MS>The standard the Supreme Court enunciated that requires 
MS>"exceedingly persuasive" arguments in favor of single-sex
MS>classes couldn't be met in the case of a college where everyone 
MS>lives on campus, so that standard would be unmeetable for a 
MS>math class in a public HS.
Matt, can you be more specific as to the law in this case?
Perhaps you could clarify or expand upon the concept of
"exceedingly persuasive"?  Perhaps an explication as to the
legal argument made by the complaintant (I'm assuming there
WAS one?) in the VMI case?  Wasn't the issue more in the
nature of there being no equivilent "opportunity" for
females, and the fact that this constituted a handicap?  If
so, a complaintant in a single-sex classroom action would
have to demonstrate damages rather than the "defendant"
having to justify their position?  
It seems to me that the arguments are identical, though the
outcomes appear to be opposed... In each case, one action 
results in a group being handicapped, while the other action 
results in that same group being benefitted with no loss to 
any other group.... The court, it seems to me, has simply 
opted to eliminate an unnecessary handicap to a group, since 
the alternative results in no damage to the "other side".  
The males at VMI (or Citadel) are not handicapped by the 
inclusion of females, but their EXCLUSION results in a
handicap for the females... Similarly, a coed math class 
seems to result in damages to females, as do coed classes
with black males.  Going to single-sex classes removes the
damage without generating any detectable damages among the
other sexual group (and, obviously in this case, the two
examples lead to a compimentary result)....
In any event, could you please pretend that you are acting as 
an expert (and unbiased) witness and refrain from 
editorializing or putting your own spin on this so that we
might explore this idea further?  Thanks!
___
 * MR/2 2.26 * WINDOWS95 only promises what OS/2 DELIVERS!
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.4P1a
---------------