Implications of the VMI and Citadel cases for the Pursuit of Excellence and Equity

Stephanie Kurtzman

When the male-only policy of Virginia Military Institute (VMI) came before the Supreme Court, women's colleges diverged in their responses. Twenty-six women's colleges filed legal briefs opposing VMI, while three others filed in support. This argumentative essay uses the VMI and Citadel cases as a backdrop to inform a broader discussion about gender-specific situations in higher education (such as women's centers, women's organizations, and the identified equivalents for men), with the purpose of articulating the distinction between female-only and male-only situations. Ultimately, this distinction should be drawn on our efforts to pursue excellence by emphasizing not equality, but equity.

As professionals in higher education, many of us challenge ourselves to pursue both excellence and equity: how can we maintain the highest quality standards of learning along with equality of opportunity? We know the two are not mutually exclusive, but realizing them can be an elusive goal. The recent Virginia Military Institute (VMI; United States v. Virginia, 1996) and Citadel (Faulkner v. Jones, 1995) cases demonstrate this. Both of these male-only public universities were asked to defend their right to remain excellent institutions in which only males could participate; both lost and were required to open their doors to women. While these cases were specifically legal in nature, the controversies they provoked provide a unique opportunity to explore the issues raised by single-gender situations. Whether it is women's colleges, gender-specific Greek houses, or women's centers, to name a few, we are repeatedly challenged to explain when and why some single-gender situations are both permissible and beneficial, while others are not. This essay explores and articulates perceptions of single-gender situations through the lens of the VMI and Citadel cases.

In the Supreme Court case United States v. Virginia (1996; which also directly impacted the Citadel), three women's colleges filed legal briefs supporting VMI (Jaschik, 1995). Why would women's colleges lend support to an institution that bars women from entry? What implications might VMI's male-only policy have for the female-oriented development at women's colleges? These were some questions raised in a legal brief submitted by 26 other women's colleges urging the Supreme Court to mandate that VMI either admit women or become a private institution (Jaschik, 1995). The responses of women's colleges to this heated case reflect a perhaps unexpected ideological divide between the issues of exclusion and inclusion. Exclusion restricts particular individuals from access to unique opportunities, while inclusion fulfills needs specific to its participants without restricting opportunities from others. When we face decisions in higher education drawn along similar lines, it is our task to assess the appropriateness and consequences of such a distinction.

The VMI Case: Implications for Women's Colleges

For the three women's colleges backing VMI's right to remain a male-only institution, their central concern was that if VMI were forced to become coeducational, then women's colleges might eventually be forced to follow. Their brief (as cited in Jaschik, 1995) stated that if VMI lost the case, "the implication is that even a private institution will be unable to offer single-gender education if it receives federal financial assistance, state aid, or merely a state and federal tax exemption" (p. A37). More than defending male-only institutions specifically, these colleges sought to broadly protect single-gender education in the United States. Their brief questioned the extent of legal distinction between private and public institutions regarding gender-specific enrollment, and whether private institutions could continue enjoying exemption from the Constitution's equal protection clause.

Women's colleges are currently guarded by Congressional civil rights laws which exempt private, undergraduate, single-sex programs from the Constitution's equal protection clause (Jaschik, 1993). However, the women's colleges filing in support of VMI demonstrate legitimate concern for their viability as single-gender institutions. They recognize that their opponents might ultimately use arguments parallel to those used in the VMI case in an attempt to dismantle female-only institutions. Regardless of the public/private distinction, these women's colleges know their private status and current exemption from the equal protection clause balance precariously on legal interpretation and public sway.

The Supreme Court concluded in the VMI case that both VMI and the Citadel must admit women if they are to remain public institutions. Proponents of the Supreme Court decision defend the equal rights of women to access opportunities presented by these military academies: "As long as there are some women who have the will and capabilities to function successfully under the physically and psychologically rigorous 'adversative' method, the state cannot deny them the training and opportunities that VMI uniquely affords" (Salomone, 1996, p. 3). Opponents of the decision argue that women do not belong in such institutions because their presence threatens to lower the programs' standards of quality: "Officials argued that this ['adversative'] approach, featuring constant surveillance, the absence of privacy, a hierarchical system of class privileges and responsibilities, and a stringently enforced honor code, was inherently unsuitable for women and would be materially compromised by coeducation" (Salomone, 1996, p. 3). Notwithstanding legal reasoning, the contention that male-only institutions discriminate against women reflects the driving cultural norm at this time: it is unpopular and socially unacceptable to support situations which prevent female participation. Such gender-bias is considered sexist, discriminatory, and exclusive.

If the single-gender policies of VMI and the Citadel are considered discriminatory, then female-only institutions risk bearing the same accusation. This correlation highlights the concern raised by the three women's colleges supporting VMI. It also reflects the common ground between the women's colleges which defended and opposed VMI's male-only policy: women's colleges unify in endorsing female-only education. Women's colleges were founded to provide greater educational opportunities for females prior to widespread coeducation and, ironically, in the face of exclusion from other institutions. They actively uphold the value of maintaining female-only spaces for learning, and their successes testify to the support for and vitality of female-only education.

Investigation of women's colleges suggests that female students graduate and progress in life with greater quantitative and qualitative accomplishments than do their counterparts at coeducational institutions. Comparisons of academic and career achievements, leadership and community involvement, and post-baccalaureate degree attainment, point to the unique power of women's colleges to propel women to their fullest potentials. Moreover, comparisons of self-esteem reveal that women's colleges yield (and perhaps attract) psychologically healthier women (Miller-Bernal, 1993; Salomone, 1996). These female-only spaces generate valuable educational and pychosocial outcomes, particularly in a society that has traditionally sustained discriminatory and devaluing attitudes toward women.

While women's colleges concur in their advocacy for female-only education, their point of digression regarding VMI's male-only policy lies in their different emphasis on inclusive versus exclusive intentions. The three colleges supporting VMI focused their attention not on VMI's exclusivity, but in anticipatory defense of women's colleges. Women's colleges provide environments that attempt to include all women, "an island in our culture that is about women" (Johnson, as cited in Sadker & Sadker, 1995, p. 233). They act as an alternative to coeducational learning environments which can restrict women's potential. "Research continues to support the fact that women, even in coeducational settings, do not have equal opportunities. . . . That's why single-sex institutions continue to exist, because there's a problem they continue to address" (McGuire, as cited in Tannen, 1996, p. 1). The argument of women's colleges supporting VMI infers that the inclusive quality of women's colleges is so valuable that it should be protected by any means.

That 26 women's colleges filed with the Supreme Court to oppose VMI's male-only policy does not necessarily indicate an objection to female-only institutions. As private institutions addressing a public situation, these women's colleges perceived no legal threat to their existence based on the VMI decision. Rather, they focused on the exclusivity of VMI's male-only policy: "Why the women's colleges would ally themselves with an institution that stands for the old regime of denying equal opportunity for women, I can't even begin to understand" (Vargyas, as cited in Jaschik, 1993, p. A26). Moreover, the 26 women's colleges asserted that lower court rulings allowing VMI to remain exclusively male "were based on stereotypes that are dangerous to women and women's colleges" (Jaschik, 1995, p. A37). These stereotypes presume that women inherently cannot participate successfully in the rigors of a VMI education. Greenberger and Brake (1996) summarize lower court witness testimony: "VMI [is] not suitable for most women, because, compared with men, women are more emotional, less aggressive, suffer more from fear of failure, and cannot withstand stress as well" (p. A52).

Outcomes of Exclusive and Inclusive Educational Opportunities

The women's colleges opposing VMI's all-male policy infer a distinction between gender-specific education of males and of females:

Speaking of VMI and the Citadel as single-sex education is in some ways misleading. Both were founded in the late 19th century, when women were excluded from the military and largely excluded from higher education. These schools were not founded on an ideal of the benefits of single-sex education. (Mandelbaum, as cited in Tannen, 1996, p. 1)

VMI and the Citadel exclude based on gender-role stereotypes and deny women the opportunity for participation; women's colleges empower females by allowing them the space to develop fully in an atmosphere free from gender bias and restriction. Our contemporary culture is built upon the historic tradition of excluding women from positions of power and prestige. Men still possess a monopoly on decision-making authority, including the power to determine the extent--if even the possibility--of female participation in the full range of societal functions. As the last male-only public institutions, VMI and the Citadel reflect the male authority granted by history and cultural norms to exclude women from participation. More than the inability to enroll in the institutions themselves, women are denied the possibility of receiving this elite education. Salomone (1996) cites an oft-repeated statistic that "only 15 percent of [VMI's] graduates enter career military service, with many of the remainder moving on to leadership positions in business and public life" (p. 1), and Fox-Genovese (1994) corroborates: "To be sure, when Citadel cadets graduate, they are on their way to joining the professional elite if they choose. That is the miracle accomplished by a Citadel education" (p. 4).

The 77 existing women's colleges (not including seminaries; Gose, 1996) function in part to counter societal endorsement of male authority. They do this by educating and empowering women to become even more capable of sharing the decision making authority traditionally restricted to men. They also function and succeed as spaces for women safe from subtle and direct gender-related assaults on their capabilities. Their purpose is to include women who, by nature of their gender, risk exclusion in broader society and in coeducation. Women's colleges are unique in their environment and culture of an all-female population. This experience is specific to women: it does not translate to the same experience for men were they to participate in women's colleges. "The real defense of single-sex education lies precisely in its single-sexedness" (Fox-Genovese, 1994, p. 4). Thus, the asset of women's colleges lies more fully in the character inherently tied to the population itself than in tangible programs which are unattainable elsewhere. This characterization does not preclude the potential for men's development at VMI, the Citadel, or the four existing male-only private colleges (Gose, 1996), but focuses the present discussion on women's opportunities for development.

While gender-specific institutions are equivalent in their separation by gender, their intents and outcomes differ regarding implications for women. VMI and the Citadel currently revolve on a male axis which functionally bars women from entry, while women's colleges revolve on a female axis that functions to serve the women who are involved. The outcome of the former is preservation of male authority at the expense of women, and the outcome of the latter is enhancement of female capability with only benign implications for men. The Supreme Court acknowledged this distinction in citing the brief submitted by the 26 women's colleges opposing VMI's male-only policy: it recognized "the mission of some single-sex schools to 'dissipate, rather than perpetuate, traditional gender classifications' " (Salomone, 1996, p. 4). This divergence between exclusive and inclusive institutions is not merely semantic. Rather, it appropriately reflects meaningful differences between situations which are typically regarded as comparable. Equitable treatment, in this case, does not mandate equal response.

Three women's colleges supported VMI's male-only policy in protection of their own right to function as single-gender institutions, while 26 women's colleges opposed VMI's exclusion of women. The remaining 48 women's colleges did not take a legal stance on the issue. These arguments serve to clarify and inform discussions about single-gender situations. They illustrate the value of women's colleges and the potential harm caused by male-only policies at VMI and the Citadel by inferring a distinction between the former as inclusive and the latter as exclusive. The Supreme Court's decision, as reported by Salomone (1996), supports this distinction: "Gender classifications may be used in some circumstances to 'advance full development of the talent and capacities of our nation's people,' but they may not be used to 'create or perpetuate the legal, social, and economic inferiority of women' " (p. 2).

Implications for Student Affairs: Assessing the Validity of Single-Gender Situations

United States cultural and Constitutional values seek to provide full opportunity to every individual without restricting others' freedoms. Higher education shares these values, complemented by the student affairs acknowledgment that "each student is unique, yet all students should be treated equitably" (National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, 1989, p. 18). Given these goals of excellence and equity, it is appropriate to respond distinctively to exclusive and inclusive situations in higher education. For those who would seek to participate, exclusive situations limit individuals from desired educational opportunities, while inclusive situations nurture individual educational development without harming those not affiliated. Specifically, the male-only policies at VMI and the Citadel restrict women's ability to benefit from unique and selective offerings. Women's colleges, on the contrary, fulfill a need specific to their populations that is not applicable or valuable to men: enhancement of women's development as women. This distinction in outcomes is cause to challenge male-only policies such as those at VMI and the Citadel, and to affirm the viability of women's colleges and other women's organizations with similar objectives.

The public controversy surrounding the VMI and Citadel cases demonstrates that as a nation, we are far from resolved or unified in our attitudes toward single-gender institutions. Even women's colleges reflect disparate and seemingly conflicting attitudes toward VMI's male-only policy. This illustrates the perception that the existence of gender-specific institutions is still precariously contingent on legal and cultural approval. It is imperative that we expand discussions about VMI and the Citadel to the broader issues presented by single-gender situations. When the legality, purpose, and viability of single-gender situations such as women's colleges, women's centers, and women's organizations--as well as the identified equivalents for men--are discussed, our ability to articulate the distinction between inclusion and exclusion will meaningfully guide our dialogue and decisions.

We cannot merely consider gender-specific situations as equal because of their separateness; rather, we must distinguish them by function. As such, both warrant unique regard. Beyond merely distinguishing between exclusive and inclusive institutions, we must consider the roots of such environments. VMI, the Citadel, and women's colleges all emerged predominantly from historical inequity and bias. Gender bias resulted in male-only military academies which contend that admitting women will lower their standards, and gender inequity compels women's colleges to provide a more welcoming and empowering alternative to coeducation. Both types of institutions are born from gender stereotypes and their consequent prejudices, but realize different outcomes.

Our guiding analysis regarding gender-specific situations should question whether they function to sanction or transform the traditional social structure that categorically confers dominance to males. Exclusion reflects and maintains inequity and bias, while inclusion responds to and counters the same. We cannot allow the push for simplistic fairness that is manifested in attempts to equate male-only and female-only situations to overwhelm our responsibility to advocate for education that is maximally effective for each individual. Sometimes, the education and resources that most benefit the individual needs of students are unequal but nevertheless appropriate when equitable. We can pursue both excellence and equity. Indeed, if we are to provide the best educational opportunities to both women and men in higher education, we must aspire to this complicated but crucial ideal.

References

Fox-Genovese, E. (1994, August 1). Save the males: The Citadel case. National Review, 46 [On-line], 1-5. Available: Expanded Academic ASAP. Item: A15674706.

Gose, B. (1996, September 6). To the relief of most of its students, Hampden-Sydney will remain all-male. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A70.

Greenberger, M. D. & Brake, D. L. (1996, July 5). The VMI decision: Shattering sexual stereotypes. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A52.

Jaschik, S. (1993, April 7). 7 women's colleges back VMI's appeal to retain all-male student body. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A23, A26.

Jaschik, S. (1995, December 1). Divisions over VMI: Women's colleges disagree on whether institute should remain all male. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A37, A39.

Miller-Bernal, L. (1993). Single-sex versus coeducational environments: A comparison of women students' experiences at four colleges. American Journal of Education, 102, 23-54.

National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, Inc. (1989). Points of View. Washington, DC.

Sadker, M. & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at fairness: How our schools cheat girls. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Salomone, R. C. (1996). The VMI case: Affirmation of equal educational opportunity for women. Trial, 32 [On-line], 1-6. Available: Expanded Academic ASAP. Item: A18785562.

Tannen, D. (1996, July 8). The pros and cons of single-sex education. U.S. News & World Report, 121 [On-line], 1-3. Available: Expanded Academic ASAP. Item: A18440264.

Stephanie Kurtzman is a 1995 graduate of Occidental College in Los Angeles, with a Bachelor's degree in Psychology. She is currently a first year student in the UVM Higher Education and Student Affairs Administration program and is a Graduate Assistant in the Department of Residential Life.