left me with questions. She said:
<< It may seem appropriate and legal,--and under the intent of Title IX,=
which is to be interpreted broadly, according to Congress,-- that girls,
in particular girls of color, be allowed affirmative-action type help to
make up for past exclusion. >> =
Why just girls? And why just "girls of color"? =
<< It also seems that students of color of both genders might have the =
right to meet separately from whites. But that should never be
interpreted to mean that whites have the right to meet separately, or
that males have the right to meet separately, in a public school system.>=
What kind of double-talk is this? Only "students of color" amd females
can choose? Only parents of these kinds of students will have choice
about the kinds of schools and classes their children can attend?
This is the kind of talk and thinking that has brought a bad name to,
and elimination of, affirmative action programs. =
<< But at the same time it is dangerous to choose segregation in any part=
of the public school system, because segregation will almost certainly be=
corrupted and subverted to the interests of those in power.>> =
Why do you think it would "be corrupted and subverted to the interests
of those in power?" In the Harlem girls' school, as well as the proposed=
school for black teenagers in Detroit, those in charge are local, in
the neighborhood - the parents and teachers - those who are close to the
situation, and who want this for their children. =
Parents everywhere are objecting to the kind of education their children
are currently getting. And can you blame them? I agree that Vouchers
would be bad. But desparate parents are looking for anything that would
give them some alternatives.
Dorothy Young
71234.3270@compuserve.com