Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: FRIDAY, December 24, 1993 TAG: 9312240088
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: A-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: BONNIE V. WINSTON STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: RICHMOND LENGTH: Long
\ Virginia Military Institute's plan to keep out women students by creating an alternative program for them at a private college would be "an embarrassment to the state," according to Gov. Douglas Wilder's closest political adviser.
Paul Goldman - whom Wilder put on the State Council of Higher Education in July - said that the proposed military component at Mary Baldwin College is so weak, a federal judge is likely to reject it as a substitute for coeducation at VMI.
"It's not equitable in any way, shape or form," said Goldman, a lawyer and businessman. "I'm afraid we are going to look very bad."
Wilder endorsed the VMI-Mary Baldwin plan in late September, hailing it as "innovative and constructive." He said then that it "recognizes the physiological and psychological differences between men and women," and that he was satisfied that the plan is "educationally sound and will remedy all current discrimination."
But Goldman, who contends that a publicly funded, all-male school can be viewed by the courts as constitutional "if done correctly," said VMI's proposed solution "will reflect poorly on the state's education system."
"I'd like to see it succeed, but the Constitution doesn't give them a blank check," he said.
With Wilder preparing to run for the U.S. Senate, Goldman's vocal opposition to the VMI plan is almost certain to trigger speculation that the governor wants to reach out to women's groups that favor coeducation at VMI. Goldman indicated his comments were personal but hinted he'd discussed them with Wilder. "My views on this will not come as a surprise to anyone," he said.
The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear VMI's appeal of a federal appeals court ruling that the school's 154-year exclusion of women is unconstitutional.
The high court's inaction left the school to face three options outlined by the appellate court: admit women; become private; or establish a separate, parallel program for women elsewhere in Virginia.
The Mary Baldwin plan, which will be considered by U.S. District Judge Jackson Kiser in February, embraces the final option. The U.S. Justice Department, however, still insists the school must be opened to women.
The Mary Baldwin proposal calls for the VMI Foundation, a private alumni group that has bankrolled VMI's lengthy and expensive court battle, to give $6.9 million to Mary Baldwin to establish a Virginia Women's Institute for Leadership.
While the women's institute would not have the "rat line" and "adversative training" of VMI, it would require all students to enroll in ROTC and participate in rigorous physical training.
According to VMI officials, VMI faculty would teach military courses and conduct training exercises for women. It remains undecided whether women in the program would travel to the Lexington campus for instruction or the VMI instructors would go to Mary Baldwin, which is about 30 miles away in Staunton.
Mary Baldwin also would receive a state subsidy equal to the per-student subsidy at VMI, state officials said. That subsidy was $5,600 for the 1992-93 school year.
Wilder's support of the plan has drawn the ire of many women's advocates and black leaders, who liken the dual program to those established during the Jim Crow era to avoid racial desegregation.
Goldman and the rest of the State Council of Higher Education board must approve the plan, because it involves a contract between state-supported VMI and the private, all-women's college.
Earlier this month, the council endorsed the program "in principle . . . subject to a full review of its terms and implementation." And it noted its willingness to help Mary Baldwin should the court approve the proposal.
The proposal "has disappointed people who expected more," Goldman said. "If we fail, the whole state is held up to ridicule. I don't want us to put our imprimatur on something everybody can see through.
"I would hope speaking up now would make them improve the plan, because what they have now sounds like any college with an ROTC program and you add a few leadership classes," he said.
Crista R. Cabe, director of institutional advancement at Mary Baldwin, and Anne Marie Whittemore, lawyer for VMI, defended the proposal, saying many of the institute's details still are on the drawing board.
"We think the plan satisfies the Constitution . . . and the court's requirement," Whittemore said. "But as planning continues, certainly we'll address those things."
Cabe said an internal task force at Mary Baldwin is likely to revise many details before the institute is launched next fall, with the court's approval.
But she acknowledged that school officials are concerned about the military aspects of the program, which are being reviewed.
"Nothing has been resolved," Cabe said. "If we're talking about comparable outcomes [between VMI and a women's military program], then we must have a program to produce those results."
Cabe said the women's college will abide by the court's ruling. But if the program is not approved by the court as a solution for VMI, "we will raise money from other sources and go ahead and do it."
James Lowell Underwood, a constitutional law professor at the University of South Carolina, said it is unclear from the appeals court's ruling whether it would accept an entirely separate school for women or a program within a women's school.
Underwoodsaid that question needs to be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I don't really see any other alternatives" than to admit women to VMI, he said. The Mary Baldwin proposal "is not quite the same as a military-style program. It's a token approximation" of what VMI has, and seems to continue the disparity, Underwood said.
by CNB