The Gender Discrimination Of The Female Students In The Case of Flowers vs. Mason State College

The case of Flowers v. Mason State College is the case that involves the case of the presumed gender discrimination of the female students and the allegation of the limitation of her right to access education by Mason State College. The gender discrimination is a serious issue that contradicts to the Human Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause granted by the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. This is why the case is very important because the gender discrimination is illegal and Mason State College has to comply with existing anti-discrimination laws and practices.  The court ruled that there was no case of the gender discrimination because male students admitted to the college that had lower grades and worse academic performance compared to Tamitha Flowers had other advantages that allowed the college to admit them instead of Flowers and provide them with better opportunities to obtain their education in college.

The case of the gender discrimination occurred because Tamitha Flowers believed that she experienced gender discrimination as she has revealed that male students admitted to the college and ranked above her had worse academic performance compared to her and their academic level was lower. This is why she claimed that she was discriminated by the college and she referred to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect her rights granted by the US Constitution. At first glance, her position was very strong since she grounded her position on the claim that the college held the superior position for male students admitted to the college that violated her EEOA of 1974 which granted both male and female students with equal rights to obtain education.

However, the understanding of the case requires the understanding of the background of the case. There are several key factors that help to understand the justification of the court’s ruling which turns out quite reasonable and fair. First of all, the current situation in the higher education of the US reveals the widening gap between male and female students because the share of female students grows, while the share of male students reduces accordingly. Therefore, male students are in the disadvantaged position and the increasing gap between male and female students creates conditions for the start of the affirmative action to increase the representation of male students and their access to the higher education. In such a situation, Mason State College attempts to increase the availability of education to male students and to balance the demographics because male students have become the distinct minority in Mason State College now. This is why the college has launched the policy that aims at the wider inclusion of male students. Such policy is a part of the affirmative action policy, although the college has not introduced any quotas for male and female students. In such a context, the admission of male students instead of Tamitha Flowers is justified by the policy of the college.

However, such policy is still discriminatory, if the college admits students only on the ground of their gender. In case of Flowers v. Mason State College, the college used other criteria for the inclusion of male students and these factors make the court’s ruling reasonable and dissenting opinions are inconsistent in this case. The opinion that determined the court’s ruling is reasonable because it is grounded on the fact that the college did not discriminate female students like Tamitha Flowers. Instead, the opinion treated the policy of the college as the affirmative action that provides larger opportunities for under-represented groups, which are males in case of the Mason State College. This is why the college did not discriminate T. Flowers because male students were selected on the ground of other characteristics along with their academic performance, which T. Flowers viewed as the only criteria for the eligibility to the college. The college admitted male students on the ground of other, non-academic features such as low-income and other features. This is why the college did not discriminate Tamitha Flowers because the college has used the complex criteria for the admission of students and attempts to balance the demographics of the college population. In this regard, the dissenting opinion holds the premise that Tamitha Flowers was discriminated but such opinion is right only if the college makes the academic performance the only criterion for the election of students. The dissenting opinion is also grounded on the subjectivity of other factors that the college into consideration while admitting students to the college. Nevertheless, the college has the right to introduce its criteria as long as they are not discriminatory because female students could have the same features as male students, who surpassed Tamitha Flowers had.

Thus, the court’s ruling in Flowers v. Mason State College is reasonable and just.

The terms offer and acceptance. (2016, May 17). Retrieved from

[Accessed: January 20, 2022]

"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016.

[Accessed: January 20, 2022]

freeessays.club (2016) The terms offer and acceptance [Online].
Available at:

[Accessed: January 20, 2022]

"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016

[Accessed: January 20, 2022]

"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016

[Accessed: January 20, 2022]

"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016

[Accessed: January 20, 2022]

"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016

[Accessed: January 20, 2022]
close
Haven't found the right essay?
Get an expert to write you the one you need!
print

Professional writers and researchers

quotes

Sources and citation are provided

clock

3 hour delivery

person