skip navigation
search

Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan (No. 81-406)
___
Syllabus

Opinion
[ O'Connor ]
Dissent
[ Burger ]
Dissent
[ Blackmun ]
Dissent
[ Powell ]
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version

BLACKMUN, J., Dissenting Opinion

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES


458 U.S. 718

Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT


No. 81-406 Argued: March 22, 1982 --- Decided: July 1, 1982

JUSTICE BLACKMUN, dissenting.

Unless Mississippi University for Women wished to preserve a historical anachronism, one only states the obvious when he observes that the University long ago should have replaced its original statement of purpose and brought its corporate papers into the 20th century. It failed to do so and, perhaps in partial consequence, finds itself in this litigation, with the Court's opinion, ante at 719-720, and n. 1, now [p734] taking full advantage of that failure, to MUW's embarrassment and discomfiture.

Despite that failure, times have changed in the intervening 98 years. What was once an "Institute and College" is now a genuine university, with a 2-year School of Nursing established 11 years ago and then expanded to a 4-year baccalaureate program in 1974. But respondent Hogan "wants in" at this particular location in his home city of Columbus. It is not enough that his State of Mississippi offers baccalaureate programs in nursing open to males at Jackson and at Hattiesburg. Mississippi thus has not closed the doors of its educational system to males like Hogan. Assuming that he is qualified -- and I have no reason whatsoever to doubt his qualifications -- those doors are open, and his maleness alone does not prevent his gaining the additional education he professes to seek.

I have come to suspect that it is easy to go too far with rigid rules in this area of claimed sex discrimination, and to lose -- indeed destroy -- values that mean much to some people by forbidding the State to offer them a choice while not depriving others of an alternative choice. JUSTICE POWELL, in his separate opinion, post, p. 735, advances this theme well.

While the Court purports to write narrowly, declaring that it does not decide the same issue with respect to "separate but equal" undergraduate institutions for females and males, ante at 720, n. 1, or with respect to units of MUW other than its School of Nursing, ante at 723, n. 7, there is inevitable spillover from the Court's ruling today. That ruling, it seems to me, places in constitutional jeopardy any state-supported educational institution that confines its student body in any area to members of one sex, even though the State elsewhere provides an equivalent program to the complaining applicant. The Court's reasoning does not stop with the School of Nursing of the Mississippi University for Women.

I hope that we do not lose all values that some think are worthwhile (and are not based on differences of race or religion) [p735] and relegate ourselves to needless conformity. The ringing words of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment -- what JUSTICE POWELL aptly describes as its "liberating spirit," post at 741 -- do not demand that price.