Linda Purrington <lpurring@earthlink.net>
_________________________________________________________
kgalles@erols.com wrote:
>
> The legal issues surrounding single sex education are pretty much
> settled. Public single sex schools are ILLEGAL under the 14th
> Amendment, NOT under Title IX. If anyone wants to challenge a single
> sex public school, he/she will win. The US Supreme Court's decision in
> U.S. v. Virginia (the VMI case) settles this.
>
> 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
> > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++