Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 6 · column 6 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
education justifies its single-sex admissions policy; that key aspects, of VMI’s program would be materially altered by the admission of women to VMI; and that if women were admitted to VMI, they could not obtain the benefits of VMI as it now exists because its program would be destroyed by coeducation.
The Fourth Circuit nonetheless held that VMI many not continue its all-male admissions policy so long as the state of Virginia fails to provide an identical program for females, and it remanded the case to the district court for equitable relief.
VMI’S petition to the Supreme Court points out that there is a conflict among the federal circuit courts of appeals and the states on whether an otherwise justified single-sex program is unconstitutional when identical programs are not provided for members of each sex.
This conflict is not limited toSthe issue of single-sex college admissions policies but includes whether a
public school may operate a sinjlesex athletic team in a given sport when it has not also provided' an identical opportunity for the otjier sex to participate in the same spoftThe
petition aks the Supreme Court to take VMI v. United States in order to resolve the conflict among the circuits and the states^
Unless the Court takes the (jase and reverses the Fourth Circijit’s decision, says the petition, “coeducation will be viewed as a constitutional imperative, and educational diversity and experimentation }vill be thwarted at a time when it is desperately needed.”
92.5%