UNITED STATES v. VIRGINIA This research paper d

After a protracted battle in federal courts, the Supreme Court decided by a seven-to-one majority that VMI's all-male admission policy violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The majority acknowledged that VMI's adversative method of instruction for training citizen-soldiers was unique and had substantial value. However, Justice Ruth Ginsburg for the majority said that its admissions policy had failed to pass a "heightened scrutiny" test because the state of Virginia had failed to establish "an exceedingly persuasive justification" for the way in which it classified the genders for admission purposes.

She said the true purpose of that admissions policy was not to further a legitimate state interest in promoting diversity in higher education but rather to discriminate against women. She found that VMI's remedial program (VWIL discussed below) did not offer women a comparable opportunity to experience the rigorous military training and other educational experiences that VMI offered to men. Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote a concurring opinion, and Justice

. . .
e was faced with the stark choice of either admitting women to VMI, on the one hand, or abandoning VMI and starting from scratch for both men or women, on the other." Justice Scalia's Dissent. In his scathing dissenting opinion, Justice Scalia says, whatever standard of scrutiny of VMI's actions is appropriate, the Court should not overturn long-established traditions on Equal Protection grounds. That is a task for the legislature, not the courts. VMI's single-sex admission policy and "tradition of having government-funded military schools for men is . . . [a] well-rooted tradition;" its invalidation by the Court "is not law, but politics-smuggled-into-law." Scalia points out that the history of the 14th Amendment does not support the majority's interpretation that it was intended to be applied to gender discrimination in higher education. In support of Scalia's reading of history, Rosen documents those discussions over the Civil Rights Act of 1870 and the 14th Amendment (6). Ginsburg's reply, which is inherent in the spirit of her opinion, would be that times change and so does the Court's interpretation of the meaning of the Constitution. Scalia argued that the Court had, in effect, applied a strict scrutiny test but that, u
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Justice Ginsburg, Justice Ginsburg's, Supreme Court, Univ Hogan, Ruth Ginsburg, Justice Scalia, Josiah Bunting, Ginsburg VMI, York City, Equal Protection, equal protection, public schools, 14th amendment, equal protection clause, dissenting opinion, vwil program, protection clause, vmi decision, single-sex public, single-sex colleges, scrutiny test, single-sex public schools, adversative method instruction, women applicants vmi, justice ruth ginsburg,
Approximate Word count = 2599
Approximate Pages = 10 (250 words per page)