When Lisa J. Schkolnick '88 walked into the offices of the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) in December, 1987 to file a gender discrimination complaint against the all-male Fly Club, she expected to spark long-term debate over the fate of the final clubs. But she probably had no idea how long that debate would last.

Almost 18 months have passed since Schkolnick filed her complaint. But the case has still not been resolved, have also prolonged the investigation. In addition, MCAD's own lawyers have had to consider the legal implications of a decision.

MCAD normally takes 288 days to complete an investigation. Already, the Fly Club case has greatly exceeded that period, and Kathleen M. Allen, the commissioner assigned to the case, declines to speculate on when the investigation will end. She had originally expected to wrap up the proceedings last spring, but lawyers for both sides kept submitting more and more briefs for the commission to examine.

"We have many more facts than a year ago," she says. "New stuff has come up."

Allen says the complexity of public accommodations law and the sheer bulk of information submitted by attorneys have also prolonged the investigation. In addition, MCAD's own lawyers have had to consider the legal implications of a decision.

"The [time] issue is not about the number of lawyers," says Allen. "Each party wants to submit substantial details that support their case."

The case hinges on whether or not the club is a public organization, which is legally prohibited from discriminating on the basis of sex. Schkolnick's attorney has argued that the club's connections with graduate members, fundraising practices, open parties and the garden plot it manages jointly with the University make the Fly Club clearly public.

"We support the position that the club is subject to the law. What it is doing is illegal," says Kevin G. Baker, who is representing Schkolnick and the student group Stop Withholding Access Today (SWAT) as a public service. SWAT was added as a plaintiff to the case this spring.

But making a decision in the case is not as simple as Baker may portray it. "Someone just hearing about the case could say, 'That's easy--it has to be this,'" or 'It's couldn't possibly be this,'" says Allen. "It's not an easy question."

While Fly Club attorney Judith Malone says the agency should take "as much time as they feel they need" to completethe investigation, the plaintiffs' lawyer is notso sure.

"It is proper for the commission to keep up theinvestigating process, if it will make it morecomplete," says Baker. But he adds that the FlyClub's efforts to get in the last word are"petty," saying they have unnecessarily delayedthe case.

"They have had their chance to make theirargument," he says, although he adds, "I won'tbegrudge them the chance to rehash their argument.The fact of matter is they are thoroughly wrong."

Allen says that one reason the investigationproceedings seem to take so long is because thecommission is required to keep their proceedingsprivate. She admitted, however, that theinvestigation is taking longer than usual.

And the length of the investigation has had itseffects on SWAT and other groups trying to turnstudent opinion against the clubs. Earlier thisyear, Zealots in Protest (ZIP) started putting up"humorous" posters urging undergraduates to "ZIPthe Fly." But by the spring the posters haddisappeared. And many say that SWAT has lost themomentum it had in the months after Schkolnickfiled her complaint.

"Definitely enthusiasm waxes and wanes," saysSWAT President Jeanne F. Theoharis '91, sayingthat the best time for the MCAD to make a decisionwould have been at the end of last year, when SWATwas one of the major undergraduate clubs oncampus.