Getting In

A boost for women's rights

Geraldine Cannon, now a surgical nurse at Skokie Valley Community Hospital in Illinois, wanted to become a doctor. But when she applied to the University of Chicago and Northwestern medical schools in 1974, Cannon, then 39 and a senior at Trinity College (Illinois), was told that anyone over the age of 30 had little chance of being admitted. This struck her as unfair to women, who are more likely than men to take time off from education to raise a family. Herself a grandmother, Cannon complained to the Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

There her complaint vanished into the bureaucratic maze. So she took her case to federal court. But a lower court and a court of appeals both told her that she had no right to sue. Only HEW, they ruled, could enforce the section of the civil rights laws, Title IX, that bans sex discrimination against students and applicants to educational institutions receiving federal funds. Since HEW is hopelessly backlogged with discrimination complaints and reluctant to use its only sanction--stripping an institution of federal funds--Cannon was back at Square 1.

That is, until last week. Finding an "implied right" in Title IX, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 that individuals can indeed bring sex discrimination suits against schools and colleges. Women's groups immediately hailed the decision as a breakthrough for women's rights. So did White House Special Assistant Sarah Weddington, who argued that it was better to have individuals assert their rights in court than rely on an already overburdened HEW. Legal experts noted that the decision will not only make it easier to bring sex discrimination cases but racial discrimination cases as well, since the statutory language of Title VI (race) is the same as Title IX (sex).

Actually, individuals have already brought suit under Title VI and Title IX, and many civil rights lawyers and courts have assumed all along that they could. The high court's decision simply removes any doubt and makes people aware of their rights. Says Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe: "Once the Supreme Court gives the green light, you can expect more suits."

What worried Justice Lewis Powell, who dissented from the majority, is that there will be too many suits from frustrated applicants, and that universities will be forced to base admission solely on objective criteria, like grades and entrance exam scores, rather than more flexible human judgment. That way, explains Chicago Medical School Dean Robert Uretz, "if you get accused of discriminating, you can say, 'Well, look at the scores.'" In fact, says Uretz, if Cannon is judged purely by her scores she stands no chance of getting in: there were 2,000 applicants with better academic qualifications than hers who were also rejected.

Ironically, he adds, Cannon's victory for women's rights may end up hurting minority candidates who tend to score worse than whites on entrance exams. But the risk that discrimination suits brought by one group might backfire against another group is no reason to "simply shut the courthouse doors," says Tribe. That places too little faith in the courts to work out fair solutions. A more basic justification for a private right to sue is one recognized by the high court last week: if Congress passes a law against discrimination, there has got to be an effective way to enforce it.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.