Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SATURDAY, April 13, 1991 TAG: 9104160438
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-11 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: ROBERT A. FLIEGEL
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
Forced to rebut the government's claim that VMI's single-sex policy is discriminatory under the law, Mr. Warner cannot resist the temptation to include extralegal arguments for the status quo. In fact, the only operative issues in this case are legal issues. The question of whether, in the absence of applicable law, a male-only military college is in this day an admirable, or at the least, a justifiable concept, is interesting but irrelevant.
In attempting to show that no discrimination exists here, Mr. Warner draws a circle around the state of Virginia, cites VMI as one of many diverse choices, and erroneously concludes the non-existence of discrimination. Of course, he's created a legal fiction by drawing the circle around the wrong entity, and, unless he doesn't have all his dogs on one leash, he's acutely aware of the ploy.
The entity is the college itself, not the state. The issue, therefore, is whether the school discriminates against women, not whether the state is doing so in a macro sense. If any reasonable person believes it isn't, we're in dire need of that little boy who told the townspeople the emperor (superintendent?) wore no clothes.
Mr. Warner takes obvious relish in his allusions to the Politically Correct as the enemy, contending that "the goal . . . is . . . without regard to the consequences." Perceived male bias? Is the bias not real? I suspect Mr. Warner wishes there were a word in the dictionary meaning "legitimate and damn-well-justified bias." There isn't. One can almost see him blanch as he confronts what he calls "today's new social environment," one that fosters values inimical to the worst - not the best - of VMI's traditions.
The longevity of this tradition gives it great weight in Mr. Warner's construct, as do the successes and moral fiber of the college's graduates, neither of which is being questioned. But do these results derive predominantly from the single-sex character of the student body?
Mr. Warner thinks so, though he undermines his position by claiming on the one hand that "the success of the system is its egalitarian nature," but on the other hand excluding gender from his admirable list of categories within which there's allegedly been no discrimination: race, class and wealth. A convenient but transparent exclusion. How is it that introducing the other gender would not broaden the base of that egalitarianism?
VMI's administration and alumni are understandably anxious over the looming financial ramifications that will arise from having to accommodate women. Housing will have to be retrofitted or newly constructed. Women's athletics will have to be introduced, and that means additional coaches and, in some cases, different and separate facilities.
Of course, the federal service academies did all of this, but Mr. Warner and his crowd would dismiss the analogy. They would plead apples-and-oranges, contending that VMI's wherewithal for increasing its budget is limited, and West Point's was unlimited.
They would also argue that the latter's statutorily driven mission required the integration of women, while VMI's privately defined and controlled mission does not. They would, in fact, be correct in these assertions. Money was not operative in impeding the admission of women to West Point, and the missions of the two schools are different. Although unfortunate for those who seek to keep women out of VMI, neither distinction is operative.
(Why hasn't this newspaper done a more thorough job of comparing the missions and experiences of the two military colleges? Would it not have been valuable to send a reporter to the U.S. Military Academy? A feature article could have described the degree to which differences between the two schools might relate to the admission of women, as well as the specific problems and solutions West Point worked through to its own transition.)
Mr. Warner has trouble accepting the semi-"pregnancy" of the single-sex private colleges (e.g., our own Hollins College) that receive 5 to 10 percent of their funds from state tuition-assistance grants. Since the federal suit rests primarily on the taxpayer-funding element, why aren't they also accused of discrimination, he wonders. What's the big deal about 35 percent government support, when 5 to 10 is lost in the noise? Suffice it to say that the government perceives a threshold beyond which taxpayer assistance becomes taxpayer support.
I'm surprised Mr. Warner didn't cite the case of California's Mills College, wherein the students and alumni thwarted the implementation of a decision by its board of trustees - albeit not the Justice Department - to make that women's college coed. What is there about Hollins and Mills, and other women's schools, that enables them to avoid prosecution for discrimination, if not because they are taxpayer-funded, then by reason of possible civil rights violations?
Goodness, is there a double standard at work here? You bet there is, but, like affirmative-action programs, the duality is seen as legitimate.
Most educators agree that women's colleges serve a special need not served by coed institutions: to accord women leadership roles of which they are most often otherwise deprived, and, given the results of studies showing that female students tend to be relatively silent in the classroom when in the presence of male students, to foster their more active participation. The converse is not true; male students do not require a similar leg up.
What's the likely outcome of VMI's day in court? The best guess is that the college's governing board has already amended its strategic plan in preparation for its worst case scenario, the admission of good ol' girls.
Robert A. Fliegel lives in Roanoke and served 20 years in the Navy.
by CNB