________________________________________________________________________
Barbara J Tavares wrote:
>
> THANK YOU FOR THE FEEDBACK--IT RAISES SOME IMPORTANT POINTS. SEE BELOW:
>
> On Tue, 10 Mar 1998 owner-edequity@tristram.edc.org wrote:
>
> > I have two questions for Barbara Tavares to consider re: the GEMS conference
> > for girls:
> >
> > 1) Check the section of Title IX that talks about "significant assistance."
I
> > always told schools that they could not pass on information about an
activity
> > that excluded one sex, even if the activity was not sponsored by the school,
> > because it would give significant assistance to a discriminatory activity.
> > Would the assistance of the Dept of Ed fit this profile?
> >
> OFF HAND, I WOULD SAY YES, AS THIS INFORMATION DISTRIBUTED THROUGH THE
> SCHOOLS IS THE PRIMARY MEANS OF RECRUITMENT.
>
> > 2) What if a boy or boys wanted to attend the GEMS conference? Would they
be
> > turned away?
> AS THINGS STAND NOW, BOYS WOULD BE TURNED AWAY.
>
> Why?
>
> THAT'S HOW THE ACTIVITY HAS BEEN STRUCTURED, WITH THE PRIMARY PURPOSE
> BEING TO INFORM AND DEVELOP INTEREST IN HIGH WAGE, HIGH TECH OCCUPATIONS
> BEFORE GIRLS PASS THROUGH THAT MIDDLE SCHOOL STAGE WHERE MANY REJECT
> MATH/SCIENCE STUDIES AS UNFEMMININE OR NERDY.
>
> Why not allow the few boys who want to come do so?
>
> MY GUESS IS THAT WITH THE LEVEL OF INTEREST LIKELY TO BE SHOWN BY BOYS,
> THIS WOULD PROBABLY NOT BE A BIG DEAL.
>
> When
> > you turn them away, you are clearly discriminating, unless you have a clear
> > evaluation that there has been specific, disparate treatment of the girls in
> > each of their schools that has led to their being denied an opportunity.
Then
> > you are taking affirmative steps to rectify past discrimination. We all
know
> > about how girls are treated differently in classes, but my understanding
from
> > U.S. Dept of Ed conferences over the years is that anything separate has to
> > really be defended and supported with specific evidence to justify
> > separateness.
>
> THE OBJECTIVE IS NOT TO DISCRIMMINATE AGAINST BOYS, BUT TO MAKE UP FOR THE
> LACK OF ROLE MODELS, MINIMAL FAMILY AND SCHOOL ENCOURAGEMENT, AND
> EDUCATIONAL BIAS THAT GIRLS MUST OVERCOME TO SELECT A MATH/SCIENCE
> OCCUPATION.
>
> HISTORICALLY, BOY SCOUTS, BOYS CLUBS, BOYS ATHLETIC TEAMS, AND OTHER
> COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS HAVE HAD A LONG AND VARIED RECORD OF SUCH
> ACTIVITIES THAT TARGET BOYS. MORE RECENTLY GIRLS HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE
> MIX IN SPORTS, BUT THE MALE TRADITION IS PRETTY STRONG.
>
> IT IS THIS RECORD THAT AAUW IS TRYING TO CORRECT.
>
> ALL THAT BEING SAID, NO ONE WANTS TO GET INTO THE PROBLEMS A TITLE IX CASE
> WOULD PRESENT. I WILL TAKE YOUR SUGGESTIONS TO AAUW, MELISSA, AND ANY
> OTHERS THE LIST SERVE CARES TO OFFER.
>
> MANY THANKS
> >
> > What do others think about these points; am I off base?
> > Melissa Keyes <Equitymk@aol.com>
>
>
> Barbara J Tavares <btavares@hawaii.edu>
>