The trustees of Princeton University have filed a strongly worded exception to a judge's non-binding recommendation that two all-male eating clubs be able to keep their long-standing admission policies and not admit women, so long as they sever ties with the university.

The exception outlines the university's objections to the recommendation of Administrative Judge Robert Miller on the case of Sally Frank, filed in 1979 by a female undergraduate who was denied admission to the all-male eating clubs.

All parties involved may file an exception outlining their objections to Miller's recommendation with Pamela Poff, director of the New Jersey Division for Civil Rights. Frank originally filed her suit with the division, and it is that office that has jurisdiction over the final ruling.

Poff is expected to deliver the final, binding decision some time early next month.

"The university finds the judge's solution unrealistic," said Justin Harmon, a university press officer. "The ties between the university and the eating clubs go much deeper than the superficial ones specified by the judge," he said.

The university's role in the Frank case appeared to be ended when last September Princeton reached a $2500 settlement with Frank, who graduated the school in 1980.

Miller stated in his recommendation, which he wrote after conducting several hearings on the case, that the simplest solution would be for the clubs to break their ties with Princeton and for the clubs to assume the status of private institutions.

He explained that the clubs were already legally separate from the university because they are owned and operated by students and alumni, and he stated that the ties that exist between the clubs and the university are mostly superficial.

The clubs have expressed their satisfaction with the court's decision. "All of us are really happy that the courts have affirmed our freedom of association," said William T. Russell, president of the Tiger Inn, after Miller's ruling.

Harmon said that there are two possible outcomes that would satisfy the university's wishes. First, Poff could find that the clubs fall within state jurisdiction, thus forcing the clubs to accept women.

The other viable alternative, Harmon said, would be for Poff to outline exactly what steps must be taken by the university to completely separate the clubs from the school. "We would have to make the clubs private in everybody's eyes," he said.

If neither of these outcomes are reached, the university would be left open to other lawsuits similar to the Frank case, he said "There's no reason to expose the clubs and university to endless litigation," Harmon said.

"I don't think there is realistic way to make clubs truly independent from the university," said Harmon.

Both all-male clubs, the Ivy Club and the Tiger Inn, said they are content with Miller's ruling. However, they have filed exceptions of their own, against Princeton's renewed involvement in the Frank case, The Daily Princetonian reported.

But Harmon said that the university's settlement in no way prevented it from filing the written exception.

Ivy Club president Jeff Van Fossen said he was uncertain about the details of the actions of his club's lawyers. The Ivy Club's lawyer, Barbara Nelson, was unavailable for comment. Members of the Tiger Inn refused to specify where their lawyer's office was located.

If forced to choose between changing their admission policies and breaking ties with the university, the clubs would "definitely take the path of dissociation," Van Fossen said.

He said that the club's connections with the university were few and he said that "breaking these ties will not have dire consequences."

If the clubs are forced to disassociate, they will no longer be able to field intramural sports teams.

In addition, the clubs will not be able to participate in the university's food exchange system, so underclassmen will only be able to eat at the Ivy and Tiger clubs as invited guests.