year battle to force the clubs toadmit women. Her original suit also named a thirdclub and Princeton University, but Cottage Clubsettled the case last summer by agreeing to admitwomen and pay Frank $20,000 and Princeton paidFrank $27,500.

Princeton sophomore David R. Horn said thatmost students supported the decision, but membersof Ivy and Tiger Inn have decided to take the caseto the state's appeals court.

"The reason students joined an all-male clubwas because it was all-male, so they don't want itto go coed," Horn said.

Members of Ivy and Tiger Inn could not bereached for comment