Re: Parts II & III - Deborah Brake's opening statement

H Furbrow (
Mon, 20 Apr 1998 15:28:05 PDT

> Historically, single-sex education has often hurt girls
> and women, by depriving them of educational opportunities
>critical to their advancement in society. Even where
>parallel programs have been established for girls,
>they have tended to be distinctly unequal, with
>fewer resources and inferior offerings.

Tell this to the graduates of the Girl's High School of Philadelphia, a
college prep school with a 100 year tradition which has spawned more
female doctors, lawyers (including many prominent judges), and engineers
than any other school in the state, on par with its brother school,
Central High, which has been forced open to girls. All of your talk of
"elimininating harmful stereotypes" by breaking these perceived gender
barriers makes perfect sense if you buy into the idea of women as
universal helpless victims, which I do not.

> There is not now, and never has been, a level playing
>field for girls and women in education. Equality did
>not exist in 1972 when Title IX was enacted, and while
>many improvements have been made since that time, >much
is left to accomplish before real equity is >achieved.

Nearly 63% of bachellors degrees awarded to African-Americans went to
women. In the early 1990's, college attendance fell for blac men, but
rose for black women.

Again, 55% to 60% of undergraduate and masters degrees are now going to

How do you define real equity? 100%?

>Particularly with respect to boys, the benefits of >single-sexeducation
claimed by some of its proponents
>have not been demonstrated. The Office of Educational
>Research and Improvement of the U.S. Department of
>Education (OERI), after canvassing the research, reported
>that "Results of the studies are inconclusive as to
>whether one type of school [i.e., single-sex or coed]
>is more effective in promoting higher academic achievement
>and psychosocial development." OERI did note, however,
>that several studies indicate that girls enrolled in
>single-sex schools perform better on a variety of
>measures than their peers in coeducational schools;
>that boys may perform better in coeducational settings;
>and that other studies that appear to find different
>outcomes for boys in single-sex Catholic high schools
>can be explained by differences in family background >and
initial ability. Single-Sex Schooling: Perspectives >From
Practice and Research, Vol. I, U.S. Department
>of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement
>(Dec. 1993), at 17-18. See also Issues Involving Single >Gender
Schools and Programs, General Accounting Office
>(May 1996), at 4-5.

So basically, if single-sex schooling is found to benefit females in
specific cases, its perfectly OK. But if it is found to benefit boys in
specific cases, it's wrong and it can be "explained" away.

>Some have advocated special programs for inner-city
>male youths to enhance their educational opportunities,
>but the educational crisis confronting disadvantaged
>communities is gender-neutral.

I didn't come here to be unfriendly, but I have to say that the above is
patently false. Dropout rates, suicide rates, and addiction have always
hit males harder [especially in "disadvantaged communities"], and are on
the increase for black males, and on the decrease for black females.
Check with the MMWR at the HHS website.

>Indeed, a number of experts in the Garrett case testified
>that sex segregation in the public schools is
>counterproductive for African-American boys, for
>whom it can create an expectation of privilege based
>on gender.

This is opinion disguised as fact. If you really believed it in
principle, there would be no programs specifically aimed at girls.

>vigorous outreach efforts to increase the diversity
>of teachers (and, in particular to increase the
>numbers of male teachers and people of color);

Now here we agree 100%. But can you tell me of a single federal program
designed to increase the number of male teachers? There are none.

>Underlying both constitutional and statutory law is a
>recognition that it is critical to guard against gender
>classifications that create unfair barriers to advancement
>for talented individuals and that serve to perpetuate
>the inferiority of women.

So you're saying that Title IX was designed to be gender specific? Now
that women dominate in academia and lead in the number of college
degrees, how do we justify the expansion of Title IX programs?

>At the same time, neither the Constitution nor Title IX
>prohibits all public single-sex education, let alone all
>single-sex education.

But you ae saying that it must be interpreted so that all male single
sex education is wrong. I infer this from your singular lack of
endorsement of any referred to male programs, while you justify female
programs in general.

H. Furbrow

new message to this message