Civil Rights FRQ —Option 3 Summary:

United States v. Virginia (1996) The Virginia Military Institute (VMI) boasted a long and proud
tradition as Virginia's only exclusively male public undergraduate higher learning institution.
The United States sued Virginia and VMI alleging that the school's male-only admissions policy
was unconstitutional. On appeal from a District Court ruling favoring VMI, the Fourth Circuit
reversed. It found VMI's admissions policy to be unconstitutional. Virginia, in response to the
Fourth Circuit's reversal, proposed to create the Virginia Women's Institute for Leadership
(VWIL) as a parallel program for women. On appeal from the District Court's affirmation of the
plan, the Fourth Circuit ruled that despite the difference in prestige between the VMI and
VWIL, the two programs would offer "substantively comparable" educational benefits. The
United States appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Court held that VMI's male-only admissions policy was unconstitutional because it failed to
show "exceedingly persuasive justification" for VMI's gender-biased admissions policy. Virginia
failed to support its claim that single-sex education contributes to educational diversity because
it did not show that VMI's male-only admissions policy was created or maintained in order to
further educational diversity. Furthermore, Virginia's VWIL could not offer women the same
benefits as VMI offered men. The VWIL would not provide women with the same rigorous
military training, faculty, courses, facilities, financial opportunities, or alumni reputation and
connections that VMI affords its male cadets.
Source: Oyez, Facts and Opinion of the Case, United States v. Virginia
A. Identify the constitutional provision that is common in both United States v. Virginia (1996)
and Brown v. Board of Education, I (1954).
B. Based on the constitutional provision provided in part (A), explain how the decision in Brown
v. Board of Education, I (1954) compared to the decision United States v. Virginia (1996).
C. Explain how voters who disagree with the holding in United States v. Virginia (1996) could act
to limit its impact.
Answer to A. The constitutional provision that is common to both United States v. Virginia and
Brown v. Board of Education is the Fourteenth Amendments’ equal protection clause. It stated
that states require to practice “equal protection” amongst its citizens. Thus, the state must
treat an individual equal to any other citizen in relevant circumstances.
Answer to B. In the case of United States v. Virginia (1996), Virginia had violated the equal
protection clause because of VMI’s male-only admission policy, has it been found
unconstitutional as the state could not provide sufficient evidence as to why VMI’s admission
policy created educational diversity; and in Brown v. Board of Education, I (1954), Brown stated
that schools for Black children were not equal to those of white children, thus violating the
equal protection clause which states that no state shall deny to any person the equal protection
of laws. The Brown case stated that separating children based on race in public schools is
unconstitutional. Both had different decisions for different circumstances, though they were
similar in the relation between furthering the gender and race diversity which was protected by
the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause.

Answer to C. A court holding is essentially a court’s determination and final word on an

issue/matter. Voters that disagree with the United States v. Virginia holding that states VMI’s
male-only admissions policy was unconstitutional, can appeal to the state legislators if a
majority of state citizens vote to affirm the law, and thus will only be repealed if approved by
the majority of state citizens in a “direct vote”. This can be a state law allowing male and
female-only institutes to exist, with the exception of letting a number of the opposite gender
enroll in the school. For example, if South Carolina’s police institution for training allows only
female candidates enroll, then they would have to let a number of male trainees in as well (e.g.,
1/3 males that of females), and vice versa.