There is little doubt that public universities and colleges in the United States are among the greatest contenders in the race to perfect education. Like all public schools, the U-M and its fellow institutions represent a promise. This promise is that any capable student should have the ability - perhaps the right - to a place in which to pursue their education. As our eyes have opened wider over the years, this has come to mean that, despite your race, gender, religion, sexual preference, or socioeconomic background, there should be institutes of higher learning open to you.
Like anything else in a living democracy such as the United States, this is an evolving process. Many programs have, over the year, been instituted to provide special educational opportunities to special groups. These include single gender schools, special involvement programs, and of course the infamous words "affirmative action."
These changes are still occuring, and today they are perhaps more important than ever, as we stand on the edge of a chasm of immense proportions and uncertain depths, and watch our schools tumble over.
Don't believe me? Let's start with a couple of names. Pete Wilson. Sound familiar? Yes, the governor of California and now Republican presidential hopeful signed an executive order this summer that forces the University of California schools (UCLA, Berkely, etc.) to dismantle their affirmative action system on the basis that it unfairly discriminates against students because of their race. Many Californians, particularly among those benefitted by the change, cheer his action as righting a wrong. Many others denounce it, claiming that it is a racist, hateful policy that is part of a perceived push for "ethnic cleansing" in California, along with Proposition 187 and other measures.
Another name is Shannon Faulkner. This student found herself in the midst of an astounding mess as she sought to enter Citadel. Citadel is a state funded military academy that has traditionally been male only. Ms. Faulkner was admitted because she omitted her gender from her application, and, upon her later rejection, sued the school for entry rights. Although Ms. Faulkner later left the academy, she has become something of a martyr to her supporters, and more lawsuits are ensuing to allow at least two other female applicants into the school. Many behind her liken the situation to racially segregated primary and secondary education in the south, before Brown v. The Board of Education of Topeka, citing the Supreme Court ruling in that case that "seperate but equal" forms of education are discriminatory and unconstitutional, and demand that all public schools that are single sex should begin to "desegregate" themselves. Opponents claim that a special oppurtunity with proven benefits to its students would be lost, and that such a loss would be an unforgiveable mistake.
These two events may seem unrelated at first, but consider this: first off, they both concern all schools that are publicly funded because they set a precedent. These two well-publicized pebbles will likely set off an avalanche and result in a permanent, marked change in our school systems. Second, they both address a key question: how exactly should we keep our legacy of providing open access to students that history shows have been discriminated against?
A key part of this issue is to understand why these two educational standards, affirmative action and single-sex schools, came to be, and what's wrong, if anything, with them. Affirmative action starts from the understanding that both historic reasons and economic reasons prevent underrepresented minorities from getting a fair shake at education, and thereby a break from the "viscious cycle" of poverty. Its intention is to bring minorities into colleges, and thereby better jobs, upon the theory that the children of these students will be much more likely to attend college themselves, and thereby create a new cycle similar to the one that the educated middle and upper classes have long taken for granted. After this many years of affirmative action, in theory, the colleges ought to be able to reduce preferential treatment, without reducing the number of minorities that come through.
However, this is diametrically opposed to reality, where there is a constant call for increasing the amount of preferential treatment. So, it would appear that affirmative action is not a solution to the problem at all, but is rather a band-aid that ends up hurting the well-represented while failing to help the under- represented. Then again, we must realize the other reason we have affirmative action now - it is easy and inexpensive. A system proposed to actually solve the problem of racial inequity would be expensive (it would need to focus primarily on changing attitude and opportunity in the urban areas where the underrpresented tend to live, not at the universities), and it would be unpopular, because it would either be hailed as a racist non-solution or as a waste of money.
So, the alternatives both stink: either we try to really end racial discrimination in schools and hiring and so on, or we keep in place an unstable "solution" which we know will never solve the problem.
On the other hand, single sex schools were founded on a very different basis than our modern view of equal rights and equal access. They were founded on the view that the two genders are fundamentally different and that education can best target them if they are tought seperately. However, the problem with this is similar to the one that plagued segregated schools in the south: some male schools provide opportunities not found at female schools, and vice versa. This is the primary reason "seperate but equal" was found to be unconstitutional: it is seemingly impossible.
Yet, this question is more open than the one of affirmative action, because here, studies do show that single sex institutes offer advantages that coeducational ones do not. Furthermore, we must consider that it will cause great disruption and even greater expense, to dismantle this and make all public schools totally coeducational. Remember that nearly every school offers programs and opportunities that are closed off to one gender, typically males. At the U-M alone, we have a bevy of exclusively female housing and no such male housing, and wildly successful programs such as Women in Science and Engineering and the Society of Women Engineers.
In their usual fashion, the U.S. court system did manage to show us exactly how not to solve these problems. In allowing for Ms. Faulkner to attend Citadel, the courts decreed that there be a number of exceptions and modifications made to Citadel to accomodate her, including the construction of a seperate living facility for her. This is horribly problematic, as it is the worst kind of band-aid: it solves the problem of only one person. Should Citadel continue to be forced to let women attend, it will, by this precedent, continually have to spend large amounts of money to hack itself into a coeducational school for each new resident.
What the courts did wrong is that they did not begin a wide-ranging new policy that would make changes at every school that receives the money of taxpayers. This is purely a moral and ethical question, and so it is indefensible that it should be solved on a case by case basis.
The same is true for affirmative action. We need to explore the larger question, that encompasses both of these issues. That question is, simply, what do we and don't we want to do in order to solve the historic problem of discrimination in the educational system? Buy addressing such a general question, we accomplish a number of things. First of all, we address the rights of ignored groups, such as the poor whites and asians, who are not benefitted by Affirmative Action. Second, this approach is grounded in the belief that a problem exists that we are capable of solving; this means that we are protected from solutions like affirmative action that look good on paper and then fail to make a real change in our society. Third, this solution provides a framework that can handle new and unexpected problems, because it addresses a general problem and not specific issues.
There are a lot of fundamental questions to be asked here. First, do we still believe that males and females are different enough that there exists benefits in educating them seperately? Second, what is a coherent filter that we can use to determine just which segments of the population are underrepresented -Ęshould race, or gender, or income, or the presence or lack of college-educated relatives play a part in this filter, or are there other things to put in? Third, at what level or levels should this problem be tackled: should we focus on hiring practices, or college education, or secondary or primary education, or should we focus on community programs that target entire neighborhoods instead of specific individuals? Fourth, what are the specific long term harms to people or groups of people that we want to combat, and which specific problem areas are at the root of each of these harms?
The end effect of this project should be a dramatic one. We should seek to make true that unspoken promise that we hold so dear, that every citizen of this country should have the opportunity to succeed, given that they have the will and the ability necessary.
This is not a cheap solution. Bear no mistake that this will cost Americans millions of dollars. Whether that money comes from private sources or through taxation, do not doubt that it is necessary. In policy like this, more than anywhere else, you get what you pay for: cheap solutions and quick band-aid solutions are the social equivalent of substituting a tarpaulin for a roof, in that it works in the short term and looks like it's a good solution, but using it permanently quickly reveals the obvious: that it was never intended for that purpose and will not do.
This is also not an easy solution. In order to really change things and to give every student access, we need to change attitudes first. Everyone on both sides of the issues must agree on the problem and agree on a solution, and beyond that, in order to help those who are caught in the viscous cycle of poverty and crime and unemployment, we must change their attitudes, and make them remember their priorities, and make them believe that they can succeed.
It is possible that, given a hundred years or two hundred more, the colleges and universities of the United States will still be dominant leaders in the furthering of knowledge and the offering of opportunity. But they will not be that way unless we actively seek to make it so.