You are on page 1of 3

K.

HARSHA 1
CASE REVIEW
MOLLERE V. SOUTHEASTERN LOUISIANA COLLEGE
CHAPTER 5, PAGE 136-137

FACTS OF THE CASE


The case involves upperclassmen, unmarried women under the age of 21 years at
Southeastern Louisiana College starting in the academic year of 1969 1970. The housing
change affected those female students who did not live with their parents or a close relative in
close proximity to the college. Southeastern Louisiana College made this housing change
because male students of the college were not using the dormitories as they had in previous years
causing the institution to worry about paying back federal loans and interest. The legality of both
freshmen male and female student requirements of living on campus is not being challenged in
this case. The court found that the primary cause of requiring all female students under the age of
21 years and all freshmen male students was to meet the financial obligation to the federal
government on the funding of on campus housing.

ISSUES OF THE CASE


The primary issue of MOLLERE V. SOUTHEASTERN LOUISANA COLLEGE is that
only a certain group of individuals (female students under the age of 21 years) were required to
live on campus while other students who also meet this requirement (male students under the age
of 21 years other than freshmen students) are not obligated to live in on campus housing. The
colleges response to only requiring female students under the age of 21 years was that the
number of students needed to live on campus was exactly the number of female students under
the age of 21 years. This placed an additional financial obligation on those female students that

K. HARSHA 2
was not placed on male students of the same age range. Was placing a financial obligation of
living on campus only on one group of students constitutional? Was the response of requiring
female students under the age of 21 years a legitimate answer?

ANSWERS OF THE CASE


The court of Louisiana found that was, in fact, unconstitutional to place an additional
financial obligation on only one type of student population. Southeastern Louisiana College did
respond with positive reasoning for living on campus (closely supervise the students, protect the
welfare of the students, etc.) which did not seem to be questioned by the court system. Male
students could have also used the same protection that female students needed as well. This is
another reason why the court system decided that requiring only one type of student to live in on
campus housing was unconstitutional.

REASONING OF THE COURT


The court system of Louisiana found that it was unconstitutional to require only female
students under the age of 21 years to live on campus placing an additional financial obligation on
those students. The court said Since the obligation is essentially monetary, then all must pay or
none. To select a group less-than-all to fulfill an obligation which should fall equally on all is a
violation of equal protection no matter how the group is selected.

CONCLUSION
The case of MOLLERE V. SOUTHEASTERN LOUISIANA COLLEGE changed the
way that student groups were selected for certain requirements (such as living on campus)

K. HARSHA 3
placing an additional financial obligation on only one certain group of individuals. From this
case, all or no students must take on the financial obligation combined with their tuition and fees.

You might also like