By Amy Wiser

They were the club secretaries, bookkeepers, and pianists; the “girls in the typing pool” at the International Office.

But they weren’t Kiwanians.

They were the wives who packed sandwiches for children’s picnics and baked cakes for Christmas parties hosted by their husband’s clubs.

But they weren’t Kiwanians.

They were the “first ladies” smiling out from photographs, standing in support beside club presidents, district governors, and International Board members. 

But they weren’t Kiwanians.

They were the daughters, jaunting along to help dad’s club deliver hot meals and compassion’s warmth to lonely, elderly shut-ins. They were daughters who wanted to have a heart as big as their fathers’—to make a difference.

But they weren’t Kiwanians.

Until July 7, 1987—the day delegates at the 72nd Kiwanis International Convention in Washington, DC, voted overwhelmingly to allow women into membership.

Twenty years have passed since that historic decision. And while women are still acting as club secretaries, baking cakes for Christmas parties, and joining their dads in service projects, they’re also heading committees, running lucrative club fundraisers, and paving the way as presidents, district governors, and International-level leaders. To borrow an old ad slogan, when it comes to female members: Kiwanis, you’ve come a long way, baby.

Of course in 1915, when Kiwanis opened its doors as a men’s business networking organization, well, that’s just the way things were. Gender roles still were strictly divided and specific. And with the occasional exception of a Marie Curie or Virginia Woolf, mostly unwritten—yet often implied—gender “rules” extended to the home, office, and beyond. In 1915, it would have been just as rare to see a man balancing a baby on his hip and whipping up a homemade apple pie as it would have been to see a woman going toe to toe with male business colleagues in the boardroom. The concept of a gender-specific club wasn’t unique to Kiwanis, and in those days, 90-some years ago, inviting women to join simply was not an issue.

Still, it didn’t take long for someone, somewhere, to pose the question of women in Kiwanis. A photo in the April 1919 issue of the Kiwanis Torch identifies a “Miss Frances Bogie, Kiwanian, Life Member of Dallas club.” And an editorial column in the June 1919 issue asks: “If a woman doctor applied for admission in your club, would you take her? Could you take her?” From that editorial: We were talking to Ed. Thurman in Cleveland the other night, and he propounded this query: “What would happen if a Kiwanis club took a business woman as an active member?” as we know there is no rule to prohibit this. As far as we know, the subject has never been debated. The constitution and laws of the organization were all written with the idea of a man’s organization of course, but when one looks and sees the representative women dentists, lawyers, doctors, merchants, advertising managers, restaurant proprietors, and in almost every profession, we must realize that legislation on this subject should take place at an early date, or some club some place is going to take in one of these women and a (precedent) will have been established which will serve for the rest of the world. Your editor does not attempt to decide the question. He merely repeats it—“What would happen if a Kiwanis club took a business woman as an active member?”—Roe Fulkerson, editor-in-chief of the Kiwanis Torch/Kiwanis magazine

What would happen? Nothing—at least not for another few decades, because the Constitution and Bylaws adopted during the 1924 Denver, Colorado, convention, officially defined Kiwanis as “an organization of men,” halting any ideas about women in Kiwanis for the time being.

Miss Frances Bogie, Kiwanian, Life Member of Dallas club Is there more than one woman in Kiwanis? Should we call her a Kiwanian or a Kiwaness? Miss Bogie has been so good to Dallas in arranging their musical programs and cooperating with their entertainment committee that they have elected her a life member of the club.—The Kiwanis Torch, April 1919

But, as time perpetually is wont to do, the decades progressed, churning new ideas and new social norms. More and more women began crossing the gender lines and coming to the forefront in areas previously “off limits.”

“… the pros and cons of the issue (of female members) became increasingly evident,” wrote L.A. “Larry” Hapgood in his 1989 book Dimensions of Service: The Kiwanis Story. “In many cases clubs were seeking growth. Women were accepting new roles in the business and professional world. Why should such leaders continue to be excluded from membership in a local Kiwanis club? …

“… Hence, the question of women as members moved from its initial phase to one of rather quiet but determined action.”

Some clubs—and even districts—were ready to bring women into membership, but the International Board was not. As Hapgood explained, though clubs and districts submitted resolutions calling for change, the Board was reluctant “to prepare an amendment to the International Constitution and Bylaws or even to submit an administrative resolution to the delegate body to test the feeling of the delegates from clubs on the issue.”

Kiwanis clubs weren’t the only Kiwanis-family members thinking about female members. The issue had been simmering in Circle K as well, and, according to the booklet Fifty Years of CKI, in the late 1960s some Circle K clubs had begun quietly accepting women as members. Some clubs hid members’ genders on rosters by using initials instead of first names. Though an amendment to allow women into Circle K membership passed during the 1971 House of Delegates, the Kiwanis International Board did not approve the amendment. Circle K tried again in 1972, and in February 1973, the Kiwanis International Board approved the change, and Circle K became the first Kiwanis-family organization to officially admit female members.

That same year the Kiwanis Club of Olympus-Salt Lake City, Utah, proposed an amendment to allow individual clubs the option to decide for or against female members. The proposed amendment was defeated, as was another women’s membership amendment proposal in 1974. The issue was, however, gaining momentum, and, wrote Hapgood, “As the years passed, almost every International convention had an amendment presented with the continuing arguments for and against,” ultimately finding approval more than 10 years later.

In the meantime, Key Club International opened its doors to women in 1977, and Kiwanis clubs—similar to what Circle K clubs had done—began secretly admitting women and even openly defying the Constitution’s rule against them. In 1974, charters for the Kiwanis clubs of Great Neck, New York, and Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado Springs, Colorado, were revoked because the clubs allowed female members. Though the New York club took its case to court, it lost the case and a later appeal. (Read an editorial from the April 1975 edition of Kiwanis magazine, titled “Women in Kiwanis.” )

Wrote Hapgood: “It is entirely possible that Kiwanis club members and their leadership over the years leading into the 1980s missed the point regarding the great social change that was taking place.”

In 1985, the Kiwanis Club of Ridgewood, New Jersey, was informed it would no longer be allowed to use Kiwanis’ name and other registered service marks, because the club had violated the “men only” rule in admitting a female member. The club replied by notifying Kiwanis International that it intended to pursue legal action against Kiwanis International—which it did. In return, according to Hapgood, Kiwanis International filed a separate federal lawsuit “asking the court to stop the Ridgewood Kiwanis club from calling itself a Kiwanis club since it no longer met the criteria of one …”

By this time, Jaycees had begun allowing women into membership—per court order—and other service organizations, including Rotary International and Lions Club International, were involved in gender/membership court cases.

As more and more Kiwanis clubs took on unofficial female members (40 clubs in 16 states were said to have female members by 1987) and more and more delegates supported amendments in favor of female membership, the Kiwanis International Board decided enough was enough. In 1986, the Board crafted its own proposed amendment supporting women’s membership in Kiwanis. It was not approved; but the next year, following a Supreme Court decision prompting Rotary International to change its policies and allow female members, Kiwanis delegates overwhelmingly approved an amendment to bring women into Kiwanis. (Though the original proposal was to affect only North American clubs, the delegates amended the proposal, voting ultimately in favor of lifting gender restrictions on clubs worldwide.)

“I’m happy with the resolution of the issue,” then-International President Frank J. DiNoto told the Washington Post after the decision. “I think the ultimate result will be the strengthening of Kiwanis International.”

Indeed, 20 years later, his prediction proves true. Though they still represent just 25 percent of Kiwanis’ membership demographics, women have become leaders, innovators, and overall invaluable assets in clubs, divisions, and districts worldwide. They’re making a difference, and through Kiwanis, they’re changing the world, one child and one community at a time.

“Women in Kiwanis”—Kiwanis magazine, April 1975

A recurring topic that will again be brought by a club before the delegates at the International Convention in Atlanta is the question of the admission of women into membership in Kiwanis clubs. That this should be so is hardly surprising in the context of today’s ferment of social reevaluation and change.

The attempts of a very small number of clubs to admit women have gained widespread publicity in the past two years. More clubs are interested in the question, and certainly every Kiwanian has at least considered some of the pros and cons of such a change in the character of Kiwanis membership. Without attempting to present these arguments, a review of the situation to date and the nature of your International Board’s actions should be of value to all Kiwanians.

First, it is worth pointing out that if Kiwanis were not “in the mainstream,” if we were not innovators and leader, then Kiwanis would not be the organization that women want to join. Some other organization would be in the spotlight and Kiwanis would be ignored. The fact that women want to join Kiwanis is a positive endorsement of Kiwanis’ vitality and high standing in our communities.

And second, the real question under consideration must be sharply focused. The question is not whether women should be able to join a service club. Service clubs for women have existed for almost as long as Kiwanis. Other organizations are open to both men and women, the newest being Civitan, which dropped its male membership requirement last year. In defining its own membership requirement Kiwanis in no way suggests that women should not have the opportunity to participate in the service club movement, either by themselves or in partnership with men. No, the question under consideration is much more specific: should women be admitted as members of Kiwanis?

This question was placed before the delegates to the International Convention in Montreal in 1973 and again in Denver in 1974. In both cases the delegates overwhelmingly rejected a change in the established character of Kiwanis membership.

Since the Montreal Convention two Kiwanis clubs have attempted to admit women as members. In each case the club was notified that it was in violation of Kiwanis International’s Constitution and Bylaws and was granted a hearing before the International Board of Trustees. Following each hearing the Board, governed by the decisive action of the delegates at Convention, voted to revoke the charter of the club. At least one other club has moved to admit a woman as a member and several clubs have expressed an interest in doing so, but in these cases the clubs have not pursued the matter to the point at which International Board action is required. Altogether, less than a dozen of Kiwanis International’s 6,400 member clubs have been involved.

This is the story to date. Again it must be emphasized that Kiwanis International is not in disagreement with those who believe that their best contribution can be made as members of a service club that admits both men and women. Within the service club movement there is a role for organizations of men, of women, and of both. Kiwanis began as an organization for men, and by delegate action it remains so today. It may or may not remain so in the future. But so long as Kiwanis, as a private voluntary organization, has the right to determine its membership, the actions of the International Board will continue to be governed by the actions of the delegates representing Kiwanis International’s member clubs. And as it has in the past, Kiwanis will continue to cooperate closely with other community service organizations, whatever their membership requirements, to strengthen the service club movement for the benefit of all.

“Private groups retain right to choose”—KIWANIS magazine, April 1984

Do private organizations have the right to exclude persons from membership on the basis of gender?

This question has been addressed by a growing number of US court cases in recent years, and the answer is affirmative—provided that the organization is, indeed, private.

“The issue facing the courts today is not whether men should be admitted into membership in a women’s organization such as Altrusa or women into a men’s organization such as Kiwanis. The issue is who has the right to make the decision—the membership of the private organization or the government,” says attorney Robert A. Yothers, who has dealt with the legal issues closely both as a past chairman of the Conference of Private Organizations and as a Past Grand Exalted Ruler of the Elks.

Press reports about these court cases—including one now before the US Supreme Court—may have created an impression that, sooner or later, a court decision will require organizations in the US to amend membership rules that exclude men or women as a class. But any such impression is erroneous.

“Recent court cases have not challenged the right of private organizations to restrict their memberships according to gender,” Yothers notes, “but have questioned whether the organization is really a private organization or is, in fact, a public accommodation.”

Public accommodations offer facilities or services to members of the public and are therefore prohibited from discriminating under state statutes. A recent case decided by the Supreme Court of Alaska dealt with the US Jaycees, whose bylaws restrict membership to men between the ages of eighteen and thirty-five.

Women filed a class-action suit that made several claims, including a claim that the Jaycees was a public accommodation. The trial court rejected all claims except the public accommodation issue, holding that the public accommodation statute prohibited the Jaycees from discriminating on the basis of sex. The Alaska Supreme Court reversed the lower court, however.

A similar case in New York State involving the United States Power Squadrons, a fraternal organization for boating enthusiasts, produced an opposite result.

Before the court decision, the organization allowed women members only on a restricted basis. The suit raised the issue of public accommodation because the organization provides accommodations, facilities, and privileges to nonmembers, especially its extensive educational programs.

New York’s highest court agreed that the organization met the definition of a public accommodation because of the facilities and educational programs it offered to the public. Women must now be admitted as full members. That case has not been appealed to the US Supreme Court.

The case now before the US Supreme Court involving the US Jaycees deals with the same issue.

The Minnesota Department of Human Rights had ruled that the US Jaycees is a public accommodation and therefore cannot deny membership to women. The Minnesota Supreme Court found no evidence that any man between the ages of eighteen and thirty-five who wished to join had ever been refused and that the organization was a business facility whose serves and privileges were sold or otherwise made available to the public. However, that court disclaimed any intention to affect “private organizations such as the Kiwanis International organization.”

The Jaycees brought an action in federal court to prevent the State of Minnesota from enforcing the public accommodation law against it. After losing in the trial court, the Jaycees won on appeal to the US Court of Appeals. The State of Minnesota has now appealed this ruling to the US Supreme Court

“In all of these cases,” says Yothers, “the issue has not been whether a private organization can restrict its membership according to gender, but whether the organization in fact qualifies as a private organization rather than a public accommodation.

“It is very unlikely that the Supreme Court will overturn the basic constitutionally guaranteed right of freedom of association in private organizations. The decision to admit women into Kiwanis or men into Altrusa remains firmly in the hands of the members, not the government.”

“Kiwanis appeals court decision”—KIWANIS magazine, March 1986

Kiwanis International filed a complaint in the United States district court for New Jersey against the Kiwanis Club of Ridgewood, New Jersey, this past September. The club had admitted a woman member in violation of the Kiwanis International Constitution and Bylaws and had threatened legal action to prevent Kiwanis from withdrawing its license to use the organization’s name and registered service marks.

The Kiwanis International complaint asked the court to affirm the right of the organization to control the use of its name and official symbols and to enjoin the Ridgewood club from using them because the club did not meet Kiwanis club requirements.

On February 6, Judges H. Lee Sarokin ruled against Kiwanis International’s complaint and granted the Ridgewood club’s request to continue using the Kiwanis name and registered marks. The decision was based on the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, which forbids discrimination on the basis of sex in places of public accommodations.

The ruling applies only in New Jersey and is being appealed, according to International Secretary G.H. “Gil” Zitzelsberger.

“In his ruling, the judge acknowledged that the First Amendment to the US Constitution protects freedom of association for private groups,” says Secretary Gil. “The New Jersey law also specifically exempts ‘bona fide clubs… of a distinctly private nature.’ To reach his decision, the judge therefore ruled that Kiwanis is not a private organization. The highest courts in New York and Minnesota have ruled the opposite.”

The vital legal issue isn’t whether women should be admitted to Kiwanis or men to a women’s organization such as Zonta, Gil adds. Only club delegates to an annual International convention are free to amend membership rules. The basic legal issue is who has the right to decide: the government through judicial powers, or the members of private organizations through their democratic procedures.

The New Jersey ruling, meanwhile, has no effect on other Kiwanis clubs. Additional information will be found in the April issue of the Bulletin for Kiwanis Officers.

“Board proposes ‘genderless’ membership”—KIWANIS magazine, June/July 1986

A proposed amendment to the Kiwanis International Constitution that would eliminate gender as a membership requirement in the United States was drafted by the International Board at its April meeting.

The House of Delegates at the International Convention in Houston this June will be asked to adopt the proposed amendment, which is supported by the Board. Two similar amendments also were proposed, but withdrawn.

The Board’s amendment would permit clubs in non-US districts or nations to decide on the gender issue according to their own laws and customs.

“The debate over women’s membership has grown in intensity during the past decade and more,” says International President Donald E. Williams. “Major and permanent changes have occurred in social and economic life. As in the past, Kiwanis must adapt to the new terms of society and employment or permit its outstanding achievements and future prospects to fade away.”

Detailed information on the Board’s proposal and the need for Kiwanis to reassess its position on this issue was sent to clubs in April and May.

“Kiwanians write history, change membership rules”—KIWANIS magazine August 1987

For the first time in Kiwanis International’s seventy-two-year history, women are permitted to join the organization.

The landmark decision was made on July 7 at the 72nd Annual Kiwanis International Convention in Washington, DC, where delegates voted overwhelmingly to change the organization’s membership requirements. The decision became effective immediately.

During a stand-up vote, approximately 80 percent of the more than 5,600 voting delegates signaled a “yes” to the proposed amendment to the Kiwanis International Constitution and Bylaws that eliminated gender as a membership requirement.

The amendment, which was endorsed by the International Board, changed the Constitution’s wording to read: “The active membership of any club shall consist of persons of good character and community standing residing or having other community interests within the area of the club.” The word persons replaced men in the original provision.

“I’m happy with the resolution of the issue,” says Frank J. DiNoto, Kiwanis International President. “I think the ultimate result will be the strengthening of Kiwanis International. I see this change as an opportunity for Kiwanis clubs to increase their community service.

“Many women are prominent in business, the professions, and community leadership, and their active involvement in Kiwanis will strengthen our clubs’ abilities to build better communities.”

The original proposed amendment addressed the issue of membership in the United States only, and it left he matter open to Kiwanians in other nations. The delegates approved a motion by William M. Eagles, MD, 1973-74 Kiwanis International President, however, that made the amendment applicable in all Kiwanis nations and geographic areas, and that was the version upon which the delegates voted.

Past President Bill suggested the change because he believes “we should have some uniformity across Kiwanis International and should establish a worldwide, unified structure.”

A majority of the convention delegates agreed.

The delegates’ decision to eliminate gender as a membership requirement was influenced, no doubt by a recent US Supreme Court ruling that opened the membership of Rotary International to both sexes in California. Lions Club International decided at its convention this past July to accept women as club members.

Kiwanians have debated the women-membership issue for many years, and the subject first was addressed at the 1973 International Convention in Montréal, Québec. During the following years, the issue gained support, though never enough for the two-thirds majority vote required to amend the International Constitution.

At the International Convention in 1977, for example, only 15 percent of the delegates had voted in favor of a genderless membership requirement, and that figure has grown to 47 percent at this past year’s International Convention in Houston, Texas.

Though women now may be admitted to the organization, Kiwanis club membership remains by invitation only. And by inviting qualified individuals to become members, Kiwanis International can expand its service efforts in thousands of communities worldwide.

As one Kiwanian said at the Washington, DC, convention: “If we allow women to join Kiwanis clubs, we can enlist every available resource possible in our communities.”

No other membership requirement or procedure was changed by the amendment’s adoption.