THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Thursday, June 27, 1996 TAG: 9606270531
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: CHARLISE LYLES
LENGTH: 61 lines
Bias. I admit it, in the case of Virginia Military Institute.
Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the state-supported school's all-male admissions policy is unconstitutional.
A separate program for women at Mary Baldwin College is not equal, the court declared. Therefore, Virginia fails to provide equal protection or access under the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.
On its face, the decision is correct and fair. Taxpayers, me being one of them, should not have to foot the bill for a school that discriminates against women or anybody else.
If VMI wants to discriminate, it can go private.
Or it can follow the court's ruling and go co-ed. Women just might make the men better thinkers, better soldiers, better men.
As fair as the decision is, bias rules my reasoning.
As a graduate of Smith College, one of the few remaining all-women institutions in the country, I believe steadfastly in the value of single-sex education. Were Smith to ever go co-ed, I would feel grave loss for women of future generations.
For in the absence of men, we women found untold freedom to explore intellect and creativity in a field of feminine energy. I gained confidence and trust in our uniquely female gifts and their power to effect change in ways different from males.
We strove to fulfill the beloved double-entendre chosen for the school's centennial: ``Smith College, A Century of Women on Top.''
In arguing against VMI, the Clinton administration sought a ruling that sex-discrimination cases be judged by the same strict legal standard used in race-bias cases.
Instead, the court stuck to its standard that the government can treat the sexes differently if such treatment is ``substantially related to an important objective.''
I don't know what the hell that means.
But I do know this:
Race-bias cases recall the 1954 Brown vs. the Board ruling that ``separate is inherently unequal.'' There is no inherent difference between people of different complexions. Therefore, they should have equal access to the same facilities.
However, in the case of the sexes, men and women are equal, but - thank Sister-girl Nature and Gloria Steinem - we are inherently different.
It's why Hillary Clinton talks to Eleanor Roosevelt. And why some men can't understand the value of that exercise:
Hormones.
I worry that the court's ruling precludes an opportunity for women to develop their own military leadership styles.
Given the opportunity to cultivate that which is uniquely feminine, women could bring an entirely different perspective to the art of waging war. Or keeping the peace.
Women have been at the major military academies for decades now. As many move into positions of corporate and military power, they often suppress feminine traits such as intuition, compassion and good old maternal energy.
Given their own space, women in the military and other traditionally male professions can realize their feminine potential. Otherwise, they end up merely copying men.
And that is what I'm afraid will happen at VMI, rat lines and all. by CNB