純男性軍校與性別歧視－評United States v. Virginia一案判決

Male-Only Military Colleges and Gender Discrimination-Comments on United States v. Virginia

黃昭元(Jau-Yuan Hwang)

平等保障 ； 性別歧視 ； 審查標準 ； 單一性別學校 ； 真實差異 ； Equal Protection ； Gender Discrimination ； Standard of Review ； Single-Sex School ； Real Difference

歐美研究

33卷3期（2003 / 09 / 01）

461 - 539

繁體中文

本文是判決評釋的研究論文，以一九九六年美國最高法院在United States v. Virginia一案判決為主題。本案判決的主要憲法爭議是：只收男性學生的州立軍事學院是否違反美國憲法第十四增補條文的性別平等？本文共分六部分，除前言與結語外，第二部分分析本判決的事實、爭點及判決理由。第三部分分析美國最高法院對於性別歧視案件向來所適用的審查標準，尤其是「中度審查標準」的出現經過及其內涵。第四部分檢討本案判決所適用的審查標準，是否已經提高為嚴格審查標準？特別是分析本案判決多數意見對於性別平等案件是否已經將原先適用的中度審查標準，提高為嚴格審查標準？本文第五部分進一步討論本案所涉及的主要實體爭議：真實差異、行政成本、軍校教育的特殊性及單性學校的合憲性等。本文支持最高法院的判決立場，認為應該對性別歧視適用「不對稱」的反壓迫原則，並應更進一步挑戰男性標準及性別權力的既有架構，才能促進性別平等。

This article aims to analyze the decision by the Supreme Court of the United States on United States v. Virginia in 1996. The core issue is-does the male-only admission policy of a public military college violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? After a brief introduction in part I, part II of this article analyzes the factual background and legal reasoning of this case. Part III traces the development of judicial standards to review gender discrimination cases. Part IV focuses on the standard of review as applied in this case and explores whether the Virginia Court used a 〞strict scrutiny〞 instead of 〞intermediate scrutiny〞 test. Part V of this article goes on to discuss substantive issues such as real difference, administrative costs, military colleges, and single-sex education. In conclusion, this article supports the ruling of Virginia's majority opinion, while criticizing its reasoning. This article urges the courts to take an asymmetrical view of gender equality and further challenge existing male standards and entrenched gender politics.

1. 陳昭如(1998)。女性主義法學的理論與實踐：一個初步的介紹。近代中國婦女史研究，6，213-236。
   連結：
2. 焦興鎧(2003)。美國女性主義法學者對工作場所性騷擾爭議之批判。歐美研究，33(1)，57-123。
   連結：
3. Amar, A. R.,Katyal, N. K.(1996).Bakke's fate.UCLA Law Review,43,1745-1780.
4. Avery, D.(1996).Institutional myths, historical narratives and social science evidence: Reading the "Record" in the Virginia Military Institute case.Southern California Review of Law & Women's Study,5,189-386.
5. Brake, D. L.(1996).Sex as a suspect class: An argument for applying strict scrutiny to gender discrimination.Seton Hall Constitutional Law Journal,6,953-966.
6. Carrington, P. D.(1992).Diversity!.Utah Law Review,4,1105-1203.
7. Case, M. A.(1999).Two cheers for cheerleading: The noisy integration of VMI and the quest success of Virginia women in leadership.The University of Chicago Legal Forum.
8. Case, M. A.(2002).Reflections on constitutionalizing women's equality.California Law Review,90,765-790.
9. Case, M. A.(2000)."The very stereotype the law condemns": Constitutional sex discrimination law as a quest for perfect proxies.Cornell Law Review,85,1447-1491.
10. Citadel votes to admit women immediately(1996).The Legal Intelligencer.
11. Co-education at VMI.(1997).Baltimore Sun.
12. Cushman, C.(Ed.)(2001).Supreme Court decisions and women's rights: Milestones to equality.Washington, DC:CQ Press.
13. Davis, R. N.(1994).Diversity: The emerging modern separate but equal doctrine.William & Mary Journal of Women & the Law,1,11-56.
14. Ely, J. H.(1980).Democracy and distrust: A theory of judicial review.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
15. Fiss, O. M.,M. Cohen(Eds.),T. Nagel(Eds.),T. Scanlon(Eds.)(1997).Equality and preferential treatment-A philosophy & public affair reader.Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.
16. Fried, C.(1990).Comment, the Supreme Court, 1989 term, Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. F.C.C.: Two concepts of equality.Harvard Law Review,104,107-127.
17. Gilligan, C.(1982).In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
18. Ginsburg, R. B.(1997).Constitutional adjudication in the United States as a means of advancing the equal stature of men and women under the law.Hofstra Law Review,26,263-271.
19. Ginsburg, R. B.(1994).The progression of women in the law.Valparaiso University Law Review,28,1161-1182.
20. Gregor, S. M.(1997).Comments, the Virginia Military Institute is given the opportunity to create "citizen-soldiers" out of qualified women.North Dakota Law Review,73,323-344.
21. Higgins, T. E.(1997).Democracy and feminism.Harvard Law Review,110,1657-1703.
22. Kay, H. H.(2000).From the second sex to the joint venture: An overview of women's rights and family law in the United States during the twentieth century.California Law Review,88,2017-2093.
23. Kayyem, J.(1995).Recent development, the search for citizen-soldiers: Female cadets and the campaign against the Virginia Military Institute-United States v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 852 F. Supp. 471 (W.D. Va. 1994).Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberty Law Review,30,247-266.
24. Law, S. A.(1984).Rethinking sex and the constitution.University of Pennsylvania Law Review,132,955-1040.
25. Lawrence III, C. R.(1997).Each other's harvest: Diversity's deeper meaning.University of San Francisco Law Review,31,757-778.
26. MacKinnon, C. A.(1987).Feminism unmodified: Discourses on life and Law.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
27. MacKinnon, C. A.(1989).Toward a feminist theory of the state.Cambridge:Harvard University Press.
28. Minow, M.(1997).Not only for myself: Identity, politics & the law.New York:The New Press.
29. Morgan, D. C.(1997).The young women's leadership school of East Harlem.New York Law School Journal of Human Rights,14,95-125.
30. Morgan, D. C.(1999).Anti-subordination analysis after United States v. Virginia: Evaluating the constitutionality of K-12 single-sex public schools.University of Chicago Legal Forum,1999,381-460.
31. Posner, R. A.(1998).Against constitutional theory,73,1-22.
32. Posner, R. A.(1999).The problematics of moral and legal theory.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
33. Richards, D. A. J.(1998).Women, gays and the constitution: The grounds for feminism and gay rights in culture and law.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
34. Strum, P.(2002).Women in the barracks: The VMI case and equal rights.Lawrence, KS:University Press of Kansas.
35. Sullivan, B. P.(1999).The gift of Hopwood: Diversity and the fife and drum march back to the nineteenth century.Georgia Law Review,34,291-348.
36. Sullivan, K. M.(1992).Governmental interests and unconstitutional conditions law: A case study in categorization and balancing.Albany Law Review,55,605-618.
37. Sullivan, K. M.(1996).Decisions expanding equal protection rights.National Law Journal
38. Sullivan, K. M.(2002).Constitutionalizing women's equality.California Law Review,90,735-764.
39. Sunstein, C. R.(1999).One case at a time: Judicial minimalism on the Supreme Court.Cambridge:Harvard University Press.
40. Tribe, L. H.(1988).American constitutional law.New York:Foundation Press.
41. About the academy
42. A brief history of the academy
43. VMI Marches Toward Equality(1997).St Louis Post.
44. West, R.(1998).Universalism, liberal theory, and the problem of gay marriage.Florida State University Law Review,25,705-730.
45. 司法院編(2001)。美國聯邦最高法院憲法判決選譯。台北:司法院秘書處。
46. 司法院編(2002)。美國聯邦最高法院憲法判決選譯。台北:司法院秘書處。
47. 林子儀、李鴻禧教授六秩華誕祝賀論文集編輯委員會編(1997)。現代國家與憲法－李鴻禧教授六秩華誕祝賀論文集。台北:月旦。
48. 倪伯萱(2002)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。台北，台灣大學法律學研究所。
49. 徐秀蘭(2000)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。台北，台灣大學法律學研究所。
50. 雷文玫、李建良編、簡資修編(2000)。憲法解釋之理論與實務。台北:中央研究院中山人文社會科學研究所。

1. 許宗力(2016)。大法官解釋與社會正義之實踐。臺大法學論叢，45(S)，1359-1421。
2. 黃昭元(2004)。憲法權利限制的司法審查標準：美國類型化多元標準模式的比較分析。臺大法學論叢，33(3)，45-148。
3. (2009)。性別差異與不公平的法意識—以勞動待遇為例。政大法學評論，108，63-123。
4. (2014)。從同性婚姻反思平等保護權。軍法專刊，60(6)，99-119。
5. (2015)。事後法之合憲性挑戰－美國性犯罪人登記與公告法。軍法專刊，61(2)，154-176。