It is March after all and that means that we are suffering throughobserving Women’s History month. In keeping with the tenure of the recent book I recently finished, The Nine by Jeffery Toobin, it seems only appropriate to take a quick look at one of the Supreme Court’s really bad decisions. Now a lot of people are fixated on Roe v Wade or decisions on school prayer. You will forgive me, if I stick with the view that the decision of the Supreme Court in 1996’s United States vs Virginia Military Institute case, which effectively destroyed two of the greatest colleges in America, ranks as one of the most disgusting cases of judicial misinterpretation of the constitution. I may disagree with Justice Scalia on many things-but in this particular instance he showed remarkable understanding of the law and common sense.
Brought at the urging of the National Association of Whores Women, the United States Justice department-not having really important criminal matters to attend to-in 1990 filed a discrimination lawsuit against VMI for its all-male admissions policy. Over the next six years the legal drama played out and the present era gloomily dawned.
The similar destruction of the Service Academies was accomplished through congressionally directed suicide in 1976. VMI and The Citadel having watched the continued erosion of standards at these institutions and the subsequent decline of their cadet systems were resolved to avoid the same fate. Both colleges got along just fine during the 1980’s making substantial improvements to their curriculum and to their physical plant. They were repeatedly ranked among the best small colleges in the South. They were just minding their own business doing what they had been chartered to do:
“to produce educated and honorable men, prepared for the varied work of civil life, imbued with love of learning, confident in the functions and attitudes of leadership, possessing a high sense of public service, advocates of the American democracy and free enterprise system, and ready as citizen soldiers to defend their country in time of national peril.”
The most important word in that statement is MEN. The key to that accomplishment, just as it had been at the service academies- before they abandoned the principles they were founded on- was an “adversative” (that means painful and in-your-face) system of training methods which had produced many successful leaders. VMI’s 150-year-old tradition held that female inclusion would destroy the military culture that allowed the use of those methods. Of course, destroying that culture was the feminist lobby’s real goal. To obscure their real purpose, they wrapped up their argument in a flawed interpretation of the 14th amendment-one that was never intended or envisioned by the drafters of that amendment.
Detailed texts of the decisions and the dissent by Justice Scalia can be found here, here, and here. Justice Thomas, sadly, had to recuse himself because his son was attending VMI-seeking a proper liberal arts military education, as any smart young man should. In the interest of brevity I will not re-hash all of the legal arguments except to point out that the Justice Department’s case was based on 3 things: 1) That there were a few women who could meet the college’s physical standards; 2) Because the college accepted public funding, having different programs targeted at the respective genders ( VMI had started a rather innovative Virginia Women’s Institute for Leadership (VWIL), located at Mary Baldwin College, a private liberal arts school for women. ) somehow did not provide adequate constitutional relief ; and 3) that by admitting women into VMI and the resultant accommodations to the program that would be required-did not result in a diminished educational experience for all the students of VMI.
It is important to note that the lower courts including the 4th circuit had actually upheld the VMI position or at least important parts of it. The Supreme Court cut the legs out from those judicially sound positions.
Now there are some alumni of my own alma mater and of VMI who have drunk the kool-aid; I have several class mates who have had their own daughters graduate from the college and have been present to watch them cross the stage. Good for them-however I count myself fortunate to not have had to follow them into that great good night. Like women at sea, it is not a position I am ever going to agree with, much less support. All male colleges are perfectly legal and having all male ships is in the best interest of combat readiness. The results of the last 15 years and the problems that have been created by the slavish insistence on accomodating the diversity bullies should be self evident. Guys like me were right. I’m glad that my daughter wanted nothing to do with the place. I had already resolved to help her financially with any college she wanted to go to-except for VMI or the Citadel. If she wanted to go there-well obviously I could not prevent it-but I sure as hell did not have to assist in it. Fortunately I never had to cross that bridge.
It was a black day for VMI and by extension The Citadel. I’ll sum up by letting Justice Scalia explain why:
The all male constitution of VMI comes squarely within such a governing tradition. Founded by the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1839 and continuously maintained by it since, VMI has always admitted only men. And in that regard it has not been unusual. For almost all of VMI’s more than a century and a half of existence, its single sex status reflected the uniform practice for government supported military colleges. Another famous Southern institution, The Citadel, has existed as a state funded school of South Carolina since 1842. And all the federal military colleges–West Point, the Naval Academy at Annapolis, and even the Air Force Academy, which was not established until 1954–admitted only males for most of their history. Their admission of women in 1976 (upon which the Court today relies, see ante, at 27-28, nn. 13, 15), came not by court decree, but because the people, through their elected representatives, decreed a change. See, e.g., Pub. L. 94-106, §803(a), 89 Stat. 537-538 (1975). In other words, the tradition of having government funded military schools for men is as well rooted in the traditions of this country as the tradition of sending only men into military combat. The people may decide to change the one tradition, like the other, through democratic processes; but the assertion that either tradition has been unconstitutional through the centuries is not law, but politics smuggled into law.
And the same applies, more broadly, to single sex education in general, which, as I shall discuss, is threatened by today’s decision with the cut off of all state and federal support. Government run nonmilitary educational institutions for the two sexes have until very recently also been part of our national tradition. “[It is] [c]oeducation, historically, [that] is a novel educational theory. From grade school through high school, college, and graduate and professional training, much of the Nation’s population during much of our history has been educated in sexually segregated classrooms.” Mississippi Univ. for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718, 736 (1982) (Powell, J., dissenting); see id., at 736-739. These traditions may of course be changed by the democratic decisions of the people, as they largely have been.
Today, however, change is forced upon Virginia, and reversion to single sex education is prohibited nationwide, not by democratic processes but by order of this Court. Even while bemoaning the sorry, bygone days of “fixed notions” concerning women’s education, see ante, at 18-19, and n. 10, 20-21, 25-27, the Court favors current notions so fixedly that it is willing to write them into the Constitution of the United States by application of custom built “tests.” This is not the interpretation of a Constitution, but the creation of one.
Well said!
AHA … wonderful find in this day and age … a full-blooded misogynist … I didn’t realize -but probably should have- VMI included white, pointy-headed hoods and robes as a formal uniform, but then y’all followed “Stonewall” to his death in support of slavery, which obviously you must also support. NEANDERTHAL !
Um……..No.
Umm, I concur with Skippy, and recommend that he not never feed no trolls, no way, nohow, and super double extra negatory.
What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander; if single-sex colleges are good for gals, I reckon they’re good for guys, too.
Besides, the students of VMI gave an excellent account of themselves at New Market against the United States Army, which datum just warms my cockles.
P.s. As someone who considers himself to be somewhat autistic, I am not afraid to say, and might have a t-shirt printed up to say, Neurotypical Women Frighten Me.
You married one, didn’t you?
for Justthisguy:
And follow that logic all the way to Appomattox Court House !
Making good military leaders is what the service academies are for and having women attend these colleges has not diminished the education or the training.
I base my views on having served in three armed conflicts dating back to Vietnam, 24 years of honorable service in the Army and having seen american women “popping caps” right along side their male counterparts.
I have to say your logic is flawed and not worth pig spit. Come join the 21 century and get your head out of your… cave.
Well, that’s one opinion. I’d like to offer another view. I would submit my logic is quite fine thank you very much. That you do not accept it does not mean it is flawed-it means you don’t accept it.
I had some 28 years of honorable service in the US Navy-commanding one of the first mixed gender squadrons to go aboard an aircraft carrier. The squadron men and women did very well. It also, to be quite honest was a hell of a lot more difficult to lead and to run than an all male outfit was. And to be quite honest, from a camaraderie standpoint-it just was not as much fun.
The issue has not been whether women could do the job-it is about the cost that the military pays and the country pays as a society due to the blurring of gender roles and the accomodations that are required to accomodate one gender over the other. Maybe I would feel better if the women had really sought to be treated like “one of the guys”-but they did not. They sought to drastically alter what “being one of the guys was”.
And that is what happened at VMI. The women said it was about equal treatment-when one suggested shaving their heads and treating them like their male counterparts-all kinds of reasons were given not to do that. And bit by bit, the system-in particular the plebe system is so emasculated, that it bears no resembalance to that which went before it.
If women want the same experience-then go to an all female miltary college. And even then it won’t be the same because women relate differently to each other than men relate to other men. Twas always thus. However I would point out that the VWIL is still going strong and producing fine women-in an all female environment. Plsu historically black colleges have had to remain all black-why is that?
As for the 21’st century-other than cell phones and hi speed internet(with hi speed porn)- I’m not liking it so much to tell the truth.
Skippy,
Well stated, the good old days really weren’t too bad.
stein
well said, Skips. And kudos for not biting when certains types dangled the misogynist bait in front of you. Name calling is a shameful way to duck the pertinent legal arguments which must be addressed when debating state funded single sex education.
The people of Virginia, by democratic consent and process, decided that it was in the interest of the Commonwealth to maintain a unique institution that was consistent with the jealously guarded southern military tradition.
Lacking the will of the people, activists used the court system to force their beliefs onto the citizens of Virginia and South Carolina. This is an abuse of our judicial system!
As single-sex education is slowly making a comeback, the wisdom of Justice Scalia becomes evident: the Constitution should never be twisted to fit popular trends of the present, as these norms ebb and flow over the course of history.
Three names: Ruth. Bader. Ginsburg. Clarence Thomas had to recuse himself, his son then being a cadet at VMI.
I think both VMI and the citadel should have went private…. The whole with Shannon Falkner trying to get into the citadel was a conspiracy of her parents, the school counselor, and the ACLU. She was a pawn (willing or unwilling, I don’t know??) for people with an agenda. However, she showed a lack of character for showing up mentally and physically unprepared for the rigors of the knob system. If your willing to go to a military school you had damn well be ready to pull your end of the load and not make excuses because of “femine issues.”
I’m not going as far as to say that all women dont belong in the military. However I have seen women using their sex to get ahead, or being given opporurities because of their sex which defeats the whole meritocracy which the services should be.
Women are here to stay. They have litigated their way into traditionally all male roles. Some are effective, some are not. They are not treated as equals usually. I mean that in a negative sense. Often, there is sexual bias against them. Likewise, there is a sexual bias for them.
To argue that women are as effective and equal to men in jobs requiring physical stamina and strength is well beyond dishonesty, but borders on retarded mental capaicity. The feminists are willing to put people’s lives at risk just to further their power grab.
Let me be very honest here. I have had to lead men and women at sea. The all male groups have worked more smoothly, we did not have to walk on egg shells to avoid offense, I could impart jobs equally to all and not worry about the physical capability of the individual and their lifting capacity. When I have gone to sea w/ females, the females added a sexually charged atmosphere to deal with. It is a UCMJ violation to participate in “the frigging in the rigging,” but women are not charged equally under the UCMJ. They often throw out the “victim” card to get out of trouble.
I had one unit where 2 of 5 single females got knocked up and one of the females was an all out blatant, manly, lesbian. That being said, is it misogynistic to expect them to play by the same rules (PRT Scores, UCMJ) and be able to work as well and as hard as the males? Is it misogynistic to expect them to be held accountable and is it wrong of me to be disgusted when they cry in response to receiving an order they don’t like? I am not talking about a suicide mission order, I am talking about making the junior enlisted the duty driver.
If you think that women do not weaken the training and fighting spirit, capability, and camaraderie within a unit, you are lying to yourself and people around you to placate the politicians.
Want them in and to be accepted whole heartedly? Treat them equally. Make them part of the team. That means the verbal barbs that fly around a bunch of men get to apply to the females equally. That means they “man” up and work as well and as hard as the males. That means I discipline them equally under the UCMJ, using all the tools of leadership at my disposal to correct or punish the sailor. Until I am allowed to do that, you are pissing in the wind and demeaning yourself. Men of honor should be allowed to be honest. Diversity bullies do not allow honesty.
One thing about the whole idea of going private-the state was never going to allow that to happen, because forces loyal to the feminist cause were literally going to require the state to price that option out of the realm of possibility. When the folks who could bankroll that took a look at the playing field-they realized that it would only be a matter of time before the amazon legions were battering at the door again. So they made a logical decision that the money could be better used for the college-and besides there was a historical tie to both states (S.C. and Virgina).
The big problem was exactly what LBG stated-the women did not seek equal treatment. It became a gender preferred system and it fundamentally changed the environment and not for the better. Plus the money argument never really held water-federal money is ever where, even in insitituions that discriminate.
I am a current cadet at VMI (class to remain hidden just in case), and had to chime in after reading the article and all the comments. Skippy-San, I believe you are completely right. Same to you LBG. Granted, there are females here who make an effort, who do strive to be equals. And then there are those who do use their gender to either get what they want, or to get out of things, notably a lot of Gim riders (for those non-VMI alum here, that means coming up with all kinds of medical ailments to get out of duty, PT, etc.). For those like USNA Ancient and IMJAOS, I’m pretty sure VMI cadets weren’t getting kicked out for having sex with eachother in a laundry room, or getting 4th classmen pregnant with twins before women came to the school (both of those were true examples). And once again I’m gonna have to agree with Skippy…if I ever have daughters, I am going to gently, but firmly push them away from VMI.
First a correction, my class was the largest since the mid 60s, we started with 722. I believe you are mistaken on the figures for your class.
Second, I could not agree more with your comments about Stockdale, you said exactly what I have been saying for years. Our class suffered through our senior year with the guy, it was a total fiasco.
Regarding you comments about coeducation, I must politely disagree. During the whole Faulkner thing I was one of many alumni who was adamantly opposed to allowing women in though perhaps more out of the “if it aint broke dont fix it” mentality. Bottom line though is that excluding women was discriminatory and legally we had no leg to stand on.
I do feel in the long run it is better for the school, it has opened up a new pool of applicants which has made admissions more competetive and raised the quality of cadets. I also feel that since men need to learn how to live and work with women in the real world they might as well do it at El Cid. I too have served with women in the military, in fact ironically being in the medical corps I have served in units that were predominantly female. I have dealt with slackers who were both male and female; get over it, its group dynamics. If women can do the job and have the motivation, let em. The dirtbags whether male or female will get weeded out eventually. Yes it may have lowered some of the military standards at The Citadel but it seems that was happening slowly anyway.
As an aside, ever serve with Matt Klunder? We went to HS together.
regards,
Bob Mebane RN
CPT, USAR, AN
R/BD ’80
bomeb80q@comcast.net