Great divides: Deceptive distinctions and rhetorical strategies in the VMI and citadel cases

Legitimation for the maintenance of privilege is often made by rhetorical strategies that appeal to often irrelevant but favored values of a group. The case for the continuance of the exclusion of women at two revered state-supported militarystyle colleges, The Virginia Military Institute (VMI) (in Virginia) and the Citadel (in South Carolina), was made by those institutions and their lawyers and expert witnesses by appeals to “rationality” which encompass unsupported stereotyped views and references to the value of historical precedent and the status quo. The view that males and females are basically different with respect to cognitive and emotional characteristics is employed in the rhetoric. Thus, in these institutions and in some others today (e.g., a new single sex public school) sex segregation is offered as a benefit not only to males but to females, who are regarded as unable to learn well in coeducational environments. The article notes that assumptions about basic cognitive and emotional differences are deceptive and are not supported by empirical evidence, and that the studies cited by advocates of sex segregation are either impaired methodologically or are irrelevant today. The article also explores the way in which such values as diversity and states' rights are employed in the rationales for segregation.