Law: Storming The Last Male Bastion

• Share

There are about as many women on the membership lists of some of the nation's exclusive private clubs as there are in the lineup of the Los Angeles Rams. Not that life at such all male places is that strenuous; how much muscle does it take to pick up a lunch check? Yet amid the antique rugs and deep leather chairs, the clubs do furnish a setting for the exertions of professional life: back slapping, ego massage and one "contact" sport -- making business connections. In short, though they offer relaxation, the clubs are places of business too. Meal tabs and annual dues that can run into the thousands of dollars are often picked up by a member's employer as a business expense.

For that reason the men-only policy of many clubs has been not just a slight to women but a professional liability. Some women guests have experienced real humiliations too, being shunted inside through kitchens or hustled around to the back door. So it was a gratifying day for them last week when the U.S. Supreme Court in effect held the front door open. The court unanimously upheld a New York City law that bans such discrimination at many private clubs. Boston, Buffalo, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Washington have already passed similar laws. More such ordinances are now expected. Says Donna Lenhoff of the Women's Legal Defense Fund: "The last bastion of white male power will be forced to throw in the towel."

The decision was not a surprise. In a 1984 case involving the Jaycees and in a 1987 ruling involving the Rotary International, the Justices unanimously decided that states could use laws that ban discrimination in public accommodations to compel some private organizations to admit women. Similarly, the New York ordinance was written to apply to private clubs that are in some respects public. To be affected, they must have more than 400 members and regularly serve meals and obtain revenues from nonmembers "for the furtherance of trade or business." Four of the city's most prestigious men's clubs meet those criteria.

Though the law forbids discrimination on the basis of race, religion and national origin, among other things, gender was the main issue. Women were the only group that most clubs would confess to barring. The ordinance had been challenged in court by the New York State Club Association, which claimed that it violated the right of free association. Not so, said Justice Byron White, writing for the court. "It may well be that a considerable amount of private or intimate association occurs in such a setting . . . but that fact alone does not afford the entity as a whole any constitutional immunity to practice discrimination." White did indicate, however, that individual clubs could still challenge the law by attempting to prove, for example, that they were formed primarily for religious purposes or to further particular ideas.

Though few Americans are directly affected, the ruling had a potent symbolic value. The men's club is a prime emblem of male bonding, a tree house with more comfortable seating. Men's club members tend to be highly visible figures in the community, the business world, even on the bench; in the past few months, Justices Anthony Kennedy and Harry Blackmun resigned from private clubs that bar women.