Gender Discrimination And American Law - Research Paper Example

Gender Discrimination And American Law Summary of the case: This was a case whereby the Supreme Court was of the opinion that admission of only male students in a military facility is unconstitutional. In this case, the Supreme Court denoted that Virginia military institution through their discriminative policy of admitting only male students to the facility were guilty of breaching the equality clause of the fourteenth amendment. (Schultz, 28). This ruling was an important precedent set in the treatment of women in United States of America. According to Justice Ginsberg, any law in United States of America that discriminates against women, just because they are women is unconstitutional, and cannot stand the test of law (Levy, Kenneth and Karst, 22). Synopsis: The Supreme Court was of the opinion that initiating any policy by the government that is discriminative towards a particular gender must be of significant importance to the country. It should not justify such kind of a policy basing on the ability of men and women. Facts of the Case: Virginia had 15 public schools, and VMI was the only institution that had the policy of admitting students by looking at their sexual orientation. The institution aimed at producing male soldiers, who will function as future leaders. To achieve this mission, VMI used adversative and rigorous training methods (Schultz, 31). The trainings were rigorous, instilled some aspects of mental stress upon the trainees, and did not afford any privacy to the trainees. When this case was before the trial district court, the trial judge was of the opinion that women missed out on benefiting from the facilities and resources of the institution. However, giving out an order to allow women in the institution will compromise the training standards of VMI, and therefore they upheld the policies of the institution. On appeal, the decision by the lower courts was denounced (Schultz, 45). This made the institution to open another military facility in Virginia that would carter for women. However, the women facility was of a lower standard in comparison to the male facility. The curriculum in offer was not similar to the curriculum offered in VMI, and girls could not enjoy the same stature as their male counterparts had as a result of receiving training from VMI. The decision by the appeal court was further appealed to at the Supreme Court. Legal Issue: Did the male admission policy by Virginia military institute violate the provisions of the fourteenth amendment? Held: The Supreme Court struck down the policy of VMI in admitting male trainees only. It was on a scale of seven judges to one. According to the judges, the admission policy of the institution was a clear violation of the fourteenth amendment of the American constitution, under the equal protection clause. Justice Ruth Ginsberg was of the opinion that the institution did not give any justifiable reason as to why they had to discriminate women in enrolling them at the facility (Schultz, 29). The institution was unable to prove its assertions that admitting women in the facility will lead to the erosion of its stature, and destroy its adversity training program. She was of the opinion that this is a generalization of the women’s incapability, and was not a reason enough to deny them entry at the prestigious facility. Justice Ginsberg further denoted that the parallel facility that the parallel facility which was under the control of VMI did not offer the curriculum to women, and therefore it did not match the standards set by VMI, on this basis; the policy by the institution to admit only males is a violation of the equal protection clause contained in the fourteenth amendment of the American constitution. Chief Justice William Rehnquist on the other hand agreed with this decision (Levy, Kenneth and Karst, 32). He denoted that, had the institution opened another facility of similar stature for training women, then the institution would avoid breaking the equal protection law that was enshrined in the fourteenth amendment of the American constitution. He further denotes that the law allows the provision of a separate but similar facility that provides services to male and female citizens of the nation. He further believes that the exclusive of women in a facility does not violate the equal protection clause, but providing a service to one gender, without initiating measures to provide a similar service to the opposite gender. This in his view constitutes the violation of the fourteenth amendment of the American constitution. The only dissention opinion came from Justice Antonin Scalia (Levy, Kenneth and Karst, 32). The Judge denotes that in a democracy, people have the ability to change laws that govern them for purposes of satisfying their needs. If these rights are not entrenched, or provided for in the constitution, then the democratic system is destroyed. On this basis therefore, the VMI admission policy should be upheld. Conclusion: In conclusion, the fight of equality of treatment has seen numerous advances in United States of America. Following the decision by the Supreme Court regarding this case, there were expectations in United States of America that the decision would withstand the various legal scrutinies, and tests. This is because of the sharp interpretation of law by Justice Ginsburg, and her emphasis on substantial persuasion as a condition of allowing such discriminative policies to exist. For instance, in the case involving Miller vs. Albright, the court refused to follow the same stringent rules it established in VMI. This was a citizenship case that was based on gender classification. Miller was born in the Philippines, to a US soldier, and a Filipino mother. She applied for US citizenship based on the status of her father as a national of USA. The issue under this court was whether to give equal rights to children of USA mothers and fathers who seek US citizenship. This case was a challenge to the court, because it was unable to interpret the law, in a similar manner such as they did in the VMI case. Works Cited: Levy, Leonard W., Kenneth L. Karst, and Adam Winkler. Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2000. Print. Schultz, David. Encyclopedia of American Law and Criminal Justice, 2-Volume Set. New York: Infobase Pub., 2012. Print. Read More