In the article ‘Title IX’ by Karen Stabiner, the author looks into the parameters of gender differences in education armed by the fundamental thesis that there is a basic dissimilarity between boys and girls in the parameters of a psychological approach to education. However, it should be noted that all the arguments presented by the author are generally agreeable but the context of the fundamental approach to the text i.e. psychological differences appears to be pragmatic in nature as there is no hard scientific evidence in support of this specific thesis. As a result, it would be relevant to mention that on a personal note the basic formulation of the author cannot be agreed upon. Otherwise, the entire text is well supportable.
The author mentions that there is a specific amount of gender discrimination on the issue of co-education and in this context, it is true that such discrimination exists. In accordance with the author, there should be a balanced approach towards the education of boys and girls. She argues in favor of single-sex education by mentioning that studies have “stood as a blunt challenge to the traditionally coeducational public school system” (Stabiner, p. 9). However, the nature of this study is more sociological than scientific and as the basic differences are pointed out as differences in brain activity between boys and girls it should have been backed by scientific-analytical reports.
This argument is followed by the implementation of the Federal rule of ‘Title IX’. Title IX barred single-sex educational initiatives back in the year 1972. It becomes very agreeable when the author mentions, “it was because gender discrimination was rampant” (Stabiner, p. 9), and thus, the implementation was necessary. This was a fall out of the Civil Rights movements and as a result “Activists who came of age in the 1960s have always resisted attempts to tamper with Title IX” (Stabiner, p. 5). However, the approach of the author becomes completely agreeable when she mentions that “things were either equal or not equal” (Stabiner, p. 5) and not “substantially equal” (Stabiner, p. 5) as the authority stated. This is because there cannot be any half measures of inequality. As a result, to make the girls academically competitive with the boys it is essential to provide a situation that would be beneficial for the female students.
The author also indicates that there is no substantial evidence that single-sex education was not helping the girls. She mentions, “The new policy’s detractors cite a 1998 report by the American Assn. of University Women that failed to conclude that single-sex education was better for girls”. (Stabiner, 6) However, she correctly indicated that “The report called for more disciplined research because the public policy was at stake; the group never said single-sex classes were a bad idea.” (Stabiner, p. 6). Her argument holds truth and her insight in this context is an extremely worthy case and thus it is completely agreeable. As stated, it never opposed the single-sex education system and thus the report should not be interpreted against the approach.
In conclusion, it should be mentioned that even it is not scientifically proved that the brain of women is very different from that of men in the context of education; it is evident that if some social measures like single-sex education are taken upon by the authorities the approach should be welcomed. The author takes exactly this stand and argues in favor of the reformed education system. On a personal ground, I feel that such measures should be allowed to be taken and there should be no resistance against it. As a result, I personally completely support the views presented by the author and agree with her approach of redefining Title IX.
Works Cited
Stabiner, Karen. “Title IX”. Los Angeles Times. 2004. karenstabiner.com. Web.