SEPARATE BUT EQUAL AT HARVARD: “In the old days, Harvard would have laughed if some Catholic or evangelical mother urged ‘girls-only’ campus workouts in the name of modesty. Today, Harvard happily implements Sharia swim times in the name of Mohammed.”

The Saudis think they’re buying Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, etc. Actually they’re just accelerating their marginalization. Meanwhile, GWU Prof. John Banzhaf emails that this is almost certainly illegal:

In 1998 a female weight lifter in Boston was awarded $5000 when she was denied admission to a male-only section of a gym which had a separate gym area for women. The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination made the ruling despite arguments that separate weight-lifting areas were necessary to prevent “sexual harassment,” and a finding that it did in fact tend to reduce sexual harassment. [Hassan and DiCenso v. City of Boston, et al., 20 MDLR 83]

Just a year earlier Superior Court Judge Burnes ruled that a “women only” health club violates Massachusetts’ public accommodation statute by refusing to admit men, and could not justify its policy on privacy grounds. [Foster v. Back Bay Spas, d/b/a/ Healthworks Fitness Center, Suffolk Superior Court No. 96-7060 (1997).]

Although the legislature responded by exempting some health clubs which are established solely for use by one gender, that exemption does not appear to apply here because the gym is used by both genders together during most times of the day, and because Harvard receives public funds.

I had wondered about that very thing myself. “Given Harvard’s stellar law school, it’s surprising that it would take this action in the face of such clear precedent,” says Banzhaf. “It would be even more surprising if one or more male students didn’t take them to court over such a clear violation as my law students have so often.”

UPDATE: Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, and The University of Texas.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Eugene Volokh thinks that Banzhaf may be wrong.