Petitioner
Mississippi University for Women
Respondent
Joe Hogan
Petitioner's Claim
That the state-supported school's nursing program did not violate gender-equity statutes, and it could continue its single-sex admission policy.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Hunter M. Gholson
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Wilbur O. Colom
Justices for the Court
William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Sandra Day O'Connor (writing forthe Court), John Paul Stevens, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
Harry A. Blackmun, Warren E. Burger, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
1 July 1982
Decision
That the Mississippi University for Women had violated Hogan's constitutionalright to equal protection of the law by barring him admission to its nursingschool.
Significance
Men are entitled to protection under the same anti-bias laws as women.
In 1979 Joe Hogan applied to the nursing school of the Mississippi Universityfor Women. The school, located in his hometown of Columbus, granted four-year baccalaureate degrees. Hogan had worked in a medical center since he was eighteen, and was, at the time, a nursing supervisor and a surgical nurse in Columbus. He sought to further his professional skills and receive the higher wages nurses with degrees earned.
Vestiges of Old South
However, the Mississippi University for Women was a single-sex school, and its nursing program was open only to women, though men were allowed to audit courses. The state-funded institution was founded in 1884 as the Mississippi Industrial Institute and College for the Education of White Girls of the Stateof Mississippi. It was the first women-only, state-supported school in the country, though private single-sex institutions were quite common. (At the timeof the Hogan case, the only other single-sex, state-funded university in theUnited States was Texas Women's University, which already had a co-educational nursing school.) Mississippi University for Women's school of nursing wasfounded in 1971, and had been offering Mississippi women a four-year degree in the profession since 1974. The nearest co-educational nursing program was 147 miles away. Hogan's application for admission to the Mississippi University for Women was rejected on the basis of his gender, though he had met the other requirements. School officials suggested he audit courses.
"Minimal Scrutiny"
Instead Hogan filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, asserting that the school's policy violated the Fourteenth Amendment, which declared that states cannot make or enforce a law that violates constitutional freedoms, because citizens are entitled to equal protection. His suit requested injunctive relief--a change in the Mississippi University's women-only admissions policy--as well as damages. The district courtdenied injunctive relief and supported the single-sex admission policy by applying the "minimal scrutiny" test. Up to this point in time, most discrimination cases were judged using minimal scrutiny, which declared a gender-specific statute to be valid if there was a rational correlation to a sensible legislative goal. In this case, the court conceded that providing women with theoption of a female-only nursing education was a valid state objective and thus passed the minimal scrutiny gauge.
"Intermediate Scrutiny"
Hogan took his case further. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans reversed the lower court's decision, declaring that "rational relationship"in the minimal scrutiny test of constitutionality was misused. In explanation, the judicial body asserted that there were no inherent biological differences between men and women to rationalize separate educational facilities fornursing. It also pointed out that Mississippi was providing a unique educational opportunity for females, but not for males. Its ruling asserted that "intermediate scrutiny"--rather than minimal--should instead be applied, and thatthe admission policy to both the nursing school, and the Mississippi University for Women as a whole, was indeed unconstitutional. Hogan should be admitted, the appeals court declared. The Mississippi University for Women petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review that decision.
To feminists, the case's appearance before the High Court was viewed with some unease: if the Court upheld the legality of a policy that discriminated against men, then the language of the decision might be used to uphold statutesor policies that excluded women. The intermediate scrutiny test also came into question. It had been used as a judicial yardstick by the Supreme Court since the early 1970s in several noteworthy sex discrimination cases. However, by the time of the Hogan case, certain signals given by the more conservativejustices had caused concern among feminist lawyers that the Court would no longer apply the intermediate scrutiny test. The High Court had recently heardchallenges to male-only draft registration and statutory rape laws, and had given signs of this shift in its attitudes toward such cases. Furthermore, there were also signals that the Court might now shift the burden of proof in gender-discrimination cases to plaintiffs; customarily the government entity had to prove in court that its statute or policy decree was justified.
O'Connor Rejects University's Arguments
Arguing its case, lawyers for the Mississippi University for Women asserted that its single-sex nursing school was a form of "affirmative action," or partof a program to rectify past discrimination by providing preferential treatment to women or minorities. The Court upheld the appeals court ruling favoring Hogan in a 5-4 decision. Justice O'Connor, the first female Supreme Court appointee, delivered the written opinion. In it, O'Connor rejected the school's argument that its policy was a form of affirmative action, noting that over98 percent of all nursing degrees awarded in the United States were earned by women; there did not seem to be any obstacles to women in their pursuit ofa nursing education. By restricting its program to women, O'Connor remarked,the Mississippi University for Women perpetuated the stereotype of nursing as"women's work." The school had also argued that allowing men into the program would negatively affect the quality of education for its female students, but this argument was also rejected on the grounds that the school already allowed men to sit in on classes.
Dissenting justices argued that the majority's reasoning was too rigid, and that single-sex educational opportunities were a historic and vital part of the American educational landscape. Hogan, they argued, brought his gender-discrimination case because he would have been inconvenienced to commute to another school. But legal analysts pointed out that it was unfair for the state topresent obstacles or inconvenience to a man, just as it would have been forwomen to have had to face such hurdles.
Related Cases
Mississippi University for Women
Respondent
Joe Hogan
Petitioner's Claim
That the state-supported school's nursing program did not violate gender-equity statutes, and it could continue its single-sex admission policy.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Hunter M. Gholson
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Wilbur O. Colom
Justices for the Court
William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Sandra Day O'Connor (writing forthe Court), John Paul Stevens, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
Harry A. Blackmun, Warren E. Burger, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
1 July 1982
Decision
That the Mississippi University for Women had violated Hogan's constitutionalright to equal protection of the law by barring him admission to its nursingschool.
Significance
Men are entitled to protection under the same anti-bias laws as women.
In 1979 Joe Hogan applied to the nursing school of the Mississippi Universityfor Women. The school, located in his hometown of Columbus, granted four-year baccalaureate degrees. Hogan had worked in a medical center since he was eighteen, and was, at the time, a nursing supervisor and a surgical nurse in Columbus. He sought to further his professional skills and receive the higher wages nurses with degrees earned.
Vestiges of Old South
However, the Mississippi University for Women was a single-sex school, and its nursing program was open only to women, though men were allowed to audit courses. The state-funded institution was founded in 1884 as the Mississippi Industrial Institute and College for the Education of White Girls of the Stateof Mississippi. It was the first women-only, state-supported school in the country, though private single-sex institutions were quite common. (At the timeof the Hogan case, the only other single-sex, state-funded university in theUnited States was Texas Women's University, which already had a co-educational nursing school.) Mississippi University for Women's school of nursing wasfounded in 1971, and had been offering Mississippi women a four-year degree in the profession since 1974. The nearest co-educational nursing program was 147 miles away. Hogan's application for admission to the Mississippi University for Women was rejected on the basis of his gender, though he had met the other requirements. School officials suggested he audit courses.
"Minimal Scrutiny"
Instead Hogan filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, asserting that the school's policy violated the Fourteenth Amendment, which declared that states cannot make or enforce a law that violates constitutional freedoms, because citizens are entitled to equal protection. His suit requested injunctive relief--a change in the Mississippi University's women-only admissions policy--as well as damages. The district courtdenied injunctive relief and supported the single-sex admission policy by applying the "minimal scrutiny" test. Up to this point in time, most discrimination cases were judged using minimal scrutiny, which declared a gender-specific statute to be valid if there was a rational correlation to a sensible legislative goal. In this case, the court conceded that providing women with theoption of a female-only nursing education was a valid state objective and thus passed the minimal scrutiny gauge.
"Intermediate Scrutiny"
Hogan took his case further. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans reversed the lower court's decision, declaring that "rational relationship"in the minimal scrutiny test of constitutionality was misused. In explanation, the judicial body asserted that there were no inherent biological differences between men and women to rationalize separate educational facilities fornursing. It also pointed out that Mississippi was providing a unique educational opportunity for females, but not for males. Its ruling asserted that "intermediate scrutiny"--rather than minimal--should instead be applied, and thatthe admission policy to both the nursing school, and the Mississippi University for Women as a whole, was indeed unconstitutional. Hogan should be admitted, the appeals court declared. The Mississippi University for Women petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review that decision.
To feminists, the case's appearance before the High Court was viewed with some unease: if the Court upheld the legality of a policy that discriminated against men, then the language of the decision might be used to uphold statutesor policies that excluded women. The intermediate scrutiny test also came into question. It had been used as a judicial yardstick by the Supreme Court since the early 1970s in several noteworthy sex discrimination cases. However, by the time of the Hogan case, certain signals given by the more conservativejustices had caused concern among feminist lawyers that the Court would no longer apply the intermediate scrutiny test. The High Court had recently heardchallenges to male-only draft registration and statutory rape laws, and had given signs of this shift in its attitudes toward such cases. Furthermore, there were also signals that the Court might now shift the burden of proof in gender-discrimination cases to plaintiffs; customarily the government entity had to prove in court that its statute or policy decree was justified.
O'Connor Rejects University's Arguments
Arguing its case, lawyers for the Mississippi University for Women asserted that its single-sex nursing school was a form of "affirmative action," or partof a program to rectify past discrimination by providing preferential treatment to women or minorities. The Court upheld the appeals court ruling favoring Hogan in a 5-4 decision. Justice O'Connor, the first female Supreme Court appointee, delivered the written opinion. In it, O'Connor rejected the school's argument that its policy was a form of affirmative action, noting that over98 percent of all nursing degrees awarded in the United States were earned by women; there did not seem to be any obstacles to women in their pursuit ofa nursing education. By restricting its program to women, O'Connor remarked,the Mississippi University for Women perpetuated the stereotype of nursing as"women's work." The school had also argued that allowing men into the program would negatively affect the quality of education for its female students, but this argument was also rejected on the grounds that the school already allowed men to sit in on classes.
Dissenting justices argued that the majority's reasoning was too rigid, and that single-sex educational opportunities were a historic and vital part of the American educational landscape. Hogan, they argued, brought his gender-discrimination case because he would have been inconvenienced to commute to another school. But legal analysts pointed out that it was unfair for the state topresent obstacles or inconvenience to a man, just as it would have been forwomen to have had to face such hurdles.
Related Cases
- Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (1966).
- Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971).
- Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976).
- Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U.S. 199 (1977).
- Califano v. Webster, 430 U.S. 313 (1977).
- Orr v. Orr, 440 U.S. 268 (1979).
- Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 450 U.S. 455 (1981).
User Comments Add a comment…