United States v. Virginia (1996)
Saturday, November 28, 2009 at 2:50PM Read the opinion here.
Issue. Does the policy of the Virginia Military Institute ("VMI") that prohibits female cadets from enrolling violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution?
Background. VMI is an institution of higher education supported financially by the State of Virginia. It is unique in that its goals is to train citizen soldiers and its education includes vigorous Spartan and military-like training. It is also unique in that it is the only public institution of higher learning in Virginia that does not allow females.
When a female high school student sought admission, she sued (a case taken over by the United States) to be admitted and claimed that the policy violated the equal protection clause. The District Court sided with VMI. On appeal, the Court of Appeals overturned the decision and gave VMI 3 options: 1.) admit female cadets, 2.) set up an equal institution for women, or 3.) privatize the institution. VMI chose the second course and the District Court agreed that it did not violate the Constitution.
That did not satisfy the United States as the case went before the Supreme Court to determine if VMI's male-only admission policy violated the Equal Protection Clause, and, if so, what is the appropriate remedial measure? The Supreme Court decided that the School's policy violated the Equal Protection Clause and the only remedy was the admission of female cadets.
Court's Analysis. The Court clarified the "heightened scrutiny" standard that a State must meet for a gender-based differential to survive equal protection analysis. The reviewing court must determine whether the preferred justification for the distinction is "exceedingly persuasive." The burden is demanding and rests entirely with the State. Further, the State must show at least that the classification serves an important governmental objective and that the discriminatory means employed are substantially related to the achievement of those objectives.
The justification must be more than mere physical differences between men and women. In this case, Virginia claimed that the inclusion of women would undermine the unique educational experience of VMI in three ways - physical training, absence of privacy and the adversarial approach. First, the Court found that there is no reason why women who can meet the exacting physical training standards could not attend the school. Second, separate accommodations for women can be provided without undermining the unique educational experience (lack of privacy) provided by VMI.
Finally, while most women learn through nurturing "group activity", some women may prefer the adversarial system. Conversely, some men may not prefer such a system. Women are not being forced to attend VMI, they are seeking admission on the same level as men.
As such, a separate institution cannot recreate the unique educational experience and prestige that VMI provides. Therefore, the remedy provided by the Court of Appeals is inappropriate as it does not match the constitutional violation. The only appropriate remedy is to allow female cadets.
The Court is not requiring VMI to change its standards, but only to admit women who can meet those standards and provide them separate housing.
Afterword. It should be noted that the original female who sought admission to VMI dropped out of the school as she was unable to meet the vigorous physical requirements. Other women, however, have graduated.