Free-Thinking, independent and happy conservative woman.
Miserable, Man-hating, baby-killing liberal feminazi.
Posted on 08/11/2006 8:19:46 PM PDT by Coleus
If the right to freedom of association meant public school students, many wouldn't be in school at all.
I must have missed something. Are people PREVENTING Gandy's daughters, or anyone else's daughters, from being educated alongside boys?
Or is Gandy - Ms. Choice in everything except that which she doesn't like - PREVENTING others from CHOOSING a single-sex school?
You remember that word, Ms. Gandy - CHOICE - it's the word you live and die by......unless someone picks a choice that doesn't happen to be yours.
But they MUST be in co-ed classes because it's "Better".
Uh-huh.
Brown vs Board doesn't apply to gender. Sorry.
Brown doesn't apply to any particular differential. The logic was that separate is inherently unequal. If classrooms are inherently unequal because they're segregated on the basis of race, how are they NOT inherently unequal if they're segregated on the basis of gender?
"The logic was that separate is inherently unequal."
Brown V Board ruled on RACE issues, NOT on gender issues. Other subsequent rulings have killed most all-male public schools, notably VMI. If you're gonna cite a court case, Brown isn't the proper citation.
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/April05/Single.sex.schools.html
We separate all the time. WE separate according to geographic location, according to academic achievement, according to age, and according to luck of the draw. Under the absurd limit of your logic we must have every student in one place, experiencing the same things. Obviously, that is impossible.
No, the Board logic applies only to schools segretated on the bases of race, and decisions since that time have restricted that theory to issues of race.
I'm guessing this really has something to do with the large Muslim population in MI.
Ya gotta keep em seperated.
"Ya gotta keep em seperated."
No doubt many Muslims would like single-sex classes.
However, as a graduate of all-male Wabash College (still all male), I can assure you that education can be enhanced when the gender distractions are removed.
+
well...I know that in high school, being boy crazy, I didn't pay very close attention in class because I was mooning over some boy or flirting or writing notes.
If I had been in a co-ed school but in a single gendered class I KNOW I would have done better. Iwould have cared less about my clothes, hair, make-up.....which was what took up at least 50% of my attention.
Then they should homeschool, because unless their children are fraternal twins, it's unlikely they'd ever be in the same class in an age-segregated school.
(Ba-dum-bump).
no. They are not demanding that boys and girls in the Mich. public school sysytem learn separately. However, some students learn better when they are in single sex classrooms, so they are giving the Michigan parents the "choice" of giving their children a single sex education.
Of COURSE we separate all the time. Of COURSE we draw distinctions based on any number of factors. WE live in a real world, not the ivory tower the activist Supreme Court occupies.
"The logic was that separate is inherently unequal."
Brown V Board ruled on RACE issues, NOT on gender issues.
Where do you see any reference in that quote to RACE? The problem with precedent is that it tends to expand into other areas, doctrinally equal to the original. Yes, Brown ruled on race, but the same legal principle can be -- and has been -- applied to any other "discriminatory" practice, including those based on gender.
Other subsequent rulings have killed most all-male public schools, notably VMI.
And what was at the root of those "other subsequent rulings?" The legal principle that separate is inherently unequal!
Under the absurd limit of your logic we must have every student in one place, experiencing the same things. Obviously, that is impossible.
"My" logic? Are you daft? The Supreme Court promulgated that nonsense, not me! I'm pointing out its fatuity.
No, the Board logic applies only to schools segretated on the bases of race
No, it doesn't. No legal principle applies solely to the context in which it originated. The definition can always be expanded, and usually is.
Is someone actually advocating classes and facilities segregated on the basis of gender?
I don't think parents should have to ask the government for the right to educate their children in same-sex classes. If they want to segregate by gender, then they should go ahead and do it, and to hell with the PC crowd. Failing that, they should withdraw their kids from the public circus and put them into schools that actually work.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.