Search News


Browse Archives

News

Separate But Equal?

September 30, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Where’s the line between helping men and discriminating against women? A community college in Texas may soon find out.

Administrators at Northeast Lakeview College, a recently founded institution located outside of San Antonio, are defending a decision to bar women from a public speaking course launched in 2007. The male-only course, “Introduction to Speech Communication,” is offered in coeducational sections as well, which college officials say should satisfy federal discrimination laws.

“We’re not denying anyone access to a speech class,” said Eric Reno, president of Northeast Lakeview College. “That’s not the intent of it.”

The class is taught by Archie Wortham, an assistant professor of speech who says he is particularly concerned about the lack of male participation in all levels of education. Wortham argues that his all-male class helps address differences in learning styles between men and women, and may ultimately help Northeast Lakeview retain and graduate more male students.

Wortham said he developed the class while he was teaching at Palo Alto College, and introduced the course with the blessing of administrators at Northeast Lakeview. “I firmly believe what I am doing is right,” Wortham said.

“I’m an educator, and I don’t want to get wrapped around political correctness,” he added.

Wortham and Reno said that lawyers for the Alamo Community College District, which includes Northeast Lakevie and Palo Alto, had determined that the course passed legal muster. District officials, however, did not respond to requests for comment Monday.

The college has received no complaints from students about the course, according to Northeast Lakeview officials.

Legal Questions Raised

Legal experts interviewed for this article said there are serious and legitimate questions about whether a single-sex course at a public college is legal. Roger Clegg, president and general counsel for the Center for Equal Opportunity, said the course could surely be challenged as a potential violation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which was used in the historic Brown vs. Board of Education desegregation case. The course could also face challenges under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the federal law that explicitly prohibits sexual discrimination in educational institutions that receive federal funding.

“You have both Title IX issues and also Fourteenth Amendment issues since it’s a public college,” Clegg said. “If this were a racially exclusive course, I would say that it’s cut and dry that you could not do this.”

“There would certainly be a problem if something were being offered to men that was not being offered to women at all,” he added. “The fact that it is being offered to women in an additional course helps, but it doesn’t necessarily save the program. The very process of categorizing and discriminating raises problems and the classes may not be equal.”

In defense of the program, college officials note that another section of the same course is not only offered -- but offered at the same time.

“The issue is it’s a speech class, and we’ve always scheduled a speech class at the same time. People can get their speech class requirement,” Reno said Monday, reiterating comments he’d made to the San Antonio Express-News, which first reported on the course.

But Reno’s contention that the co-ed options have “always” been available at the “same time” isn’t true. The male-only course has only been offered at Northeast Lakeview twice, and in the most recent case there was not another coeducational section of it offered on the campus during the same time slot, according to the college’s spring schedule for 2008.

Asked about the discrepancy between his statements and the class schedule, Reno initially theorized that the course must have been offered in the same time slot but lacked sufficient student interest. That theory, however, turned out not to be true, either, Reno's staff acknowledged.

“I don’t see it as a big issue,” Reno said. “I think if we do it again we’ll make sure [to offer] the same section at the same time, but I didn’t think anyone was denied access to a speech course.”

Northeast Lakeview, which has founded in 2007, is still seeking accreditation. It has two sister campuses, however, that are accredited. Those institutions, Saint Philip's College and San Antonio College, did offer a comparable coeducational course on their campuses at the same time the male-only class was held, according to Wortham.

Helping Males is Goal, Officials Say

The seminal test of male-only education at the college level came in 1996 with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling against of the Virginia Military Institute, an all-male military college in Lexington, Va. In that ruling, the court recognized that a government entity must establish an "exceedingly persuasive justification" for excluding participation based on gender. Furthermore, the institution “must show that that the discriminatory means employed are substantially related to the achievement of those objectives."

Northeast Lakeview officials might have a difficult time illustrating an “exceedingly persuasive justification” for a male-only course. While there may be a problem with male participation and achievement at Northeast Lakeview, the college has little data to show it. The college hasn’t even been in existence long enough to establish graduation rates.

There are, however, other data that indicate a pressing problem nationally. Male participation in undergraduate education dropped from 52 percent to 43 percent between 1976 and 2004, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. At Northeast Lakeview, the male to female ratio on campus is now about 40 percent to 60 percent, according to college officials.

While the college has no graduation rate data of its own, there are district-level data that show lower two-year graduation rates for males. For full-time students entering in 2002, 14 percent of white males graduated in four years, compared with 22 percent of females, according to the Alamo Community College District. For Hispanic males, the graduation rate was 19 percent, compared with 39 percent for females. For black male and female students, both had graduation rates below 3 percent.

As for whether offering a single section of an all-male class on campus is “substantially related” to the goal of achieving greater male participation and success in higher education, Reno said there isn’t yet any way to effectively demonstrate that the class is addressing the problem.

“How do you prove it before you do it? It’s a chicken and egg thing,” he said.

There were nine students enrolled in the single-sex public speaking class in spring of 2007, and eight completed the course, according to Wortham. In the spring of 2008, 18 students enrolled and 17 finished, he said.

No Plan to Discontinue Course

Lara Kaufmann, senior counsel for the National Women's Law Center, said the Supreme Court has set a rather high bar for justifying programs that refuse people based on gender.

“You have to have some kind of reliable evidence that single sex programs are the effective way to achieve your goal, and if you don’t, your program may not be legal,” she said.

As for Title IX, the U.S. Department of Education has, in recent years, produced regulations that suggest the law allows for some single-sex programs in secondary and elementary schools. The department, however, has not introduced similar regulations for higher education, and the regulations related to K-12 have been challenged as unconstitutional.

As of Monday, Northeast Lakeview still had plans to offer the male-only public speaking class in the future. Reno said he had spoken with Chancellor Bruce Leslie Monday, and that Leslie had not suggested that the college drop the class.

“He’s still trying to figure out what the issue is also,” Reno said. “I think we all go back to who did we deny access to?”

Reno calls the male-only class an innovative tool for addressing a real problem, but he says he’s not surprised that it’s raised some eyebrows.

“I’m getting used to the death of common sense,” he said.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Separate But Equal?

  • OH PLEASE..
  • Posted by keef1234 on September 30, 2008 at 6:35am EDT
  • Feminists are a funny little group. They can have all female colleges and high schools and it is under the guise of: helping the poor little girls that society has thrown out because of sexism...This college has ONE course and experts are commenting...If this was all female, not one word would have been written other than "what a brilliant innovation"....Mens participation/graduation rates have been drastically dwindling for over 20 years (I'm a college prof of over 20 years) and Title IX only seems to protect the flourishing gender of female...ask the sports teams that had a 50 year existence only to be shut down because they couldn't scrape up enough women for women's wrestling...

  • Oh, please indeed!
  • Posted by Dr. K on September 30, 2008 at 8:50am EDT
  • Hey, Keef1234, where exactly is the "funny little group" of feminists in this article? As far as I can see, the only people quoted here are school officials and legal experts. Perhaps I'm a funny little feminist, in that I support programs that help young men and boys in achieving success. However, I would have liked to see some elaboration as to how this speech course in particular is geared to foster success among males. How is the teaching style different? Are the readings different?

    For that matter, it would be nice to know what the district plans to do about the even lower incidence of success among black students.

  • Posted by Double Standard on September 30, 2008 at 9:21am EDT
  • This should cause a ruckus at the many university-supported womyn's centers across the land, but there will be nary a peep audible from the vanishingly-few men's centers.

  • Why don't you and him fight?
  • Posted by Roboteqacher on September 30, 2008 at 9:45am EDT
  • The first question that occurs to me is, if, as the article says, "The college has received no complaints from students about the course, according to Northeast Lakeview officials" WHO are the officials "defending a decision to bar women from a public speaking course" against? Before you defend a practice there needs to be an attack on it, doesn't there? This sounds like a reporter on a slow news day, trying to stir up some controversy. There is solid, research based reasoning behind single-sex classes and if the practice hasn't reached the colege level previously, we have never has so many college students needing remedial reading, writing, and math previously either. We use the tools that will do the job. Let the boys take their speech course - as long as there's another section available to the girls, find another teapot to stage your tempest in.

  • Feminists do support men in single-sex education
  • Posted by Beth on September 30, 2008 at 10:25am EDT
  • Despite the inflammatory comments posted by some, I am with the other feminist posters in thinking this is a great idea. Having taught for 17+ years, I recognize that young men do better when there are no women around for them to impress. (Ditto, however, the other way around.) Although I would like to see this course offered as a single-gender course for women as well, I think the intentions of this instructor and this college are laudable. I do, however, also agree that they appear to need to address many other areas as well -- Hispanic, Black, and other issues.

  • Posted by Gene Preuss at UH-Downtown on September 30, 2008 at 11:40am EDT
  • I attended a seminar on Mr. Wortham's class at the "Black, Brown and College Brown" seminar at Tampa last November. I had some questions about limiting the enrollment to males, however, Mr. Wortham gave a very good rational for the class and the process by which he implemented the class with the administration (who by the way were women who gave approval to the course).

  • Posted by JP on September 30, 2008 at 12:15pm EDT
  • I will never understand how single-sex class rooms (for either sex) can possibly help anyone in the long term. . . we discovered long ago that tracking students may help the teacher but rarely helps the students, seperate (rather by gender, socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity or test scores) is not equal and doesn't do anyone any good.

  • shoes on the other hand
  • Posted by John D on September 30, 2008 at 1:00pm EDT
  • If the challenges are true, then why is there still 10 times as many female-only scholarships as male-only scholarships available despite female enrollment at the 60% level.
    200,000 more bachelors are awarded to women than men. When men lead in enrollment and graduation EVERYTHING was on the table help female students.

    The hypocrisy (of the critics of this male-only class) is stifling.

  • Separate is Never Equal
  • Posted by Theora on September 30, 2008 at 1:00pm EDT
  • Dr. K,
    The San Antonio Express News article describes a speech class unlike the one I took as an undergraduate, which was focused solely on teaching students how to make speeches, rather than basic life skills, and in which no one received flowers.

    According to the article, students "learned how to tie a double Windsor knot, had lunch with the college president and discussed what qualities to look for in a woman . . . Wortham brought in speakers who coached the students on investing money, applying for loans, building a good resume and meeting potential employers with a firm handshake and a steady gaze. Women came in to talk about motherhood and discrimination in the work force, and the students greeted them with bouquets of flowers."

    Dr. Wortham seems to have a problem with successful women. A quick examination of his popular writings reveals this disturbing quote: "But in many cases, like I tell the guys in my class, much of what men face today can be rectified if they just show up! Ask the women who are taking over the boardrooms, the bedrooms and oval rooms. We don’t need competition, we don’t need permission, we need a chance to be the men we were made to be!" I would guess he means oval office when he refers to "oval rooms". It is rather shocking that a college professor would make such an error.

    His males only class is based, not on scholarly research, but instead on a Christian self-help book by Stu Weber, who is a pastor, not a scholar. See p. 31 of his presentation on this class: http://www.achievingthedream.org/_pdfs/_strategyinstitute08/SaveMaleRetainingMinorityMalesEducationWortham.pdf

    What is amazing is that the community college district is allowing these two individuals to keep talking and making untrue statements to the media after the first story broke, which just gives any feminist lawyer more incredible material for the inevitable lawsuit.

  • This is not the whole story
  • Posted by intexas on September 30, 2008 at 1:05pm EDT
  • As one of those "funny, little" feminists, I would throw my support behind all-male or all-female classes, particularly at the secondary school level, but that is assuming that 1) you've done your research about what subjects are best for single sex courses (speech is not one of those subjects) and 2) the courses offered are actually equal.

    In this instance, the entire story is not being told. Speech is a required core course in the Alamo Community College District (ACCD), so any course that is offered at a "prime time" for males must also be covered by a similar course offered at the same time.

    The other part of this story is the fact that all these speech courses are not equal. Ask Dr. Reno if he showed up and had lunch with each and every speech class or just that speech class. Were there lots of special speakers in that speech class, including speakers giving advice on writing resumes, etc, which many students would conceivably have an interest in? Did those speakers go to each and every speech class offered at NLC? I think not.

    Given this and other news out recently, I'd say the leadership at ACCD needs to fully understand what is going on at each of their campuses and focus on research-driven policy and obedience to both the letter and spirit of the laws.

  • Public Speaking means to the entire public
  • Posted by Kathy Anderson , Director-Diversity & Equity at CalState Monterey Bay on September 30, 2008 at 1:50pm EDT
  • Utter nonsense! I've been a college debater, forensics coach, and public speaking lecturer. I'm now serving as a Diversity and Title IX officer. I'm appalled that the one thing missing in this debate is the commitment to the outcomes of the learning for these male students. The only way to become a good speaker is to speak as often as you can and to any group of people you can find. You cannot become a polished speaker if you are a male who is only speaking to males in a male-only class because you are being taught your "learning style" is different. If you are not being provided with the most diverse audience your college can possibly provide for your speeches, your public speaking class was not worth what you paid for it. Good luck trying to find male-only audiences to speak to later since that is the only kind of audience your college prepared you for!

  • Problem?
  • Posted by dundermifflin on September 30, 2008 at 3:15pm EDT
  • "Dr. Wortham seems to have a problem with successful women. A quick examination of his popular writings reveals this disturbing quote: “But in many cases, like I tell the guys in my class, much of what men face today can be rectified if they just show up! Ask the women who are taking over the boardrooms, the bedrooms and oval rooms. We don’t need competition, we don’t need permission, we need a chance to be the men we were made to be!”

    Theora, I would suggest that another way to read his quote is that he is exhorting men to "show up" JUST LIKE the successful women. Far from being a criticism, it can be construed as a compliment.

    I agree with the post that said that no expense or tools were spared when the problem was that fewer women were attending college. Now that it is fewer men...it is time to help the men ...or face a lack of diversity in college.

    As to those who say they would like to see more emphasis put on helping Black and Hispanic students succeed...why do you automatically conclude that this course will not, at least in part, address the problem? It is after all open to black and hispanic men.

  • Men are not disadvantaged!
  • Posted by LogicGuru on September 30, 2008 at 3:15pm EDT
  • Men are not disadvantaged. Women are still making $0.79 to the male dollar, and still de facto excluded from a wide range of occupations. Once men and women leave the relatively fair meritocracy of school and college it's back to business as usual in the Real World which is not by any stretch a fair meritocracy. Women know that to compete in the labor market they have to do better than men--to get better academic credentials--and so that is what they are doing.

    I don't have any opinions about sex-segregated classes. But I find the idea that men are falling behind and need special help, or that men are now at a disadvantage because of affirmative action policies, absurd.

  • men's intro to speech comm
  • Posted by K. Aune on September 30, 2008 at 4:15pm EDT
  • "Utter nonsense?" I don't think so. Nice to be concerned about the students' learning but to say that the only way the students can learn to be effective public speakers is in front of a group of diverse audience members is an overgeneralization (no matter how much experience one has had in debate). We don't teach our kids to swim by throwing them in the deep end. Driving and flying simulators serve as good entries to learning those respective skills. Students can observe their public speaking attempt on video -- to no audience at all -- and learn a considerable amount.

    Besides, the course in question is an intro to speech comm, not a public speaking course (a different offering according to the school's SOC). I won't say, without hearing more of Wortham's arguments, whether a male-only section of an intro to speech comm is detrimental to the learning outcomes of male students. But I certainly haven't seen a reasonable argument for declaring the strategy "utter nonsense" either.

  • Posted by Beffudled , No logic at all on September 30, 2008 at 4:15pm EDT
  • By all means, let’s wait until males earn $0.79 per female dollar and then we'll know that they really need help. We are supposed to learn from our past mistakes so that we don't repeat them. Additionally, I've never seen one of those reports regarding pay differences by gender tackle the intangibles in earnings. It's always some number to further the propaganda of the author.

    But somehow, someone always turns a conversation about the declining number of males in college into a “what about women” or “what about X ethnicity” instead of examining the issue at face value. Check your research again; there are more opportunities for HELP for women and minorities than there are for men. No one is saying take away help from women and minorities. They are saying (at least I am) help these men too.

  • We got a raise?
  • Posted by EngProf on September 30, 2008 at 4:45pm EDT
  • Anybody know where those $0.7x per hour figures come from? They get thrown around a lot, but no sources are ever cited. Is the figure adjusted for those of us who stayed home with our kids, or who work part time? If it's not--then it's not a valid number.

  • Wage Gap
  • Posted by LogicGuru on September 30, 2008 at 8:40pm EDT
  • The data on differences between male and female earnings comes from the US government-from the Bureau of Labor statistics. Try this: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2003/03/art2full.pdf. The 79¢ to the dollar figure is the result of comparing male and female fulltime year round workers. There are also disaggregated figures for different occupations and discussion of the effect of marriage and parenthood. But the bottom line is that in every category, women are earning less. Moreover women without college degrees are still locked into a narrow range of pink-collar jobs.

    For a good book on this stuff try Robert Cherry _Who Gets the Good Jobs_.

  • $.79
  • Posted by Dr. F. Gump on September 30, 2008 at 8:40pm EDT
  • LogicGuru and EngProf, Yes there has been quite a bit of research on wymyn's issues to avance political perspectives (and seldom for all women). The $.76 (or $ .79 etc.) figure includes all working men and women, regardless of field, experience, education, etc.
    Don't shriek feministas, but Dr. Warren Farrell probably has published the original studies in one of his four (that I know of) books. There are no known masculist groups on campus that I've heard of, that last more than a semester or two. Only the Femmunistas can preach such heavy politics on campus without reprisal.
    No wonder the % of men on campus continues to go down and down.

  • Men and women respond to incentives
  • Posted by LogicGuru on October 1, 2008 at 5:25am EDT
  • Dr. Gump: the data I cited is not from some feminazis promoting some feminista agenda. It is from the US government.

    If fewer men than women choose to invest heavily in education that's their decision--and it's a rational one. At the most highly ranked universities, men and women remain more equally represented. These are very smart, very ambitious kids who are going to go to college and perform come hell or high water.

    The discrepancy between male and female enrollment is most marked at colleges that cater for less driven kids with more modest aspirations for whom investing heavily in education is more of a pragmatic decision. As things stand, men are still advantaged in the labor market and women know that they have to work harder and do better in school to get decent jobs than men do. Moreover college has a bigger payoff for women than it does for men: the male-female wage gap is smaller for college graduates than it is for non-graduates.

    PEOPLE RESPOND TO INCENTIVES. And the incentive for women to go to college and do well is greater than it is for their male counterparts.

    If you want to fix the male-female discrepancy in college enrollment--and performance--then fix the labor market so that men can't count on a gender advantage and will have more incentives to perform, and so that women without college degrees have more viable options. People respond to incentives--and this isn't some heavy political dogma.

  • Negotiation and incentive
  • Posted by Beffudled on October 1, 2008 at 8:30am EDT
  • I skimmed the Bureau of Labor Statistics report, but as always many intangibles are missing from the analysis. Ever heard of Linda Babcock? Look up the research she’s done regarding negotiation differences between males and females as one example. I’m not attempting to blame females, so don’t try to pin that attitude on me. I’m merely stating that the job market is somewhat fair – “PEOPLE RESPOND TO INCENTIVES” I believe you said – negotiate more pay, get more pay. It’s the societal norms you need to change if you want “fair” pay. Be careful what you ask for though. Societal changes can bring about unexpected side-effects (positive and negative).

    Since the topic of this article is regarding the decrease in male college students and providing advancement for THAT issue, I point back to my earlier assertion. These topics always get turned into “what about females” and “what about X ethnicity” without looking at the problem at face value and attempting to address it. How do we address the declining number of males enrolling in college? How do we get them to value education the same way females do? “PEOPLE RESPOND TO INCENTIVES” like scholarships and grant money. Why not also give those incentives to the group on the decline?

  • Majors Only Section
  • Posted by terry mullin , instructor at heartland community college on October 2, 2008 at 5:00am EDT
  • If it becomes illegal to have a male only section, will it also be illegal to have majors only section (such as in accounting)?