Talk:United States v. Virginia

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Supreme Court cases Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Virginia Low‑importance

	Virginia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: North America / United States Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Discrimination Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Separate but equal

Is it appropriate to refer to the "separate but equal" standard set in Plessy v. Ferguson? The article about separate but equal does not mention this case at all, and I don't recall if the phrase was actually ever used to describe VMIL. Juansmith 18:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On page 554 the Court says "In line with 'Sweatt,' we rule here that Virginia has not shown substanital equality in the seperate educational opportunities the Commonwealth supports at VWIL and VMI." and later asks if equal protection can extend to "seperate and unequal educational programs for men and women." (same page) However, I don't believe it actually relies on any "seperate but equal" standard in the case. I think it's generally unclear if the majority would even accept VMI if they actually were seperate but equal. Rehnquist's concurrence is much more explicit in arguing that if VWIL was largely equal and Virginia was actually trying to correct for VMI's huge endowment and prestige, then it would have been an okay remedy. Kyle J Moore 15:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sweatt v. Painter

a very good precedent to mention would be Sweatt v. Painter; perhaps I'll add this later Jxn 05:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. Juansmith 18:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)oh yes this was a very important case in 1996 because it was taken all the way to the supreme court.FUCKERS[reply]

Merger proposal

I've proposed that the page Virginia Women's Institute for Leadership be merged into this one, since its only notability seems to be that it was created in an attempt by the state of Virginia to avoid integrating VMI. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just went ahead and redirected it, since everything useful there was already here. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Original research: "Aftermath"

The recent edit that comprises most of the final paragraph under "Aftermath" appears to be original research and/or opinion. The first sentence of the paragraph could be supported by references, if true, but is not; the remaining sentences are increasingly opinionated, and the final sentence (about Thomas's supposed position) is plainly speculative. (Furthermore, the reference "name=Steve" does not seem to meet Wikipedia's standards.) Rsfinn (talk) 02:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Vmi 164.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]