Gender Discrimination U. S. v. Virginia (1996) Changes the Prevailing Doctrine.
-
Upload
irma-gardner -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
1
Transcript of Gender Discrimination U. S. v. Virginia (1996) Changes the Prevailing Doctrine.
![Page 1: Gender Discrimination U. S. v. Virginia (1996) Changes the Prevailing Doctrine.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022083009/5697c0131a28abf838cccf8a/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Gender Discrimination
U. S. v. Virginia (1996) Changes the Prevailing Doctrine
![Page 2: Gender Discrimination U. S. v. Virginia (1996) Changes the Prevailing Doctrine.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022083009/5697c0131a28abf838cccf8a/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
What the case is about . . .
![Page 3: Gender Discrimination U. S. v. Virginia (1996) Changes the Prevailing Doctrine.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022083009/5697c0131a28abf838cccf8a/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Precedents and VMI
VMI
J.E.B. Hogan Craig ?
“Exceedingly Persuasive Justification”
Traditional Intermediate
Scrutiny
![Page 4: Gender Discrimination U. S. v. Virginia (1996) Changes the Prevailing Doctrine.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022083009/5697c0131a28abf838cccf8a/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
The Doctrinal Heart of VMI: EPJ
EPJ is at beginning of Court’s analysis, in its conclusion sentences, and appears 9 times
Cf.: traditional intermediate scrutiny language: Craig not cited; language appears only twice.
![Page 5: Gender Discrimination U. S. v. Virginia (1996) Changes the Prevailing Doctrine.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022083009/5697c0131a28abf838cccf8a/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Elements of EPJReason for discriminating must be
exceedingly persuasive.Reason must be the actual reason, not
made up after the fact or in litigation.Burden of proof is on the government.Means must be substantially related to
achieving the reason.
![Page 6: Gender Discrimination U. S. v. Virginia (1996) Changes the Prevailing Doctrine.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022083009/5697c0131a28abf838cccf8a/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Application of EPJ doctrine to VMIVA ‘s goal of diversity: post hoc; not the
reason VMI was established as a single-sex school.
VA’s goal of keeping the adversative method: Ct. just rejects the conclusion that presence of women would end the adversative method. Fact-finder found otherwise!
![Page 7: Gender Discrimination U. S. v. Virginia (1996) Changes the Prevailing Doctrine.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022083009/5697c0131a28abf838cccf8a/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
VWIL (Remedy) Is Inadequate Alternative for Women No opportunity for
women to experience rigorous military training.
VWIL is not military No “feeling of
tremendous accomplishment”
Courses, faculty, and facilities are not comparable to VMI
Post-graduation opportunities not comparable
![Page 8: Gender Discrimination U. S. v. Virginia (1996) Changes the Prevailing Doctrine.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022083009/5697c0131a28abf838cccf8a/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Some say single-sex schools for true diversity of educational opportunity in a state will be constitutional.
Some say it is the end for single-sex schools (higher education).
What does this mean for single-sex education?