Abstract
This commentary responds to Liben’s (2015) “Probability Values and Human Values in Evaluating Single-Sex Education” by analyzing the values she discusses through a legal framework. As Liben correctly points out, many single-sex education programs are animated by claims regarding “hard wired” biological sex difference, and proponents tend to value personal experience and anecdote over scientific approaches to data. This commentary recognizes the contribution Liben makes in situating supporters of single-sex education within a particular historical tradition and illuminating their values. However, it argues that while gender essentialism and resulting claims regarding typical male and female tendencies may be established intellectual philosophies, they are of limited value from a practical legal perspective. Similarly, while anecdotes and personal experience have real power, they are legally insufficient to support sex-based classifications enshrined by public schools. The commentary builds on the link Liben has drawn between historical gender essentialist views surrounding women’s education and contemporary proponents of single-sex education by providing examples of how these views are currently being applied in classrooms across the U.S. It then provides a discussion of the development of sex-discrimination law, demonstrating how historical examples of gender essentialism in law were ultimately rejected by the courts. Through a discussion of the legal requirements governing single-sex education, the commentary attempts to illustrate the relevance of both evidence and gender-essentialism in legal determinations about the permissibility of single-sex education programs in the United States.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
20 U.S.C. § 1681 (1972).
20 U.S.C. §7215(a)(23) (2002).
American Civil Liberties Union (2012a, August 15). West Virginia family challenges single-sex middle school program rooted in stereotypes. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/womens-rights/west-virginia-family-challenges-single-sex-middle-school-program-rooted-stereotypes.
American Civil Liberties Union (2012b, December 6). ACLU asks dept of education to investigate single-sex programs rooted in stereotypes. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/womens-rights/aclu-asks-dept-education-investigate-single-sex-programs-rooted-stereotypes.
American Civil Liberties Union (2014a, May 13). ACLU files federal complaint challenging single-sex class program rooted in stereotypes at Florida’s second largest school district. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/womens-rights/aclu-files-federal-complaint-challenging-single-sex-class-program-rooted-stereotypes.
American Civil Liberties Union (2014b, September 3). ACLU files Title IX complaints challenging stereotype-based single-sex class programs at three Florida school districts. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/womens-rights/aclu-files-title-ix-complaints-challenging-stereotype-based-single-sex-class-programs.
American Civil Liberties Union (2014c, December 1). Teach kids, not stereotypes. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/womens-rights/teach-kids-not-stereotypes.
Bates v. United States, 522 U.S. 23 (1997).
Bigler, R. S., & Liben, L. S. (2006). A developmental intergroup theory of social stereotypes and prejudice. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 34, 39–89. doi:10.1016/S0065-2407(06)80004-2.
Bigler, R. S., & Signorella, M. L. (2011). Single-sex education: New perspectives and evidence on a continuing controversy. Sex Roles, 65, 659–669. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-0046-x.
Bigler, R. S., Hayes, A. R., & Liben, L. S. (2014). Analysis and evaluation of the rationales for single-sex schooling. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 47, 224–260. doi:10.1016/bs.acdb.2014.05.002.
Boys Adrift: A doctor’s plan to help our sons fulfill their potential. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.boysadrift.com/gender.php.
Bradwell v. Illinois, 83 U.S. 130 (1872).
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
Eliot, L. (2009). Pink brain, blue brain. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Fabes, R. A., Martin, C. L., Hanish, L. D., Galligan, K., & Pahlke, E. (2013). Gender-segregated schooling: A problem disguised as a solution. Educational Policy. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0895904813492382.
Fergus, E., Noguera, P., & Martin, M. (2014). Schooling for resilience: Improving the life trajectory of Black and Latino boys. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.
Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973).
Gurian, M. (2011). Boys and girls learn differently! A guide for teachers and parents. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Halpern, D. F., Eliot, L., Bigler, R. S., Fabes, R. A., Hanish, L. D., Hyde, J., . . . Martin, C. L. (2011). The pseudoscience of single-sex schooling. Science, 333, 1706–1707. doi:10.1126/science.1205031.
Hayes, A. R., Pahlke, E. E., & Bigler, R. S. (2011). The efficacy of single-sex education: Testing for Selection and peer quality effects. Sex Roles, 65, 693–703. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9903-2.
Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581–592. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.581.
Klein, S., Lee, J., McKinsey, P., & Archer, C. (2014, December 11). Identifying US K-12 public schools with deliberate sex segregation. Retrieved from http://feminist.org/education/pdfs/IdentifyingSexSegregation12-12-14.pdf.
Lapidus, L., & Migdal, A. (2012, December). Fighting sex stereotypes in the law: Reflections on 40 years of the ACLU Women’s Rights Project. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/2012.12.20_released_version_of_wrp_40th_report.pdf.
Lapidus, L., Friedman M, & Schwartzman, K. (2010). Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellants, Doe v. Vermilion Parish School Board, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Case No. 30378. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/2010-5-28-DoevVermilionParish-Appeal.pdf.
Liben, L. S. (2015). Probability values and human values in evaluating single-sex education. Sex Roles. doi:10.1007/s11199-014-0438-9. this issue.
Mael, F., Alonso, A., Gibson, D., Rogers, K., & Smith, M. (2005). Single-sex versus coeducational schooling: A systematic review. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/other/single-sex/single-sex.pdf.
Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718 (1982).
National Association for Single Sex Public Education [NASSPE] (n.d.). The legal status of single-sex public education. Retrieved from http://www.singlesexschools.org/policy-legalstatus.htm.
National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education (2012). Title IX: Working to ensure gender equity in education. Retrieved from http://www.ncwge.org/PDF/TitleIXat40.pdf.
Noguera, P. A. (2012, February 3). Saving Black and Latino boys. Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/02/03/kappan_noguera.html.
Pahlke, E., Hyde, J. S., & Allison, C. M. (2014). The effects of single-sex compared with coeducational schooling on students’ performance and attitudes: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 1042–1072. doi:10.1037/a0035740.
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978).
Sax, L. (2006). Why gender matters: What parents and teachers need to know about the emerging science of sex differences. New York: Doubleday.
Sherwin, G. (2005). Single-sex schools and the antisegregation principle. N. Y. U. Review of Law & Social Change, 30, 35–93.
Sherwin, G., & Brandt-Young, C. (2012, August 20). Preliminary findings of ACLU “Teach Kids, Not Stereotypes” campaign. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/doe_ocr_report2_0.pdf.
Siegel, R. B. (1992). Reasoning from the body: A historical perspective on abortion regulation and questions of equal protection. Stanford Law Review, 44, 261–381.
Siegel, R. B. (1997). Why equal protection no longer protects: The evolving forms of status-enforcing state action. Stanford Law Review, 49, 1111–1148.
Siegel, N. S., & Siegel, R. B. (2010). Struck by stereotype: Ruth Bader Ginsburg on pregnancy discrimination as sex discrimination. Duke Law Journal, 59, 771–801.
Signorella, M. L., & Bigler, R. S. (2013). Single-sex schooling: Bridging science and school boards in educational policy. Sex Roles, 69, 349–355. doi:10.1007/s11199-0313-0.
Signorella, M. L., Hayes, A. R., & Li, Y. (2013). A meta-analytic critique of Mael et al’.s (2005) review of single-sex schooling. Sex Roles, 69, 423–441. doi:10.1007/s11199-013-0288-x.
Stetson University (n.d.). Why single gender classes? [Archived PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from http://www.stetson.edu/artsci/education/hollisinstitute/media/Why%20Single%20Gender%20Class.ppt.
The Education Alliance (2012, February 2). Van Devender Middle School [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Va5A69P4kc.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, 7 C.F.R. § 15a.34 (1979).
U.S. Department of Education, 34 C.F.R. § 106.34 (2006).
U.S. Department of Education, 69 Fed. Reg. 12276 (2004).
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights. (2014). Questions and answers on Title IX and single-sex elementary and secondary classes and extracurricular activities. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/faqs-title-ix-single-sex-201412.pdf.
U.S. Department of Justice (n.d.). Title IX Legal Manual. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/cor/coord/ixlegal.php.
United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996). [VMI].
What Works Clearinghouse, U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences (2014). Procedures and Standards Handbook Version 3.0. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/reference_resources/wwc_procedures_v3_0_draft_standards_handbook.pdf.
Williams, W. (1992). The equality crisis: Some reflections on culture, courts, and feminism. Women’s Rights Law Reporter, 14, 151–192.
Yoshino, K. (2011). The new equal protection. Harvard Law Review, 124, 747–803.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Amy Lynn Katz, Lenora Lapidus, Miranda Sherwin, Judith Johnson, and Jonathan Busky for reading drafts of this commentary and providing input, and the rest of her ACLU colleagues past and present for their work on the Teach Kids, Not Stereotypes campaign: Allie Bohm, Christina Brandt-Young, Crystal Cooper, Alicia Gay-McMullen, Mie Lewis, Ariela Migdal, Robyn Shepherd, and Ian Thompson. Any errors herein are my own.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
This piece does not constitute original research but is rather a legal analysis of educational programs currently operating in the United States. The requirements to disclose potential conflicts of interest, research involving human participants and informed consent are therefore not applicable.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Organizational affiliation listed for identification purposes only; all views expressed are those of the author in her individual capacity.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sherwin, G. Anecdotal and Essentialist Arguments for Single-Sex Educational Programs Discussed by Liben: a Legal Analysis. Sex Roles 72, 434–445 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0478-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0478-9