Magazine article Insight on the News

High Court Strikes Latest Blow for Campus Social Engineering

Magazine article Insight on the News

High Court Strikes Latest Blow for Campus Social Engineering

Article excerpt

The Supreme Court continued its cultural jihad on America in June by declaring single-sex education unconstitutional. Through the decision in Virginia vs. United States, the culture czars who sit on America's courts have driven another stake into the heart of self-government.

The Virginia Military Institute, or VMI, has reserved admission to men since 1839. It is part of a diverse array of public educational opportunities offered by the Common-wealth of Virginia. Its unique "adversative" approach includes elements of physical rigor, deprivation of privacy, loss of individuality through absolute equality of treatment, extensive regulation of behavior and indoctrination of values. The evidence in this case, including research and scholarship by educational experts, was uncontested and simply supported what common sense, experience and tradition have already established. The VMI system has unique educational and character benefits which only can be thoroughly gained in a single-sex environment. This is why, even after conscious and deliberate reconsideration, the people of Virginia and their elected representatives just a few years ago decided to maintain VMI as an all-male school.

The campaign to trash these values and traditions began in 1990 when the Justice Department, under Republican President George Bush, filed suit. They, of course, cloaked this exercise in political correctness in the language of constitutional law. The 14th Amendment of the Constitution prohibits states from denying "equal protection of the laws." Yet as Justice Antonin Scalia correctly noted in dissent, the decision in Virginia vs. United States was "not the interpretation of a Constitution, but the creation of one."

Everything government does treats some people differently from others. The key is to identify which instances of unequal treatment are so egregious that the Constitution itself trumps what the people have chosen to do. An immodest judiciary can easily use this exercise in judicial review simply to impose its values on us all in the name of the equal-protection clause. The entire debate over the proper role of the judiciary, and the titanic battles over Supreme Court nominees such as Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas, is the debate over whether unelected federal judges, appointed for life, have the unlimited power to make the Constitution mean anything they wish. If judges have that power, then the people do not govern themselves and have no liberty.

The Supreme Court has held that government policies, statutes or regulations that treat men and women differently must be "substantially related" to an "important" government purpose. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.