Quotes are taken from a message written by Dan to Charles on 07/09/96...
DT>One has to wonder though (Ok...I have to wonder).  What is the big deal 
DT>of an all-male school?  It has an historic tradition that goes back 100+ 
DT>years (Im guessing).  Why is it now considered "unconstitutional" to 
DT>have an all-male or all-female school?  Oh yeah, this is the 90's and 
DT>all this equality stuff seems important.  Never mind about historic 
DT>tradition.  With women allowed in the Citadel, it will no longer be the 
DT>place it once was historically.  It will become a new school.  And for 
DT>what purpose?  So that a very few women could enroll and we in America 
DT>could applaud our valiant efforts and continual progress to eliminate 
DT>all elements of segregation.  
I think the "big-deal" is that both of the schools are public 
institutions.  I do believe that same-sex schools are legal if they are 
private, but not if they receive public funding.
Our nation also has a history of discrimination against women - they did 
not have the right to vote until the 19th amendment was passed in 1920.  
Perhaps many people feel that since women pay roughly 50% of the taxes 
in this country that they ought not be denied access to any public 
institutions they help pay for?  Just a guess.
DT>Forget the argument about blacks.  When someone brings up the subject of 
DT>racial segregation and ties it into sex segregation then there is no 
DT>argument.  Racial segregation is morally wrong.
You offer no argument as to why you feel they are different.  I'm not 
trying to be argumentative, but why do you think it is okay to deny 
access to women but not to black men?  Did you know that blacks were 
given the right to vote in 1869, 51 years before women were granted the 
same right?  Why is it morally wrong to segregate based on skin color, 
but it is okay to segregate based on body parts?
DT>But when you are speaking of a single sex school, the purpose is not 
CT>to exclude one sex.
What?  This is double-speak.  Of course, by definition, single-sex 
schools are established to exclude one sex.
DT>One would have to admit that a single-sex school can focus on things in 
DT>different ways than can a coed facility.  
How?
DT>There are many coed educational facilities in this country to choose 
DT>from.
Military schools with the same history and tradition?  It was only a 
generation or two ago that women were first accepted to Harvard and Yale 
- do you think, prior to that, women of great intelligence felt 
satisfied that they could attend a women-only school with much less 
history and stature?
DT>I see nothing wrong with having a Citadel where only men attend.  
I see nothing wrong with letting women attend.  Let the school set it's 
standards and then let anyone who meets those standards attend.  Shannon 
Faulkner dropped out because she couldn't adapt - that's fair.  
DT>Men and women are different in many ways and I don't see society having 
DT>the obligation to try to make those differences less apparent.  
But - men and other men are different in many ways.  Why should sex be 
the determining factor?  Some men can handle The Citadel, some can't - 
some women can handle it, some can't.  Judge each person as an 
individual, not according to some preset "image" of a class of people.
DT>I know that many may not agree with my views here.  That is ok.  I 
DT>additionally feel that all-female schools should be allowed.  Why must 
DT>every historic institution we have in America be bias free?  (And 
DT>according to whose criteria?)  Well Charles, now look what you've 
DT>.in>.  I suppose Im the only one here with these views.  
And here you are - working a job (teaching) dominated by females and, at 
one time, considered "women's work."
I can't speak for others - only my liberal self.  ;-)
Chuck Beams
Fidonet - 1:2608/70
cbeams@future.dreamscape.com
___
* UniQWK #5290* After all is said and done, more is said than done.
--- Maximus 2.01wb
---------------