The United States v. Virginia AICE: GP/Pavich LAW UNIT PRESENTATION
POWERPOINT CREDITS: Jill Pavich, NBCT Team Leader: AICE General Paper 8004 Boca Raton Community High School, PBCSD Jill.pavich@palmbeachschools.org Creator: theglobalpen.com edupavich@yahoo.com Please maintain credits to these materials. From one hardworking teacher to another, thank you!
United States v. Virginia: CASE BACKGROUND Who is taking whom to court? What aspect of the constitution is in question? Which amendment has been violated or is in question? What did the lower circuit courts have to say about this case? How did it end up at the United States Supreme Court?
Starting Simple: Main Idea The United States sued the Commonwealth of Virginia and Virginia Military Institute (VMI), alleging that VMI s exclusively male admission policy violated the 14 th Amendment s Equal Protection Clause.
The United States Who s Who: Prompted by a complaint to the Attorney General from a high school female interested in applying to VMI VS. The Commonwealth of VA and VMI VMI is the sole, single-sex school among Virginia s public institutions of higher learning. VMI s distinctive mission is to produce citizen soldiers, men prepared for leadership in civilian life and in military service.
The Fourteenth Amendment: 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.
District Courts Court Rulings Ruled in favor of VMI The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit APPEALED The Commonwealth of Virginia [cannot] justify its determination to afford VMI s unique type of program to men and not to women some women can meet the physical standards [not] inherently unsuitable
Court Rulings Continued The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Ordered VMI to choose one of the following options to remedy the situation: (1) admit women (2) establish parallel institutions or programs (3) abandon state support and operate privately instead VMI chose the second option Virginia Women s Institute for Leadership (VWIL)
Court Rulings Continued The District Court found that Virginia's proposal satisfied the Constitution's equal protection requirement, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed. The appeals court deferentially reviewed Virginia's plan and determined that provision of single-gender educational options was a legitimate objective. Maintenance of single-sex programs, the court concluded, was essential to that objective. The court recognized, however, that its analysis risked bypassing equal protection scrutiny, so it fashioned an additional test, asking whether VMI and VWIL students would receive 'substantively comparable' benefits. Although the Court of Appeals acknowledged that the VWIL degree lacked the historical benefit and prestige of a VMI degree, the court nevertheless found the educational opportunities at the two schools sufficiently comparable."
Sending it to the Supreme Court Does the Constitution's equal protection guarantee preclude Virginia from reserving exclusively to men the unique educational opportunities the Virginia Military Institute affords, and if so, is the creation of a women's-only academy sufficient to remedy the Constitutional violation?
United States v. Virginia: CASE DECISION @ the Supreme Court Which Justices were on the majority opinion? Who delivered the majority statement? What did the majority statement reveal? Who delivered the dissenting opinion? What did the dissenting opinion reveal?
Supreme Court Ruling The United States Supreme Court reversed the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit judgment in a 7-1 ruling. The majority opinion was presented by Justice Ginsburg and the single dissenting opinion came from Justice Scalia.
The MAJORITY opinion reads: The remedy proffered by Virginia maintains VMI as a male-only college while creating VWIL as a separate program for women BUT this does not cure the constitutional violation Originally, the Fourth Circuit failed to inquire whether the proposed remedy placed VWIL women denied the VMI advantage in the position they would have occupied in the absence of discrimination "Parties who seek to defend gender-based government action must demonstrate an 'exceedingly persuasive justification' for that action to meet the burden of justification, a State must show 'at least that the [challenged] classification serves 'important governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed' are 'substantially related to the achievement of those objectives'...
Lack of exceedingly persuasive justification + TOO MANY generalizations and sweeping statements about male/female tendencies ------------------------------------------- = NO winning case for VMI!!!
The DISSENTING Opinion Judge Scalia s dissenting opinion: Criticizes the court for misinterpreting previous precedents established in Hogan case regarding exceedingly persuasive justification Believes that it revises as opposed to preserves the established standards for reviewing sex-based classifications Expresses allegiance to VMI s longstanding tradition, moral principles taught, and its uniqueness
United States v. Virginia: RELEVANCE to CITIZEN AND STUDENT How does this case affect our society? How does this relate to my AICE: GP coursework? What new local, national, and/or international connections can be made to add to the AICE: GP framework?
RELEVANCE TO CITIZEN This case is important because According to the dissenting opinion, it marks the death of single-sex publication education, rendering it functionally dead Which means Any substantial educational benefits sourcing from this style of education will cease to exist i.e. the characters shaped from exposure to the adversative training of VMI will now be adjusted beyond recognition, unable to be replicated for females thus losing its power to effectively impact the student
STUDENT SYNTHESIS Connections to AICE: GP Curriculum Prompts: Laws are made by the powerful to protect their own interests. Examine this statement. Some people believe that all wars are unjust; others believe that war is justifiable under certain circumstances. Discuss your view. To what extent should the individual rely on others? Discuss. Upfront: A New Look in Baghdad Literature Brave New World
GLOBAL GP RELEVANCE The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) earned one win when the Supreme Court ruled a reversal of the Fourth Circuit s ruling. If we take a second to look around, the case of VMI and VWIL isn t an isolated one at all. Incidents of equal opportunity have been part of society for quite a long time. Suzie Kholber, a prominent ESPN analyst and anchor, wanted to play on her peewee football team in Upper Dublin, Pennsylvania when she was younger. Despite despotic naysayers, she was eventually permitted to play on the all boys football team. However, after threats and cruel treatment on and off the field, Suzie decided that her love for football would be better suited behind the anchor s desk! Hollywood has even taken to this debatable issue. The movie G.I Jane, while a successful film, had more of a lasting impact for its equal opportunity messages. The premise of the movie is in essence the depiction of VMI s rigorous training, only in the movie Demi Moore was training for the Navy Seals. Demi Moore, like all the new VMI female students, is a success story which confirms that prejudging a woman and not providing her with equal opportunities is unjust.
GLOBAL GP RELEVANCE Even throughout most of the last century, the American Medical Association classified homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder and did not abandon that position until 1973 when they started supporting gay rights organizations in the repeal of laws that discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation. Congress has in recent decades enacted numerous protections such as the Americans With Disabilities Act and other similar legislation to protect the rights of certain classes, i.e., physically and mentally disabled, persons with HIV/AIDS that has protected specific classes from discriminatory treatment. Legislation alone, however, has not been enough. Ongoing litigation in the U.S. Supreme Court indicates that even these legislative enactments have not been enough to protect all people from discriminatory treatment.
United States v. Virginia: CLOSING REMARKS
CLOSING REMARKS While Congressional enactment of civil rights laws has been a positive step and supposedly we are all created equal[ly], the courts are still working their way through interpreting issues raised by the federal civil rights laws as well as cases involving the Fourteenth Amendment. It is yet to be determined, and will always remain so, as to how the high court will determine the difference between those rights that are fundamental under the Constitution and those that will be classified as merely privileges. The final interpretations made by the U.S. Supreme Court in the civil rights arena when determining fundamental vs. privilege bears watching as it is these cases that will most greatly impact society as we know it in the future.
Works Cited Equal Protection. Cornell University Law School. N.d. 15 March 2010. http://topics.law.cornell.edu/ wex/equal_protection United States v. Virginia et. al. Find Law, For Legal Professionals. n.d. 11 March. 2010. <http:// laws.findlaw.com/us/000/u20026.html >.