Student Publications
University of Houston
151C Communications Bldg
Houston, TX 77204-4015
713.743.5350

©1991-2007
Student Publications,
All rights reserved.

Last modified:

Contact:
ktruitt@uh.edu

Opinion

Gender segregation to cause harm

Christian Palmer
Opinion Columnist 

On Tuesday the United States Department of Education made public its decision to allow classrooms -- and even entire schools -- to cater to the gender of their choosing. Up until now, the only classes that usually granted this request have been ones like sex and physical education, understandably.

Championed by senators Hilary Clinton, D-N.Y., and Texas' own Kay Bailey Hutchison, this action has been on the table for some time as an extension of the debate on the No Child Left Behind law. 

Having finally received the green light, the new policy reportedly comes with an increase of options for parents and encouraging new and experimental teaching methods.

"Research shows that some students may learn better in single-sex education environments," Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings said. "The Department of Education is committed to giving communities more choices in how they go about offering varied learning environments."

However, no amount of fragrant language can mask the stench of the "separate but equal" mentality that is undeniably at work here. 

The Department of Education should be ashamed of itself. This cession of values that so many have fought so hard to achieve is wrong. Period.

Of course, no one can deny that the institution of education overall could use a little examination, but allowing schools to segregate its students more easily is not proactive. 

In a time when more students are turning to guns and other methods of violence to disclose their sentiments, it seems ridiculous to sponsor action to further divide students when unity should be sought. 

Schools have long been a key element in the socialization of youth. By endorsing, to any degree, that it is OK to divide people based upon gender, children will get mixed signals when they learn about the women's movement and civil rights. 

They're not mentally or socially prepared to endure a century of progressive legislation being removed. With boys and girls separated, it would make it easier to teach youth that girls wear pink and grow up to be mommies, and boys wear blue and never carry umbrellas.

Actions speak louder than words.

We should note, however, that it's not like they're making all schools gender-specific, and affiliation with the classes and schools is strictly voluntary.

Also, regulations won't be so lax that anyone can obtain gender isolation for classes willy-nilly. There must be genuine promise that it will significantly improve achievement. 

It won't grant segregation for classes like math or English. If it did that, it might encourage fewer girls to solve for integrals or fewer boys to learn how to knit, and that would naturally mess up the delicate harmony of the sexes.

Still, making enrollment in this environment optional is beside the point. Shielding young people from half their peers in a society that is more connected than ever is not only a strange idea, but also one that could throw kinks in the machine that produces well-adjusted citizens. 

It discourages the freedom to mingle socially and academically and limits the exchange of ideas -- not to mention the fact that splitting up boys and girls would cause children involved with these programs to become more awkward with the opposite sex, devaluing the school system as the instrument in the mating process that we all know it is on some level.

That parents would willingly yank their children from the educational system seems weird to those raised like most of us were. 

If alternative methods of learning are seriously being sought, something more than gender integration is probably at issue. It's a serious concern that demands serious debate.

Palmer, a communication junior, 
can be reached at christianapalmer@gmail.com.