An article in the Capital Times, relayed to me by my eagle-eyed mother, caught my undying attention last week. The piece, about Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, was an appalling display of sexism at its worst. Five-hundred words were spent not on analyzing the new secretary of state’s intelligence or ambition, but on the one element that apparently will really determine her effectiveness as America’s chief diplomat: fashion. Robin Givhan of the Washington Post rambled on about Rice’s wardrobe and the underlying statements being made through her choice of clothes, feeding our societal tendency to analyze women, even those who hold prominent and esteemed positions, based on appearance and sex appeal.
That being said, we turn to a pressing national issue, one that reeks of sexism, which recently breached Wisconsin’s Legislature. A bill that would allow segregation of public schools by gender is currently pending the approval of state lawmakers. The proposal provokes local debate over a newly emerged national issue spawning from a year-old initiative by the U.S. Department of Education authorizing single-sex education in public schools around the country.
The constitutional and legal implications of gender segregation start with the notion of “separate but equal” racially divided school systems as laid out in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 and disregarded by Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. “In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.”
Could not the famous argument of C.J. Warren’s Supreme Court opinion apply to gender segregation? Though same-sex schools cannot be completely equated to racial division, gender, like race and ethnicity, is a social construct. Inferences of biological differences create certain expectations that inherently define the roles and behaviors appropriate for women and men within our culture. The two genders act according to fabrications absorbed through social influence and gender pigeonholing. Separating students because of natural differences promotes stereotypes and stigmatizes individuals by claiming that their personas are created by race, gender, national origin, etc., and deprives students of the opportunity to disregard such typecasts through male-female interaction.
The decision that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal” has strong motivations. Whenever segregation has occurred, one group has always fallen victim to a lack of opportunities and resources at the expense of exploited superiority by the other group — females, African-Americans and the poor have historically been the ones disadvantaged. With the same-sex school proposal containing no requirements that facilities offered to the two sexes be identical, there is no assurance of equality. Separate facilities or classes would be permitted as long as the other sex receives a “substantially equal” educational opportunity. “Substantially equal,” however, is not specifically defined in the regulation, leaving it open for interpretation and flexible standards.
Supporters of same-sex schools are quick to point to research that shows superior academic achievement, higher educational aspirations and increased confidence among attendants of private same-sex schools. The assumption rests on the notion that the same-sex element of such schools is the direct cause of enhanced academic experiences and accomplishments.
The success of private same-sex schools (which are, unlike many public schools, extremely well funded) can be directly linked to their educational practices: small class sizes, well-trained teachers, involved parents, focused curricula, expanded extramural opportunities and a strong emphasis on academia. Legislators, when pondering ways to improve this nation’s flawed education sector, should focus on these elements of private schools — not their gender uniformity — to prevent public education from taking a backseat to private institutions.
Students do learn differently, but it is sexist and overly simplistic to attribute such differences to gender, and it is naíve to think that sex segregation in schools will make up for a lack of educational funding, new technology, teacher training and available facilities. Even if same-sex schools do bolster report cards and inflate test scores, their potential to hinder social development could threaten individuals’ abilities to effectively work with the opposite sex in the future.
The elements of teenage life that some argue gender segregation resolve are mainly due to societal faults and emphases on the wrong values (beauty over intelligence, for example); in the end, same-sex education is not going to fix that problem.
Adam Lichtenheld ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in political science and international studies.
