Talk:United States v. Virginia

Separate but equal
Is it appropriate to refer to the "separate but equal" standard set in Plessy v. Ferguson? The article about separate but equal does not mention this case at all, and I don't recall if the phrase was actually ever used to describe VMIL. Juansmith 18:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

On page 554 the Court says "In line with 'Sweatt,' we rule here that Virginia has not shown substanital equality in the seperate educational opportunities the Commonwealth supports at VWIL and VMI." and later asks if equal protection can extend to "seperate and unequal educational programs for men and women." (same page) However, I don't believe it actually relies on any "seperate but equal" standard in the case. I think it's generally unclear if the majority would even accept VMI if they actually were seperate but equal. Rehnquist's concurrence is much more explicit in arguing that if VWIL was largely equal and Virginia was actually trying to correct for VMI's huge endowment and prestige, then it would have been an okay remedy. Kyle J Moore 15:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Sweatt v. Painter
a very good precedent to mention would be Sweatt v. Painter; perhaps I'll add this later Jxn 05:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Good call. Juansmith 18:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)oh yes this was a very important case in 1996 because it was taken all the way to the supreme court.FUCKERS

Merger proposal
I've proposed that the page Virginia Women's Institute for Leadership be merged into this one, since its only notability seems to be that it was created in an attempt by the state of Virginia to avoid integrating VMI. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I just went ahead and redirected it, since everything useful there was already here. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Original research: "Aftermath"
The recent edit that comprises most of the final paragraph under "Aftermath" appears to be original research and/or opinion. The first sentence of the paragraph could be supported by references, if true, but is not; the remaining sentences are increasingly opinionated, and the final sentence (about Thomas's supposed position) is plainly speculative. (Furthermore, the reference "name=Steve" does not seem to meet Wikipedia's standards.) Rsfinn (talk) 02:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Vmi 164.jpg