This Comment analyzes the present legal controversies surrounding VMI and The Citadel. Part II chronicles the rich traditions of VMI and The Citadel and endeavors to illustrate the positive role that the Citadel/VMI methodology plays in improving the lives of young men. Part III discusses the doctrinal history leading up to the present litigation. In so doing, Part III discusses how the Equal Protection Clause has been applied to gender classifications through the use of "intermediate scrutiny." Part III also assesses the line of cases construing the validity of single-gender public education. Part IV delineates the procedural history of United States v. Virginia and Faulkner v. Jones. Part V analyzes the Fourth Circuit's recent decision in VMI II and assesses the court's new test for determining the validity of publicly funded single-gender institutions. Part V additionally argues that the Fourth Circuit's approval of Virginia's remedial plan in VMI II satisfies the Equal Protection Clause. Part VI assesses the present status of the Faulkner litigation and discusses Shannon Faulkner's abrupt departure from The Citadel. Part VII discusses the possible outcome of the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Virginia. Finally, part VIII argues that valuable educational opportunities may be permanently lost, to both genders, if the Supreme Court does not affirm the Fourth Circuit's final disposition of United States v. Virginia.
Back to the Law Review home page