Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-fwgfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T03:36:13.886Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan: The Supreme Court Rules on Female-Only Nursing School

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2021

Jane Greenlaw
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On July 1, 1982, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, ruling that the “female only” admission policy of a state-supported nursing school violated the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment. The case has political and legal implications not only for nursing education, but for the nursing profession as well.

Joe Hogan, a registered nurse, worked as a nursing supervisor in a medical center in Columbus, Mississippi. In 1979, he applied for admission to the baccalaureate program at Mississippi University for Women (MUW) School of Nursing, located in Columbus. Although he met all of the school’s substantive admission criteria, Hogan was denied admission solely because MUW has, since its inception, admitted only females. The school’s policies would, however, permit him to audit nursing courses and to attend continuing ed,ucation courses.

Type
NLE Rounds
Information
Law, Medicine and Healthcare , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , December 1982 , pp. 267 - 269
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

102 S.Ct. 3331 (1982) [hereinafter referred to as MUW].Google Scholar
Created by the state legislature in 1884 as Mississippi Industrial Institute and College for the Education of White Girls of the State of Mississippi, MUW established a two-year associate degree nursing program in 1971. Subsequently, four-year baccalaureate degree and graduate programs in nursing were added.Google Scholar
646 F.2d 1116 (5th Cir. 1981).Google Scholar
§901(a) Title IX Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §1681(a) (amending Higher Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. §§403 et seq. (1965)).Google Scholar
653 F.2d 223 (5th Cir. 1981).Google Scholar
102 S.Ct. 501 (1982).Google Scholar
Joined by Justices Brennan, White, Marshall, and Stevens. Dissenting opinions were filed by Chief justice Burger, Justice Blackmun, and Justice Powell who was joined by Justice Rehnquist.Google Scholar
In their dissenting opinions, Justices Powell and Blackmun assert that the “inconvenience” Hogan faced was not sufficient to support a claim of discrimination, since there were state supported nursing programs available to him. MUW, supra note 1, at 3342 (Powell J., dissenting), 3341 (Blackmun J., dissenting).Google Scholar
“No State shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §1.Google Scholar
MUW, supra note 1, at 3336. Justice Powell, in his dissenting opinion, states that the equal protection standard is not applicable because it was designed to free women from “archaic and overbroad generalizations… .” He notes that the Court has never applied the standard to strike down a state's efforts to expand choices for women, nor has the Court applied it when a male plaintiff had the choice of an equal benefit. Id. at 3344 (Powell, J., dissenting) quoting Schlesinger v. Ballard, 419 U.S. 498, 508 (1975). But see the majority opinion on the issue of whether MUW's single-sex policy in its nursing program actually operated to expand choices for women. Id. at 3339, n.15. For discussion of this issue, see notes 12–13 infra, and accompanying text.Google Scholar
Id. at 3336, quoting Wengler v. Druggists Mutual Ins. Co., 446 U.S. 142, 150 (1980).Google Scholar
Id. at 3338.Google Scholar
The only evidence introduced as to legislative intent was the portion of the Mississippi Code containing the charter of MUW, seeking to provide for the girls of the state education and training in areas such as bookkeeping, typewriting, teaching, painting, and needlework “to fit them for the practical affairs of life.” Id. at 3334, n.1. The Court viewed this as exactly the sort of archaic stereotyped view of sex roles against which it had cautioned. Id. at 3339, n.16.Google Scholar
Id. at 3339.Google Scholar
§901(a) Title IX Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §1681(a) (amending 20 U.S.C. §§403 et seq. (1965)).Google Scholar
MUW, supra note 1, at 3340–41.Google Scholar
Brief Amici Curiae of National Women's Law Center, NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, Women's Equity Action League, and Women's Legal Defense Fund, Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, 102 S.Ct. 3331 (1982).Google Scholar
According to a spokesperson for the National League for Nursing, this organization ceased several years ago to poll nursing schools as to whether they admit males, because it is assumed that all do. The Subcommittee on Health and the Environment, of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, United States House of Representatives, compiled a list in December 1979 that listed 5 private nursing schools in the United States receiving federal funds and admitting only females.Google Scholar
Justice Blackmun expressed concern that the “inevitable spillover” from the ruling places any public single-sex school in constitutional jeopardy. MUW, supra note 1, at 3341 (Blackmun J., dissenting). Justice Powell's opinion contains a lengthy and interesting discussion of the historical and theoretical bases for single-sex education. Id. at 3342–44 (Powell J., dissenting). Chief Justice Burger, who agreed in substance with Justice Powell's dissent, wrote separately to emphasize the limitation of the Court's ruling and its heavy reliance on the female-dominated nature of the nursing profession. Id. at 3341 (Burger C. J., dissenting).Google Scholar
See Backus v. Baptist Medical Center, 510 F. Supp. 1191 (E.D. Ark. 1981) (male nurse unsuccessfully challenged hospital's refusal to assign him to labor and delivery areas). See also Greenlaw, J., Delivery Rooms: For Women Only? Law, Medicine & Health Care 9(6): 29 (December 1981) (discussion of Backus).Google ScholarPubMed
Hearings of the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Job Segregation and Wage Discrimination (April 1980) at 510–23, as referred to in MUW, supra note 1, at 3330, n.15.Google Scholar