United States v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Virginia Military Institute (VMI) operated an all-male training institute designed to develop citizen-soldiers. The institute employed an adversative model of instruction, which instilled doubts in a cadet about prior beliefs to develop a mentality that was ready to receive the values VMI wished to impart. VMI’s model incorporated physical rigor, psychological stress, equal treatment, and a total lack of privacy. Key to the adversative system and integrated into VMI’s unique program was life in the barracks, where cadets had no privacy, whether they were using the restroom or taking a shower. VMI’s program was likened to the Marine Corps boot camp. Pursuant to equal treatment, VMI had physical requirements that every student had to pass, without exception, in order to graduate. VMI was supported by the Commonwealth of Virginia (defendant). The United States (plaintiff) challenged VMI’s policy of enrolling only male students regardless of a female student’s qualifications as a violation of equal protection at a six-day trial. The United States Supreme Court had considered a similar case in which a male wanted to attend a university’s nursing school that had a female-only admissions policy. The Supreme Court rejected the discriminatory policy, noting that admitting male students would not require a change to the nursing school’s teaching style and that men did not dominate in classes in other nursing schools that admitted both genders. The Supreme Court did not believe that barring men from attending nursing school was needed to achieve the university’s goal. Additionally, the university’s stated goal for its admissions policy, affirmative action for women in compensation for past discrimination, did not pass the intermediate-scrutiny test. This was in stark contrast to the situation at VMI. Virginia’s goal was diversity in higher education through single-gender education, which evidence showed had benefited both genders at the undergraduate level. Also, the admission of women at VMI would significantly affect the adversative teaching style. Additionally, the passage of VMI’s physical test, required of every cadet for graduation, would result in a disproportionate number of women not graduating. For example, findings of fact from the United States Military Academy showed that 75 percent of female cadets scored beneath the bottom 5 percent of male cadets on the Army’s indoor obstacle course. VMI would have to develop a separate test for women or reduce the test requirements to accommodate both sexes, removing a key aspect of VMI’s program. Personal privacy would become a necessity. In short, VMI with female cadets present would be quite different from VMI with only male cadets. The belief that the admission of female students would significantly alter VMI’s unique training program was based on empirical evidence rather than archaic stereotypes.