|
 ast
week, the National Women's Law Center, a feminist non-profit, announced
their outrage over a new pregnancy policy at the Virginia Military
Institute.
According to
the new rules, "a VMI cadet who chooses to marry, or to undertake
the duties of a parent (including causing a pregnancy or becoming
pregnant by voluntary act)" will be expected to resign as a
student at the school or will be subject to expulsion. While it's
always been forbidden to marry as a student at VMI, the parenthood
rule is new. Students also must now sign an annual statement agreeing
to abide by the policy.
The policy
addresses the reality of a coed VMI, now in its fifth year. Last
winter a junior cadet became pregnant. She completed the semester
and has not returned (by choice). The school's Board of Visitors
passed a resolution last spring instructing VMI's superintendent,
Josiah Bunting, to write a policy "whereby a VMI cadet who
chooses to marry or to undertake the duties of a parent, by that
choice, chooses to forego his or her commitment to the Corps of
Cadets and his or her VMI education."
The National
Women's Law Center, a non-profit feminist legal group, warns that
the policy is sex discrimination and should be repealed immediately,
or VMI will wind up back where the feminists took them in 1989 —
to court. (In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that the Virginia Military
Institute, which is a publicly supported school, had to admit women.)
But the "new"
policy may just work (the new aspects are the written agreement
and the parental, not just marital, obligations). Just ask Ben Ashmore.
He had to leave VMI, giving up his free financial ride, under the
marriage-prohibition rules — which have always been in effect
— and he's glad he did.
Ashmore was
a cadet at the Virginia Military Institute in January 1997 when
his high-school sweetheart and fiancée, who was back home
in Michigan, called to tell him she had gotten pregnant during his
Christmas furlough.
For Ashmore,
military life had been a dream since childhood. He knew he wanted
to serve in the military after graduation. But after a few days
of considering his options, Ashmore quit VMI.
Ashmore knew
other guys at VMI who had pregnant girlfriends, wives, and kids.
It wasn't allowed, but they managed it. They'd live nearby, and
the students would visit them on weekends. "It would have been
the easiest course of action," Ashmore remembers — but
he knew it was wrong. He wasn't overjoyed, but he resigned his scholarship.
And now, two
kids later, and happily married to the same woman he left VMI for,
he is quick to defend VMI's policy.
"Everything
at VMI is based on accountability," Ashmore says. "Young
men and women know this before attending. The 'Rat Line' (what the
first year is referred to) is designed to instill the highest level
of accountability, in every area of a cadet's life." And accountable
is what he was when he resigned from VMI, he says — accountable
both as a parent and as a cadet. The only way he could see his family,
if his girlfriend moved to Lexington, would be only a few hours
a week and on Sundays, or illegally. That's no way to be a father.
"Not being accountable as a father would have been just as
bad as not being accountable in my cadet duties, which would mean
that I learned nothing" from VMI.
Funny thing
is, Ashmore and the feminists who disagree with him could easily
find themselves at the same cocktail parties. Ashmore worked last
year as a policy adviser on the Gore/Lieberman campaign in Michigan.
He is on the board of directors of the Michigan ACLU. Ashmore evens
takes up the feminists' concerns: While vehemently endorsing VMI's
new official policy, he also cautions them to ensure it is gender-blind
in enforcement — since, as he says, it's harder to find the
men who get women pregnant than it is to find women who are pregnant.
If a coed military
and coed military schools are to be successful, standards must remain
the same. VMI has been unrelenting on this count. Before launching
lawsuits, the National Women's Law Center ought to get a lesson
on the essence of VMI from Mr. Ashmore. And any woman — or
man — who insists that pregnancy, or the behavior that leads
to pregnancy, should not bar them from remaining at VMI, ought to
reconsider why they are there in the first place.
|
