Transcript United states v Virginia - Methacton School District

UNITED STATES
V
VIRGINIA
WOMEN & THE VIRGINIA MILITARY INSTITUTE
METHACTON PHYS. ED.
• Should Methacton Phys.
Ed. be co-educational?
• What, if any, are the
benefits to each
alternative?
• What, if any, are the
drawbacks to each
alternative?
VIRGINIA MILITARY INSTITUTE
• The Goal: to prepare citizen soldiers
VIRGINIA MILITARY INSTITUTE
• The Means:
• Rigorous physical training
• “Adversative Method”
• Spartan lifestyle, living in
barracks, sleeping on “hays”
(foam mats)
• Rat Mass
• The training "emphasizes
physical rigor, mental stress,
absolute equality of treatment,
absence of privacy, minute
regulation of behavior, and
indoctrination of values. . . .
designed to foster in V.M.I.
cadets doubts about previous
beliefs and experiences and to
instill in cadets new values . . .
[in] a hostile, spartan
environment. . . ."
FACTS ABOUT THE CASE
• VMI is a state-supported college
• It was created in 1839 as an all-male institution
• 7 month long experience for new students (rats)
similar to Marine Corps boot camp
• In 1990 the U.S. Government sued VA and VMI at
the request of a female student seeking admission
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE
• All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of
the United States and of the State wherein they
reside. No State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States; nor shall any State
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws.
• Government’s can treat different groups of people
differently only if such a classification serves an important
government objective such as promoting safety
FACTS ABOUT THE CASE
• VMI explained that its policy should be allowed
under the equal protection clause because it’s
school for men brought a diversity to the state of
Virginia’s otherwise coeducational system
• VMI claimed that if women were admitted, VMI
would have to change housing and training
requirements, which would fundamentally change
its distinctive “adversative” approach to education
• VMI offered to establish a separate program called
the VWIL – a program not very similar to VMI’s
training that would be only for women at a nearby
women’s college
QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER
• Did VMI’s male-only policy violate the equal
protection clause?
• Was VMI’s proposed remedy of a separate
program a legally acceptable alterative?
• In your opinion, was VMI’s goal of educating citizen
soldiers unsuitable for women?
• Was VMI’s men-only policy unconstitutional? If so,
what remedy should be offered?
• Should the Virginia Military Institute and the Citadel
be forced to admit women?
MAKING ITS WAY THROUGH THE COURTS
In 1991, the District Court ruled that "diversity in
education" was a legitimate state interest. Both V.M.I.'s
male-only admissions policy and its "distinctive
educational methods" were substantially related to this
legitimate interest. Therefore, V.M.I.'s exclusion of women
was upheld. The United States appealed.
A circuit judge wrote that the court would "not order
that women be admitted to V.M.I. if alternatives are
available" but would instead send back the case to the
District Court "to give to the commonwealth the
responsibility to select a course it chooses, so long as the
guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment are satisfied."
On June 26, 1996, the Court ruled seven to one that
V.M.I. must either forgo state funding or admit women.
RECENT ARTICLE
• VMI Continues to Work to Recruit Women