Riggs is a second-year communications student. Â
By Nicole Riggs
In 1954, the United States Supreme Court rejected the
“separate but equal” doctrine on the grounds that
“separate but equal is inherently unequal in the context of
public education.” Although this was a Civil Rights case, the
reasoning and ruling applies practically and legally to the
separation of classrooms along gender lines. The Bush
Administration, however, has recently proposed amending Title IX
regulations (which forbid public schools from discriminating on the
basis of sex), in order to experimentally fund
“innovative” programs such as single-sex
classrooms.
U.S. secretary of education Rod Paige states, “Our goal is
to provide schools with as much flexibility as possible to offer
students programs that meet their needs.” In his press
release, Paige reiterates this argument several times yet fails to
address the negative effects of single-sex classrooms, which
include the inhibited development of life skills, the production of
negative psychological effects and the inability of the government
to ensure appropriate equality safeguards.
Americans have increasingly required that public education teach
more than math, history, science and English. The
“non-academic” lessons now taught in schools illustrate
the important role of public education in equipping children with
the necessary skills for getting by in the real world.
Since the real world is coed, children must be taught how to
relate to all people. Gender socialization is one example of a
non-academic lesson that has increasingly become the responsibility
of public education.
There are countless extracurricular activities that are
separated along gender lines, such as Girl Scouts or Boy Scouts and
sports teams. In addition, most children choose to spend their free
time with members of their same sex. As a result, school is the
only forum outside of the home where children are exposed to
members of the other sex.
If for 18 years males are not exposed to the female point of
view and vice-versa, they will be at a disadvantage when they are
thrust into the coed world and expected to infer basic ideas based
on their childhood experiences. Lena Wu, who attended an all-girls
school before coming to UCLA, recognizes that her social
development regarding friendships and romantic relationships with
men was behind that of her fellow Bruins. “When you are in
classes with only girls, you are not around guys you have crushes
on. So when you are always around someone you have a crush on, you
have to learn to deal with those feelings.”
Whereas most students gradually learn to deal with those
feelings as they grow up, students who do not regularly interact
with members of the other sex must pick up these social skills in a
more “sink or swim” situation.
Children who are isolated from members of the opposite sex
during their formative years face additional challenges when they
are presented with complex coed social situations later on in life.
Historically, separation based on sex has most directly had a
negative effect on women, and women would also be most harmed by
any future separation. For example, Wu cites coed classrooms as a
prerequisite for the male-dominated business world. She points out
that in an all-girls classroom, you don’t learn how to
compete with men. She feels that professional success for a woman
is contingent on her ability to confidently challenge men in a
realm they have always dominated. Women must acquire this skill
through early and regular interaction with men.
The psychological effects of gender separation must also be
considered. For example, will the standards for the all-male
algebra class be higher because boys have traditionally performed
better in this area? If so, this will perpetuate the existing
stereotypes that hinder many women. It may also create the same
inferiority complex found when psychologists examined the effects
of separate schools on African American children.
In his book, Richard Kluger describes the “doll
tests” that were used to prove that the racial separation of
children has adverse psychological effects. Psychologists presented
African American students with an “African American”
doll and a “Caucasian” doll and asked them to pick out
the “nice” doll or the “smart” doll. The
vast majority of the African American children considered the
Caucasian doll to be “nicer” or “smarter.”
After extensive testing and analysis, psychologists determined that
the racial separation was detrimental to the psyches of African
American students.
We cannot know the future effects of single-sex classrooms.
However, there is overwhelming historical evidence that refutes the
viability of equal educational opportunities when students are
arbitrarily separated.
The government’s ability to ensure educational quality and
equality is also problematic. The proposal would give the local
districts more flexibility and control over defining equal
educational opportunities. The Department of Education’s
promise to “ensure appropriate safeguards against
discrimination” is vaguely reminiscent of the separate but
equal era ushered in by Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896. It is
impossible that the federal government will be able to ensure that
the educational opportunities offered to boys are equal to those
offered to girls in local districts and vice-versa. A diffusion of
responsibility will occur from the top-down until there is no one
to police the decisions of the local districts.
Advocates for single-sex classrooms have legitimate academic
concerns, such as removing distractions from the educational arena.
However, The Washington Post reports that studies relating
single-sex solutions to this issue are inconclusive. Apparent
benefits of single-sex classrooms could also be attributed to
higher levels of parental involvement or the smaller classes that
result from the separation. This proposal could mislead parents
into believing that a single-sex classroom is the best option for
their child. As a result, these children would not acquire
practical life skills, such as the ability to concentrate when
distractions are present. In addition, harmful social and
psychological effects, along with implementation problems, outweigh
the benefits of single-sex classrooms.
In Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled that
even though actual funding and physical buildings are equal,
intangible factors perpetuate inequality. This ruling resulted from
extensive research and sound judicial reasoning, which is why, 50
years later, separate is still inherently unequal.