The Cavalier daily :: Tuesday, February 10, 1970 :: University of Virginia Library

The United States District Court in
Richmond held Friday that the
University in Charlottesville had
discriminated against three women
plaintiffs on the basis of sex by not
allowing them to enter the University in
Charlottesville.

In its decision, the Court also in effect
upheld the two-year Board of Visitors'
Plan for coeducation.

The decision ended an almost
year-long battle between three plaintiffs
and the University.

In spring of last year, Miss Virginia Anne
Scott, Miss Nancy Jaffe, Miss Nancy Anderson,
and Mrs. Jo Anne Kirstein, filed a complaint in
the district court that they had been denied
entrance to the University on the basis of sex
and had therefore been discriminated against
because of their sex.

Coeducation Constitutionality

The plaintiffs also asked the court to decide
upon the constitutionality of all schools
operated by the state of Virginia that were not
fully coeducational and asked the court to
decide upon the effectiveness of the Board of
Visitors' two-year plan for coeducation of the
University at Charlottesville.

The girls also asked for damages from the
defendants due to the discrimination they felt
had occurred.

Named as defendants in the suit were the
Rector and Visitors of the University, former
Governor Mills E. Godwin, and Woodrow W.
Wilkerson, State Superintendent of Public
Instruction.

Also named in the suit were Edgar F.
Shannon, Jr., President of the University,
rnest H. Er Director of Admissions, and the
State Council of Higher Education.

Injunction Enjoinment

The injunction would have, in part, enjoined
"the defendants from discriminating against the
plaintiffs and all others in similar situations in
their policies of admission, transfer, or
otherwise on the basis of sex at the University
or any colleges thereof, or any other
institutions under the control of the state of
Virginia."

In a preliminary order issued on September
8 of last year, United States District Judge
Robert R. Merhige, Jr., ordered the University
at Charlottesville to consider without regard to
sex the plaintiffs' applications for admission.

Only Miss Scott subsequently entered the
University. The three remaining plaintiffs did
not continue their application for entrance
because of the risk of losing their tuition
money if the case were decided against them.

The decision, which was filed last Friday, by
Federal Circuit Court Judge Braton Craven,
and District Court Judges John A. Mackenzie
and Robert R. Merhge, held for the first time
that the refusal to admit the three plaintiffs at
the University at Charlottesville on the basis of
sex was unconstitutional.

"We hold, and this is all we hold, that on the
facts of this case, these particular plaintiffs have
been...denied their constitutional right to an
education equal with that offered men at
Charlottesville and that such discrimination on
the basis of sex violates the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

In arriving at this decision, the court held
that "It is fair to say from the evidence that the
most prestigious institution of higher education
in Virginia is the University of Virginia at
Charlottesville.

"The University of Virginia at
Charlottesville is by far the largest educational
institution and its diversity of instruction is not
paralleled in Virginia."

The suit also asked the court to hold that
"Virginia may not operate any educational
institution separated according to the sexes."

In this matter, the court declined to take
any action. The judges stated that certain
problems in this area were at this time beyond
their capacity to decide.

The court made mention of such a problem
in the possible coeducation of Virginia Military
Institute which is now all male.

The judges stated that "these plaintiffs lack
standing to challenge discrimination in such
institutions. They are not harmed by the
operation of an all-female institution that they
do not wish to attend."

Hypothetical Case

The decision continued by saying "whether
women attending such an institution (an
all-female school) are harmed by the absence of
male students is, on this record, hypothetical.
This and similar questions can better be
determined in a case involving male applicants
who sincerely wish to enter an all-female
school."

The court also approved the Board of
Visitors' two-year plan for coeducation of the
University in Charlottesville. The judges stated
that "it is beyond argument that the plan to
implement the right of women applicants to
attend the University of Virginia at
Charlottesville is constitutionally adequate."

The Visitors' three-year plan would admit
450 women next September, 550 more women
in September 1971, and would allow
completely open admissions beginning in
September 1972.

The court also turned down the request of
the plaintiffs for the award of damages for the
discrimination against them.

The judges stated that official immunity
under the 1964 Civil Rights Act "should be
available to public officials who act in
unquestioned good faith and in good accord
with longstanding legal principle."

Furthermore, the judges stated that the
"defendant bodies corporate, which are
agencies of state government, are not amenable
to damages" under the Civil Rights Act.

The judges also stated that individual
defendants were not liable for damages.

The defendants' suit can be brought up
again, however. The end of the decision stated
that "upon motion, and o good cause shown
within one year of date of dismissal, the action
may be reinstated."