Some social issues have a lot more implications and insinuations attached to them than what appears on the surface. Gender Equity is one such issue which individuals are exposed to at a very young age starting right from their schooling days. Karen Stabiner in the article under consideration exemplifies and highlights the key issues associated with the topic. This article aims at critically appraising the standpoints of the author and presents a balanced perspective on the issue. The article under consideration, Title IX by Karen Stabiner, ponders over the question, “Can Separate Ever Be Equal?”(Stabiner, 1) and it can be stated that from a personal point of view her article is completely agreeable.
The author refers to the two different sexes and mulls over the equality and justification of gender equity with respect to education. She refers to the fact that single-sex educational opportunities have their own share of positives coming along but at the same time holds the opinion that the issue should be treated with caution. In this context, the author talks about the Title IX guidelines, which for the past few decades disallowed any form of gender discrimination at any educational facility that received federal aid. Apart from dealing with several other things, it barred single-sex programs in public schools except if there was documented substantiation of discrimination in the co-educational framework. The author rightly points out the justifications of the government for Title IX revisions. When Title IX barred single-sex educational initiatives back in the year 1972, it was for the reason that gender discrimination had reached an uncontrolled status. The Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights mentioned that during the period when the Title IX regulations were decreed, it was not irrational to institute the policies on a conjecture that, if organizations were allowed to offer single-sex programs outside the confines of certain special circumstances, inequitable practices would have persisted substantially. However, initiators of the revision process felt that things have improved during the present times. They go on to articulate that although there are still more improvements to be made, schools were now evermore evenhanded in their handling of female learners. Thus changing attitudes of the several parties involved called for some reflection in the regulations and guidelines on the administrative front as well and my position in this context is perfectly aligned with the author.
However, presenting another side of the story, the author points out, such initiatives are becoming a major cause for trepidation for some feminists and a number of educators. The author reflects on an important question of semantics. She draws attention to that these novel policies talk about “substantially equal” prospects for both the sexes. Equality is an absolute concept and thus the usage of modifiers introduces ambiguity. Nevertheless, she mentions that the federal administration did not share a common view and the idea of interpretive equality comes into view as a key reason for apprehension for the women who are or fear being at the receiving end of gender discrimination. In this context the author brings up the talk about a 1998 report presented by the American Assn. of University Women, often referred to by the critics of the new regulations, which failed to articulate that the single-sex learning system was for the benefit of the girl students. However, in light of the findings of the report, she disapproves of the stance of the detractors quoting 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). The author is blessed with a clear mind and in my opinion, it is logical to support her views completely.
Presenting her support for the revised regulations, she refers to various research findings that the single-sex learning system was most beneficial for three particular groups: females, the poor, and ethnic minorities. However, at the same time, she fittingly raises the question that if the single-sex education system is as beneficial as indicated by various research findings and the data provided by the National Coalition of Girls’ Schools, then what conscientiousness does the society hold with respect to those entities who are the most potential candidates of receiving the benefits of the reforms. The author correctly identifies that there are some basic physiological differences between the human sexes. The brain of a male and a female child develops differently and single-sex public educational facilities that take such issues into consideration while designing their mode of imparting education may perhaps be advantageous for some girls. However, this issue is still in the realm of scientific discussion and I feel it is too early to support or oppose such a twilight issue.
In conclusion, it may be said that the author’s response to the issues is a rational and balanced one. However, merely disconnecting males from females in the educational framework is a naïve idea. Single-sex education initiatives need to be endorsed and backed financially and philosophically. Devoid of support, the initiatives might finish up as yet another unsuccessful endeavor in bringing about school reforms. The author rightly says and I completely agree with the statement, “Change is never easy, but unlike the status quo, it carries the possibility of hope” (Stabiner, p. 13).
Works Cited
Stabiner, Karen. “Title IX”. Los Angeles Times. 2004. karenstabiner.com. Web.