Lessons about autonomy and integration from international human rights, law journals, and the world of golf.

• Author: Bruch, Elizabeth M.
• Position: Why a Feminist Law Journal?

In this essay I will consider the questions posed by the symposium--"why have a feminist law journal?" and the specific question of this panel, "which master, autonomy or integration, do we or should we serve?"--together with the parallel questions that arise in the debate among international human rights advocates and scholars about whether to address women's human rights issues separately from "mainstream" human rights. However, I want to begin on a slightly different (but not unrelated) topic: women and sports. I am relatively newly married and, in one of those important early negotiations of couplehood, I agreed to let my husband educate me about golf; in return, he has agreed to develop a deeper appreciation for feminist theory. Our interests have coincided in a series of recent events in the sporting world. Let me provide just a few highlights.

In May of this year, Annika Sorenstam, often called "the world's most dominant female golfer," participated in the Colonial Invitational, an event on the Professional Golfers' Association (PGA) Tour. Sorenstam played from the same tees as the men, with no special accommodations. According to the Washington Post, her decision to play the event "touched off debate among men and women over whether the experiment is good for the sport and whether Sorenstam can ultimately compete." (1) It touched off that same debate in my house. Other versions of this drama are playing out elsewhere in the world of golf and have provoked significant emotion, especially if accommodations, such as closer tees, are made for women. (2)

Then there is the controversy about this year's Masters Tournament, one of the most prestigious events of the PGA Tour, held at Augusta National Golf Club, a private club that does not allow women to become members. Martha Burk of the National Council of Women's Organizations has been a vocal opponent, and the council has argued that the club, in light of its very public role, should not be permitted to exclude women. They argue that the PGA and CBS, which broadcasted the event, are complicit in this sex discrimination. (3) There has been heated commentary on both sides of the issue--but many of the well-known figures of golf, such as Tiger Woods, have been largely silent. (4)

Finally, there are the current discussions over the future of Title IX, the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in any educational program or activity that receives federal funds. (5) Although it applies to all educational opportunities, it is best known for its impact on sports. The biggest issues are a round funding and the loss of some men's programs, allegedly a s a result of the need to divert funds to women's programs. Those who protest Title IX often argue that an equal allocation of funds and opportunities does not make sense because women are "just not as interested in sports as men.

There is certainly a great deal of ambiguity in our feelings about women and sports, perhaps because men's sports continue to define our normative conception of sports. Women are the extra letter--the WNBA or LPGA--or the illegitimate competitors who get "special treatment" (or, yes, the cheerleaders). Because men's sports are so powerful and sports is still so powerfully gendered male, (7) these current controversies highlight all the hard issues of differences between women and men--the physical differences (though not with the usual focus on sexuality and reproduction) and also differences in history, interest, and opportunity. I think they "tee up" consideration of recurring themes about autonomy versus integration. Should women and men be treated the same or measured by a different standard? Do we want to play together or on our own? How much of the difference between women and men, even in the physical realm, is "real" and how much is constructed? Because I am a human rights teacher and lawyer (and not much of a golfer), I want to consider how these questions play out in the international human rights arena, and I will try to draw it all together briefly at the end.

By way of background, I should explain that within the United Nations (UN) system, there are instruments and mechanisms directed at promoting and protecting human rights such as the Human Rights Commission and the Human Rights Committee, and there are separate instruments and mechanisms intended to address women's issues such as the Commission on the Status of Women and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women ("CEDAW Committee"). (8) Feminists have increasingly criticized the international system for this bifurcated approach to human rights and women's rights, raising the call prominently at the 1995 Beijing Conference and elsewhere that "women's rights are human rights." (9) The criticism is directed not just at the purported substantive split or division of subject matter, but also at the practical realities involved. Typically, the "mainstream" human rights mechanisms have greater prestige, larger and predominantly male membership, generate more attention to their findings, and have better working conditions and longer working sessions than the women's rights mechanisms. (10)

In considering our topic for the symposium panel, I wonder if there are not many similar concerns that arise in the context of a feminist law journal--specifically denominated as such and separate from the "mainstream" law journals. Does the separation of feminist law journals from other law journals provide a forum for discussion of gender issues that would otherwise...