Work Sample

Context

This essay was written for my first year college writing seminar. I wrote a legal brief for a made up case about gender discrimination within fraternities not allowing women to join.

 

Law Offices of Ginsburg and Ginsburg, LLP

315 Martin’s Lane

Washington, DC 92020

 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

 

PAULA PARKER,

Plaintiff,

 

vs.

 

AMERICAN UNIVERSITY,

Defendant.

 Case No. 2223

 

DEMAND: ALL FRATERNITIES THAT AMERICAN UNIVERSITY RECOGNIZES OR ALLOWS TO USE CAMPUS FACILITIES OR RESOURCES MUST END THEIR DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE OF REFUSING TO ADMIT WOMEN TO MEMBERSHIP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stephanie Steinbacher

 

May 5, 2021

 

 

  1. INTRODUCTION

The Plaintiff, Paula Parker, alleges that American University (AU) is in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and of Title IX of the Civil Rights Act due to the gender discrimination by fraternities on campus. Paula Parker was denied the opportunity for admittance to a fraternity because she was a female. Fraternities offer strong connections on campus that follow a student after graduation. These connections award past and current members of fraternities with valuable social, economic, and professional opportunities. Being a member of a sorority simply does not provide the same benefits. The Defendant, however, claims that the establishment of fraternities for males and sororities for females is not in violation of these constitutional and statutory demands. AU further seeks dismissal because they claim they are not responsible for the actions of the fraternities. In order to remedy the discrimination that has taken place against Paula Parker, we seek compensatory damages. Furthermore, we seek that American University be enjoined from recognizing or allowing fraternities that refuse to admit woman to exist at American University.

  1. QUESTION PRESENTED TO THE COURT

Whether American University’s recognition and support of single-gender social organizations such as fraternities, which exclude membership from all students except those of the same sex, violates its obligations under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and Title IX of the Civil Rights Act to not discriminate on the basis of sex?

III. LEGAL PRECEDENTS

In the Supreme Court case United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996), the state was sued under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to determine whether it was discrimination not to allow women into the Virginia Military Institute. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment states:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

VMI is a public university that only admitted men.  One of VMI’s major arguments was that their practice was not in violation of the 14th Amendment since they were denying women, not because of their gender but because of their inability to handle the strict and grueling trainings that VMI required. Women would not survive in the conditions present at VMI, and, therefore, VMI had no choice but do not allow them into the program. VMI relied on stereotypes that insist women are not equipped to handle their training and educational setting. However, there was no data to back up these assumptions.

In the present case with AU, stereotypes are utilized by fraternities to justify not allowing women into their associations. With both the fraternities and VMI, there is no evidence to back up these claims. In the VMI case it was found to be unjust to discriminate on the grounds of stereotypes. To not allow admittance to an institution or an activity at an institution on the basis of stereotypes deprives the person of equal protection of the laws.

Another claim brought forth by VMI was that women would damage the community of brothers. There would have to be adjustments and accommodations made for women to attend. Women would not be able to handle the lack of privacy, and there would have to be uniform differences for them as well. Women simply were not the same as men and would ruin the sense of community created at VMI by everyone being the same gender. Within the VMI case, an argument about the perceived impact on the community was not grounds for prohibiting women. There was no proof that there are stronger bonds for groups of the same sex. The supreme court thus ruled that it was unconstitutional for VMI to discriminate against women and required VMI to allow woman into the school. The fraternities in the present case would proffer similar claims to VMI that women would hurt the dynamic and the male members would suffer from not having the strong brotherhood connection.

  1. ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE

AU’s recognition and approval of single-gender fraternities constitute unlawful discrimination against females based on their gender because American University is required to comply with the mandates of the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX of the Civil Rights Act. Title IX prohibits recipients of federal funding, including private colleges and universities, from discriminating against students on the basis of sex. The Supreme Court case of United States v. Virginia explored the mandates of the Equal Protection Clause with similar facts and determined that gender discrimination existed.

Title IX of the Civil Rights Act, 20 U.S. Code § 1681 states:

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

In this case, AU is an educational program that receives federal funding. AU recognizes and supports the fraternities by advertising their existence on the AU website and providing an employee to help with the interfraternity council. The actions of the fraternity are an extension of AU as they use the resources of AU, are supported by staffing at AU, and are advertised by AU. Therefore, American University must ensure that fraternities comply with the mandates of Title IX. The Supreme Court Case United States v. Virginia dealt with a public institution under the Equal Protection Clause. AU, the defendant here, is a private institution. This differentiation does not exclude AU from obligation under the Equal Protection Clause as a state actor as they receive federal funding.

Fraternities refusing to admit woman is gender discrimination because fraternities offer economic, educational, and social privileges to their members. They have a powerful alumni network. Since the first fraternity was founded in 1825, every U.S. president and vice president have been fraternity men besides two in each category. In addition, “76% of all Congressmen and Senators belong to a fraternity. 40 of 47 U.S. Supreme Court Justices since 1910 were fraternity men. 71% of those listed in ‘Who’s Who in America’ belong to a fraternity” (Fraternity Facts). One may be inclined to point out that these numbers simply show a larger systematic issue of sex discrimination. While it is true that there is a larger sex discrimination problem for these positions, these statistics are far too high to not have anything to do with fraternities. These statistics show that even when only looking at the men in these positions, such as presidents, there is a direct correlation between men in fraternities and men in power. By not allowing women to benefit from campus organizations in the same way that men benefit, American University is in violation of Title IX and Equal Protection Clause.

In the case, United States v. Virginia, stereotypes were used to back up claims that women could not be admitted since woman would not be able to handle the environment at VMI in the same way that men could. However, there was no evidence presented to back up the claim that women were unfit to handle the trainings at VMI due to their gender. Stereotypes are also offered as reasons for which fraternities do not allow women into their associations. According to stereotypes women do not have the characteristics associated with leadership. Characteristics associated with masculinity include strength, rationality, aggressiveness, independence, and objectivity. Characteristics association with femininity include “weakness, emotion, interdependence, need for protection, passiveness, and subjectivity,” (Sjoberg). The characteristics associated with masculinity are also linked with leadership while characteristics associated with femininity are not. Leaders are looked at as strong, independent and rational with a dominant voice. Leaders are not passive, weak, and interdependent, nor do they need protection.  There is no evidence to back up these stereotypes on women being weak and passive and it is unjust to discriminate on the grounds of stereotypes. To not allow admittance to an institution or an activity at an institution, such as a fraternity, on the basis of a stereotype deprives the person of equal protection of the laws. AU is violating the protections granted by the Equal Protection Clause in recognizing and supporting fraternities that rely on stereotypes unsupported by fact as reasons to deny woman admittance to membership.

One of the main pillars of fraternities is diversity, equality, and inclusion. The description on the website of the North American Interfraternity Conference promotes diversity for all men. However, there are instances in which they describe inclusion for all. What this means is that inclusion is only applicable to men. An organization cannot promote inclusion while excluding 50% of the population. In addition, fraternities still are not even inclusive for all men. There are significant differences still in the demographics of the men in these organizations. In an article published in The Century Foundation it points out that it is highly unlikely that someone in a lower economic class would be likely to afford the dues for fraternities. This article states, “At University of North Carolina, for example, average fraternity board and dues is $2,970 per semester; at a more expensive university, such as Kansas University, this figure could inflate to $5,300,” (Chang). The fraternities are fueling the rich white males in positions of power. By allowing these fraternities to discriminate against women, American University is also perpetuating this continued discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX.

  1. REFUTE THE OPPOSING VIEW

American University would allege that their Equal Employment and Opportunities policies promote gender equality and prohibits gender discrimination. On their website it states,

“The University prohibits discrimination and discriminatory harassment (including sexual harassment and sexual violence) against any AU community member on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex (including pregnancy), age, sexual orientation…” (“Equal Employment”).

American University claims that they are not in violation of these policies as they allow both men and women to associate based on gender. However, they are in violation because sororities and fraternities are not equal organizations. When women are unable to join the far superior organizations, it is discrimination on the basis of sex. In the VMI case this issue was examined as VMI had the ability to create an equal but separate school for women. However, The Supreme Court rejected the other option created by the Commonwealth of Virginia since it was not equal. In this case, sororities and fraternities are not equal. As discussed above, sororities do not offer an equal opportunity such as the strong alumni network.

One of the main reasons AU offers to defend the fraternities not allowing women are not is that woman membership will damage the brotherhood connection that fraternities pride themselves one. However, it has not been proven that a single-sex organization provides a strong bond and thus better experience for people. There is research to show that co-ed organizations can afford the same kind of opportunities as fraternities while eliminating gender stereotypes. In an article published about co-ed fraternities it describes, “While gender distribution between professional frats may vary, the presence of gender equality within these social groups is beneficial to gaining varied perspectives and potentially limiting the kind of mob mentality that can contribute to hazing and other harmful practices,” (Stokker). Students can be joined by common interests and form a sense of community based on that rather than gender. This also allows gender binary students to join in Greek life as they are often left out of the equation.

This issue was examined in the Virginia case. In that case, VMI offered as a reason for denying admittance to woman that it would alter the environment of strong brotherhood bonds that create a sense of community. In that case, the court rejected this position and found that VMI was in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. AU is also violating the equal protections and cannot excuse it behavior by offering a defense of brotherhood or destroying a sense of community.

In addition, American University will also claim to have no control over membership policies within fraternities. Yet, these organizations are still associated with the University. They have events on campus and have a huge impact on the social outlook of campus life. If American University has enough control to step in when there is hazing and other inappropriate practices taking place in fraternities, why are they unable to step in when there is discrimination taking place? The answer is that they can step in, they just do not want to. In 2017, Eighteen students were expelled for involvement in a rouge fraternity that had been linked to hazing, physical violence, sexual abuse, etc. (Mangan). It is time that the University takes its students into consideration instead of remaining passive as to not upset the fraternities. American University cannot claim that they have nothing to do with fraternities’ life when they use it to entice people to come to their university. American University advertises on their webpage for fraternities and sororities under their campus life page. On this very same webpage where American is clearly advertising the fraternities as a part of their university, there is a link to the staff members at American University that have responsibilities associated with the fraternities. American University cannot claim to have no ties with the fraternity when they employ three staff members to aid fraternities. There is also an interfraternity council at American University.

Instead of adding fuel to the fire by employing staff to aid fraternities, American University must take action to stop the discrimination. American University has not only a duty to ensure that its campus is free of discrimination and providing an equal opportunity for all of its students but also a responsibility to uphold the standards expressed in the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX.

  1. CONCLUSION AND DAMAGES REQUEST

In conclusion, Plaintiff asks the Court to rule in their favor and find that American University has a duty to ensure that fraternities that they recognize and support on campus do not discriminate based on gender. These fraternities clearly discriminated against Paula Parker when they would not allow her to rush based solely on her sex. Sororities and fraternities are not equal establishments and therefore this cannot be used as an excuse to keep women from having the same benefits that men have from these fraternities. American University must comply with the mandates of the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX of the Civil Rights Act by not recognizing or supporting any fraternity that discriminates in membership selection based on gender.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should declare that AU’s recognition and support of single-gender fraternities constitute unlawful gender-based discrimination, and order AU to disallow and prevent any fraternity that refuses to allow both males and females to join from being recognized in any way and using any campus facilities or resources.

  1. DAMAGES REQUEST
  2. We seek $500,000 in compensatory damages based on the emotional toll of discrimination that the fraternities at American University inflicted on Paula Parker and the disadvantages she had by not being able to participate in a fraternity while at University.
  3. We also seek $40,000 in attorney’s fees, based on an hourly rate of $500 per hour and a total of 80 hours worked on this case.

 

 

Works Cited

Chang, Clio. “Separate but Unequal in College Greek Life.” The Century Foundation, 2014, tcf.org/content/commentary/separate-but-unequal-in-college-greek-life/?agreed=1&session=1.

“Equal Employment.” American University, 2021, www.american.edu/hr/faculty-staff/equalemployment.cfm.

Fraternity Facts. www.uwgreek.com/frat/home.html.

Mangan, Katherine. “American U. Expels 18 Students for Involvement in Rogue Frat.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 23 July 2020, www.chronicle.com/article/american-u-expels-18-students-for-involvement-in-rogue-frat/?cid=gen_sign_in.

Sjoberg, Laura. “Feminism: Seeing Gender in Global Politics.” Building Your IR Theory Toolbox, edited by Erik Leonard, Rowman & Littlefield, 2018, pp. 107–134.

Stokker, Mallory. “Co-Ed Frats Provide Good Alternative to Gender-Exclusive Greek Life.” The Daily Orange, 2020, dailyorange.com/2020/01/co-ed-frats-provide-good-alternative-gender-exclusive-greek-life/.

 

Reflection

This brief was written in my second semester of college. As I believe I have done well and shown a bit of my strengths, there is much room for improvement. I am excited to continue my college career and strengthening my writings.