Home | Business News | Browse by Publication | W | Women's Quarterly

The odd couple: single-sex education advocate Leonard Sax wonders why the Bush administration is getting all the blame (and credit) for something Kay Bailey Hutchison arid Hillary Clinton teamed up to do for the nation''s public schools.

Article Excerpt
SINGLE-SEX EDUCATION has long been a no-no for feminists. So it was riot surprising that, when the Department of Education announced this spring that girls' schools and boys' schools would henceforth be eligible for public money, the reaction was a barrage of protest. "The Bush administration's proposal for single-sex schools is a giant step backward in the struggle for girls' and women's equality," Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, proclaimed in USA Today. Terry O'Neill, the organization's spokesman, chimed in: "How can a single-sex school teach boys to be led by girls?" she asked.

For Nancy Zirkin, director of public policy for the American Association of University Women, the new rules on single-sex education raised the specter of racial segregation. Zirkin invoked the language of Brown v. Board of Education when she declared, "We believe that separate is never equal." "It is ironic and discouraging that the Bush administration has chosen to use its regulatory power to encourage sex discrimination by promoting single-sex education," wrote Leslie Wolfe, president of the Center for Women Policy Studies, in a letter to the New York Times.

Hold on, ladies. You're attacking the...

View this article FREE - Now for a Limited Time, try Goliath Business News
Free for 3 Days!