West Virginia v. B. P. J. · ¶176

Virginia had justified the exclusion of all women by citing its “goal of producing citizen-soldiers” and its “implementing methodology” (a harsh and rigorous “‘adversative method’” of instruction). Id., at 520. Prohibiting women from the school on these bases, however, rested on a “[g]eneralizatio[n] about ‘the way women are’” and was at best an “estimat[e] of what is appropriate for most women.” Id., at 550. Under this Court’s cases, the Court held, such classifications could “no longer justify denying opportunity to women whose talent and capacity place them outside the average description.” Ibid. That was because neither of the Commonwealth’s interests were “‘inherently unsuitable to women,’” and at least a subclass of women could “‘do well under [the] adversative model,’” “‘would want to attend [VMI] if they had the opportunity,’” were “‘capable of all of the individual activities…

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.