When it is imposed by a majority upon a minority to deny equal protection
under the law.
Perhaps not the same when members of a historically discriminated-against minority seek and are granted the right to segregated accommodations.
Take women's same sex higher education. It is not constitutionally inconsistent for it to be impermissible for VMI or The Citadel to be prohibited from refusing admission to women because of their sex, while simultaneously allowing, say, Mt. Holyoker to refuse to admit men, in order to preserve the enumerated benefits of the same-sex educational experience for women.
Ditto IMO the so-called Historically Black Colleges and Universities (though I just read 19% of HBCU makeup is now other than African-American. I'm not sure whether that is the result of court-ordered integration or not.)
This is not a situation where the rules are or have to be the same either way, is all I'm trying to say. [Post edited by southdenverhoo at 09/06/2016 8:06PM]
|
(
In response to this post by Hokieesith)
Posted: 09/06/2016 at 7:48PM