The editor would like to thank all involved for their time and effort on this edition of The Voice.

The opinions expressed in any Sweet Briar College publication or other forms of media are not necessarily those of the students, faculty, staff or administration. Therefore, Sweet Briar College is not responsible for its content.

Editorials represent the opinion(s) of the editor(s) and/or staff/guest writer(s).

This site is maintained by Anne Proctor. Please email any questions or comments concerning the web site to her.

Singls Sex Education: "Seperate and Unequal?"
By Natalie Pye '07
STAFF WRITER

Let’s talk about Title IX. Why, you might ask, should we mention a law that is nearly thirty five years old when there are midterm elections, North Korea’s nuclear declaration, increasing unrest in Iraq, and even the Mark Foley scandal exploding on the front pages?

Title IX was passed to prohibit sex-based discrimination in education, specifically in government-funded schools from elementary to college. In recent history, Title IX is best known for causing consternation in college athletics, prompting debates between sports fans about how best to make sure female athletes get equal funding for sports in a culture focused on football.

I don’t usually think about Title IX, especially here at a private women’s college where there’s no daily reminder of its presence. I take for granted the benefits of the law, not really concerned with its origins or its impact on others; it simply isn’t a part of my daily thought.

A couple weeks ago, however, a friend forwarded me an email from the National Organization of Women (NOW), entitled “NOW Opposes Single-Sex Public Education as ‘Separate and Unequal’”. I generally find myself in agreement with NOW, so I was curious to see what they had to say against single sex education, something that I’ve found to be an integral aspect of my college education.

In late October, the Department of Education issued a new interpretation of Title IX, making single-sex education in public schools easier to implement, so long as it is done in a manner that treats male and female students even-handedly. While this may seem reasonable, especially among a group of women who have chosen a single-sex education, NOW is of the opinion that a ‘separate and equal’ educational system simply cannot exist.

Not unreasonably, considering the long history of hard-won victories for women’s rights, some only very recently, NOW is reacting in a knee-jerk fashion to this news. Treating any news coming from the Department of Education, as bad news NOW was quick to condemn the move towards making single-sex primary and secondary education more accessible.

However, there are two elements to this situation; firstly, the merits of single-sex education and secondly the role of the government in implementing such an educational system. The benefits and demerits of single sex education are the stuff of numerous contradictory studies, some stating that it empowers young girls, others claiming that it will make them afraid of boys and unable to interact with the opposite sex in ‘the real world.’

The truth of the matter is that single-sex education is not universally beneficial, but for those whom it helps, it is irreplaceable. With this in mind, it would seem reasonable to make single sex education available for those who choose to take advantage of it.

However, considering the pitiable state of America’s public education system, and especially the crashing failure of the ironically named ‘No Child Left Behind’ act, one cannot help but see reason in NOW’s disbelief that the Department of Education will be able to make a reasonable policy for single-sex education.