The Future of Single-Sex Education After United ... - Stetson University

FILE:C:\WP51\DOCS\LANDFeb 02/21/2 Thu 3:26PM1997] Single-Sex Education 309not survive intermediate scrutiny because some women would becapable of, and interested in, undertaking VMI's adversative training.92 Justice Scalia contended that the majority could not reach thisresult without using the “exceedingly persuasive justification”standard as opposed to straight intermediate scrutiny analysis. 93In explaining how he would have applied intermediate scrutinyto the VMI gender classification, Justice Scalia stated that theobjective of providing effective college education to the state's citizensis “beyond question” an important state interest meeting thefirst prong of intermediate scrutiny. 94 Justice Scalia then contendedthat Virginia met the second prong in two ways: single-sex educationis substantially related to the goal of providing effective collegeeducation: (1) simply because of its long tradition; and (2) because,as was established through expert testimony in the districtcourt and affirmed by the court of appeals, single-sex educationbenefits both genders. 95Justice Scalia further contended that Virginia's proffered justificationof providing diversity in its educational system is not onlyan important governmental objective, but also meets the secondprong of intermediate scrutiny. Because VMI's unique teachingmethods are conducive to a single-sex environment, VMI's admissionspolicy is substantially related to the objective of providingdiversity in Virginia's educational system. 96 Since Justice Scaliawould have accepted both of Virginia's asserted justifications formaintaining VMI's all-male status, he concluded that the majorityincorrectly formulated and applied the intermediate scrutiny standard.9792. See id. at 2294–95. The majority's finding pertained to the “fixed notions”of women's and men's abilities and interests upon which (according to the majority)VMI's policies were based. See supra notes 85–86 and accompanying text.93. See United States v. Virginia, 116 S. Ct. at 2294–95 (Scalia, J., dissenting)(stating that “[i]ntermediate scrutiny has never required a least-restrictive-means analysis,but only a `substantial relation' between the classification and the state intereststhat it serves”).94. See id. at 2296.95. See id.96. See id. at 2297.97. See id. at 2298. For six pages, Justice Scalia listed what he labeled “erroneouscontentions” that the majority relied upon in reaching its opposite conclusion.See id. at 2298–303 (Scalia, J., dissenting).