What Is The Case Of Mississippi University For Women V. Hogan Case Study

In the case, Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, the respondent Joe Hogan, who attempted to enroll to the MUW’s School of Nursing, was denied admission (“Mississippi University for,” n.d.). The website, informs that the reason why he was denied enrollment for credit in the School of Nursing, is was created the controversy of whether the decision of the university was a violation to the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reached to a conclusion after analyzing deeply if the reason that the state had to deny enrollment to Hogan had a reasonable justification. The court’s decision could impact and create changes in the educational system in the Mississippi University

Although, Hogan was permitted to study the courses he was interested in, he was not going to receive any credit for them. Before he tried to apply to the Mississippi University for Women, Joe Hogan was already working as a nurse, but he wanted to study in the School of Nursing the University offered, to receive a baccalaureate degree in nursing. After Hogan was denied admission for credit, he filed an action claiming that the enrollment policy was a violation to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court ended the case favoring the State because according to the court, the State’s interest is to provide educational opportunities for woman in Mississippi. However, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the decision because the State of Mississippi needed to demonstrate that the classification of gender was related to a governmental objective. According to the website, the reason for the classification should not be that nursing is seen only as a woman’s

I agree with the decision of the court because everyone should have the same opportunities with getting an education. Gender should not be a factor to consider when educational institutions try to determine if someone is eligible to enroll at any university for credit, and single-sex Universities should not exercise the belief that a career can only be for a specific gender. According to Juliet A. Williams, single-sex education reinforces damaging gender stereotypes (Anderson, 2015). Single-sex Universities and any other type single-sex educational institution have a stereotypical mindset assigning roles to a person based on their gender. I believe this decision is important because cases like this one, could generate awareness of what should the educational system improve on, to make sure every resident in this country that is capable of enrolling to any University, could be given the opportunity to get an education without considering a person’s gender. What the court’s decision could mean for the future is that single-sex universities could start being more open minded and accept students to enroll for credit without considering the sex of the person applying for an education. This case along with similar cases could help to completely end single-sex institutions in general, not only on universities. Ending single-sex schools could apparently help improve the people’s education. It is said