JURI 600 Essay
#2
There are few ethical issues as tenuous in modern American life as that
of equality. Recent American history has been dominated by civil rights
movements in an effort to redress systemic inequities within society. Maegan
Brooks, A voice that could stir an army : Fannie Lou Hamer and the rhetoric of the
Black freedom movement 43 (2014). Despite the United States’ often fraught
history with the ideals of equality and equity, our nation was nonetheless
founded upon these principles. Declaration of Independence 1776. In addition to
the civil background of equality, our founding fathers specifically noted that
man’s equality and rights stemmed from his creation. Id. Man was created in
God’s image and we all are God’s creations. Id. As we look at the concepts of
equality in Christianity as it applies to gender issues, there is significant
concordance with the idea of Christian egalitarianism and the right of women
to be treated equally under the law. This essay requires the author to
determine if AR 600-13 violates the Biblical Equality Principle and GI Jane’s
rights as a citizen for self-determination. For the reasons above and
explained below, AR 600-13 violates the Biblical Equality Principle and GI
Jane should be allowed to hold an officer position in a combat-facing unit.
This topic inherently necessitates a review of both man’s law and
God’s law because it concerns both the treatment of the individual as a
creation of God and the individual as it pertains to their status within civil
society. To closely examine the relationship between woman as God’s
creation, it is necessary to analyze the God’s Law of Nature and the Biblical
Equality Principle. When God first created the world, he also created a set of
laws and mores that became known as the Laws of Nature and the Laws of
Nature’s God. Herbert Titus, God, Man, and Law: The Biblical Principles 42-44
(1994).
Within these principles is the concept that, because all humans are created
in God’s image, we are bound to treat each other with humanity. Id.at 44.
This concept is seen in seminal documents of US history, such as the
Declaration of Independence. As this relates to the BIblical Equality Principle,
because all humans were created in God’s image, there is no favoritism
amongst God’s children. Romans 2:11 (KJV). To further examine this concept,
women were not necessarily held as separate in their devotion to God.
Galatians 3:28. As this principle applies to AR 600-13, specifically, women are
forbidden from entering into units which are routinely assigned for direct
combat. Harrell, Margaret C., et al. Assessing the Assignment Policy for Army
Women 2 (2nd ed., 2007). Direct combat is defined by this policy as
engagements in which there is a high probability of direct exchange with the
enemy or substantial risk of capture. Id. at 3.
However, as we review the sentiments set forth in the above passages in
context with the notion that men and women are both made in God’s image,
it would seem as though the Biblical Equality Principle does not support AR
600-13.
To explore the BIblical Equality Principle as it relates to the civil
applications of GI Jane’s case, there are two important legal statutes to
examine: the US Constitution and Title IX of the Education Amendments of
1972. The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution states that no person
shall be denied equal protection under the law; this is also known as the
Equal Protection Clause. U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In early application of this
Clause, there was the notion of “separate but equal”. Blair Kelley, Right to
ride: streetcar boycotts and African American citizenship in the era of Plessy v.
Ferguson 82 (2010). This interpretation, however, was ultimately overturned
years later in the decision of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. In this
decision, the Supreme Court found
that, even if educational systems were truly equal, their separateness
inherently breeds a notion of inferiority amongst the segregated students.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). In the current
scenario, Jane has not been granted access to a desired post within the
Army due to her gender. While this certainly does not preclude her from
accessing a similar post in another unit (without direct combat), it could
instill feelings of inferiority within Jane because of her exclusion.
Along with constitutional law, there must also be consideration for Title
IX in this matter. This legislation states that, “no person in the US shall,
based on sex, be excluded from participation… under any education program
or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 20 U.S. Code § 1681.a4.
Because GI Jane was denied access to the requested appointment on the
basis of sex, her rights under Title IX were not taken into consideration.
While the argument could be made that she may not have had the
appropriate strength, training, etc. to qualify for the post, none of this is
discussed as a reason for her rejection. Moreover, there are longer-lasting
implications for the denial that could impact GI Jane’s life beyond being
excluded from a particular unit. The denial from participating in a direct
combat unit based on sex could cause her to lose enhanced benefits for her
service upon her retirement from the military. VA, Combat Veteran Eligibility
(Nov. 17, 2021) IB 10-438 Combat Veteran Eligibility. By denying Jane the
opportunity for equal future enrichment, this can also be interpreted as a
violation of Jane’s 14th Amendment rights and her rights under Title IX.
The Biblical Equality Principle states that, because we are all
created in God’s image, we are all entitled to the same treatment.
Galatians 3:28. This concept can be found in our earliest founding
documents where US citizens’ inalienable rights are
granted through their creation. Declaration of Independence, 1776. Though
the application of Christian egalitarianism has morphed through this
country’s history, it is important to consider GI Jane’s plight in light of the
current legal environment. GI Jane has sought entry into a direct combat-
facing unit upon completion of her schooling at the Virginia MIlitary Institute.
Her enrollment into this unit was denied strictly on the basis of sex (citing AR
600-13). Jane’s denial from this unit, while in accordance with stated policy,
is in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. US Const. amend. XIV. Jane
could not seek equal status in another unit because requiring her to do so
would generate inferiority and would deprive her of equal benefits upon
retirement. VA, Combat Veteran Eligibility (Nov. 17, 2021) IB 10-438 Combat
Veteran Eligibility. For this reason, Jane should not be denied entry into a
particular unit solely on the basis of sex. Her individual merits as an officer
must be considered in order to ensure her dignity as a creation of God is
maintained and her opportunities are equal.
