Private schools, however are another matter. The 14th Amendment does
NOT apply to private schools. I have stated this several times on the
list, but either peoplel aren't paying attention or don't believe me.
That IS the law. I teach and litigate this issue, so I KNOW the status,
so please accept it.
Private schools are ONLY subject to the 14th Amendment if they are so
intertwined with the state that they are state actors. The 14th
Amendment very expressly applies only to actions by the "state" and not
to private actors.
Title IX applies to BOTH private and public schools so long as the
school receives federal funding. Title IX, however, does NOT preclude
single sex schools. Such schools are expressly allowed under the
statute. If they were not, then we would not have single sex private
schools like Bryn Mawr or Wellesley.
The Nabozny case was decided under the 14th Amendment....and not on
sexual orientation grounds, but on gender grounds. The court
essentially held that if a female student had complained about
harassment by the very same boys, then the school would have handled the
situation better than they did when Nabozny (a male) complained about
the sexual harassment. Many courts (like the 5th Circuit) would not be
so liberal in finding this. Fortunately, the issue came up first in
another circuit (although the Seventh Circuit isn't always known for
being too enlightened on discrimination issues).
I hope this explanation of matters helps. Please register it as the law
of the land as of this moment in time. It may change later, but this is
the way it is now.
<kgalles@erols.com>
______________________________________________________
Sue Sattel wrote:
>
> It is my understanding that we have to fight and win the legal battle that
Title
> IX does not permit sex segregation in whole schools. The justices stated that
> (misconception) in the VMI decision. I agree with what has been stated
earlier,
> that the right case has to be chosen and the groundwork carefully laid as with
> Brown v Board of Ed or we won't win this. I don't think it is impossible.
OCR
> once thought little boys weren't as harmed by sexual harassment as little
girls;
> and courts didn't think Title VII covered same sex harassment. They've grown
in
> understanding. sue.sattel@cfl.state.mn.us,
>
> _______________________ Reply Separator _______________________
>
> Subject: Re: Legality of single-sex education
> Author: edequity@tristram.edc.org at internet
> Date: 3/6/98 6:08 PM
>
> If the academies are funded by the California State Department of
> Education, would that not make them public schools? And we already have
> discussed that if any program within a school--or even
> institution--receives federal funding, then Title IX applies. Maybe we
> could get Debbie Brake of the National Women's Law Center to offer a
> critique of the GAO document? Linda Purrington, Title IX Advocates
> <lpurring@earthlink.net>
> ________________________________________
> owner-edequity@tristram.edc.org wrote:
> >
> > Are the California academies public schools or private schools that
> > receive some state funding? Catholic and other religious schools often
> > receive some form of state education funding, so the fact that a school
> > receives public funding does NOT make it a public school. If the school
> > is run by a public school board, then it is a public school. However,
> > if the state is intimately involved with the running of these academies,
> > then a court MIGHT deem them to be state actors. Private reform schools
> > are sometimes treated as state actors if state courts send kids there
> > and if the state school and court systems are involved in running the
> > schools. The first step is to clarify if the academies are public or
> > private. It makes a BIG difference in the law. Kristen Galles, Equity
> > Legal <kgalles@erols.com>
> >
> > ____________________________________________
> >
> > Linda Purrington wrote:
> > >
> > > Well, there's no doubt single-sex academies now exist, and that they are
> > > being funded by the California Department of Education in Butte VAllley,
> > > San Franscisco, and Stockton; and that the challege to Title IX was
> > > anticipated, and probably intended. I am sure someone noted this before,
> > > and that somewhere the legal wheels have clunked into motion
> > > challenginng these schools on the basis of Title IX, equal protection
> > > under the laws, and citing Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka, Kansas.
> > > I would really like to link up with those plaintiffs, lawyers, if anyone
> > > knows of them. Thanks a bunch, Linda Purrington, Title IX Advocates
> > > <lpurring@earthlink.net>
> > > __________________________________________________
> > >
> > > John Lindner wrote:
> > > >
> > > > At 8:41 PM -0800 2/25/98, Linda Purrington wrote:
> > > > >I've attached the references from the CA dept of education on
> > > > >single-gender academies. Now, does anyone know what legal challenges
> > > > >are being mounted, and where these single-gender academies are now
being
> > > > >set up, and what funds are being used for them? Linda Purrington
> > > > ><lpurring@earthlink.net>
> > > >
> > > > Glancing briefly through the Education Code sections you cited, it
appears
> > > > these schools are being established as a form of magnet or alternative
> > > > school, under a district's existing authority to do so. I couldn't say
> > > > whether this is legal or not, and I'm not aware of any challenges
> currently
> > > > underway.
> > > >
> > > > It may not be possible to challenge them until they're actually applied
> for
> > > > and/or established.
> > > >
> > > > The second code section below doesn't specify what the funding source
is,
> > > > so I'd guess it's from the General Fund allocation to the State
Department
> > > > of Education.
> > > >
> > > > Take care,
> > > >
> > > > John
> > > >
> > > > ==========
> > > >
> > > > California Education Code
> > > >
> > > > 58523. (a) The governing board of a school district receiving a
> > > > grant pursuant to this chapter shall establish a single gender
> > > > academy as a magnet school pursuant to its general power established
> > > > under Section 35160 or an an alternative education magnet school
> > > > pursuant to Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 58500).
> > > > (b) The governing board of a school district receiving a grant
> > > > pursuant to this chapter shall provide a detailed report of the
> > > > relative success of the single gender academy to the Superintendent
> > > > of Public Instruction, Department of Finance, office of the
> > > > Legislative Analyst, Joint Legislative Budget Committee, Senate
> > > > Committee on Education, and to the Assembly Committee on Education on
> > > > or before January 1, 2000.
> > > >
> > > > 58524. The Superintendent of Public Instruction shall allocate two
> > > > hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) for each single gender
> > > > academy established pursuant to this chapter to the school district
> > > > establishing the academy.
> > > >
> > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > Mr. John Lindner
> > > > johng@garlic.com
> > > > jlindner@davis.ogsd.k12.ca.us
> > > > http://www.davis.ogsd.k12.ca.us/s/sananselmo
> > > >
> > > > Third Grade Teacher/Technology Co-coordinator
> > > > San Anselmo Elementary School
> > > > 6670 San Anselmo Way
> > > > San Jose, California, 95119 USA
> > > > 408.578.2710 voice
> > > > 408.578.3660 fax
> > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++