IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, et al, Defendants.
By: Jackson L. Kiser Senior United States District Judge
C.A. NO.: 7:90CV0126
ORDER
The United States and the Commonwealth parties(the "Commonwealth")
have moved the approval of the following agreement and its adoption
by this Court to govern the quarterly reports to the Court, and the
course of this case to its conclusion, to-wit:
AGREEMENT
I. Background and Introduction
On June 26, 1996, the Supreme Court issued its decision in United
States v. Virginia, 116 S. Ct. 2264 (1996), holding that the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment precludes Virginia
from providing exclusively to men the "unique educational
opportunities VMI affords." Id. at 2269. The Court also held that
Virginia's then proposed remedy of offering a separate leadership
program for women at Mary Baldwin College does not cure the
constitutional violation. Thereafter, on September 19, 1996, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit remanded this
case, see 96 F.3d 114 (the "Remand Order"), "to require Virginia to
formulate, adopt, and implement a plan that conforms with the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as applied to this
case by the Supreme Court."
On September 21, 1996, the Board of Visitors of the Virginia
Military Institute adopted a resolution providing for the admission
of women to VMI beginning in August 1997. Subsequently, to prepare
for the admission of the first class of women to VMI, the
Commonwealth took substantial and constructive steps to prepare the
various facets of VMI's program for the inclusion of women. The
Commonwealth's actions included, but were not limited to, the
active recruitment of women for admission to VMI, providing
scholarships for women, the modification of physical facilities to
include women's bathroom and shower facilities, the adoption of a
policy on uniforms and the appearance of women, the creation of
women's sports teams, the modification of gender references in VMI
SNIPPETS:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, et al, Defendants.
Jackson L. Kiser Senior United States District Judge
The United States and the Commonwealth partieshave moved the approval of the following
On June 26, 1996, the Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Virginia, 116 S.
holding that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment precludes Virginia from
The Court also held that Virginia's then proposed remedy of offering a separate leadership
On September 21, 1996, the Board of Visitors of the Virginia Military Institute adopted a
at 4, 5, and while agreeing that further reporting is necessary, rejecting the United States'
Subsequent to the United States' filing of the Notice of Appeal, the parties engaged in
As a result of these discussions, the parties reached an agreement, subject to the approval
the Court added that "eporting of any unusual circumstances involving female cadets should
Reports shall thereafter be filed by June 1, 2000; September 1, 2000; December 22, 2000;
United States Attorney for the Western District of Virginia
Incomplete application Academic disqualification Applications of felons, and those having
Failure to complete reservation process Medical disqualification2 Academic disqualification
Dismissals:
(upon 2nd suspension)
Of the women playing varsity sports, ______received scholarships with a total value of $_____.
|
