Single-Race, Single-Sex Schools

In “Boys Only: Separate but Equal?” (Jan. 15), Janny Scott reported a criticism that segregating the sexes to improve the education of black males was unjustifiable for lack of hard research. The importance of “gut feelings” (of African American educators?) is undervalued, yet such feelings are often the result of observations that lead to hypotheses and research. The lack of “hard proof” in this area is more a function of the nature of research, particularly social research, as I found to my chagrin 10 years ago.

I had posited that underachievement in minority groups was due to the fear of success. The results (confounded by methodological problems) suggested that while low achievement in blacks did seem to be due to fear of success in competition (for money) against whites, in females it was rather the function of fear of failure as women. Fourteen-year-old females and blacks competed more aggressively against their peer group than against the more powerful social groups (males, whites).

Collusion between the sexes was evident, in that males did not have to work much harder to beat the females on a task at which females traditionally do better (and on which they had scored higher on the pretest). Blacks (of both genders) continued to accept the unspoken rule that it was dangerous to compete with whites; but whites apparently did not realize this, as evidenced by their aggressive competition against blacks.

In many ways, black males are similar in achievement orientation to females, particularly white females, given the fact that black females generally perform better professionally than their male counterparts. Consequently, separating the sexes in eduction may serve the same purpose for black males as for females in general. It may provide the opportunity to develop expectations of what is possible and to gain leadership experience without excessive social pressures related to sex and race.

MARIE B. AMMAR Ph.D.

Los Angeles

Segregating public-school classes based on race may have its justifications, but among them is not Jawanza Kunjufu’s absurd notion that black boys have a racially particular learning style: “shorter attention spans, higher energy levels, competitiveness, and stronger motor skills.” I taught elementary and high school classes--100% black, mostly boys, 60 in a classroom--for two years, and found them respectful, attentive, hard-working, and cooperative . . . much more so than white students I know. Was it because my students were expected to conform to adult standards, rather than vice-versa? If so, then American schools and educators have a lot to learn from West African ones, and foremost among the lessons is that racial stereotypes are stupid.

WILLIAM SOFTKY

Claremont

Given the coincidence of the court case of a woman seeking admission to the all-male Citadel (Jan. 19) and the article by the president of Mount Holyoke extolling the virtues of single-sex education for women (Commentary, Jan. 19), a question comes to my mind; if single-sex education is good for one why is it denied to the other?

CHRIS POULSON

Claremont

The planned conference at Cleveland High School excluding all but black students (Jan. 13) is to discuss how those students can improve both academically and socially. Those black students, 12% of the school’s enrollment, now hold about half the school’s 32 student leadership positions. Nineteen percent of the students are white, and there is a 57% Latino enrollment.

Question: If a whites-only conference were to be proposed to enhance their accomplishments, does anyone want to guess at the politically correct reactions of officials and activists?

JAMES B. HENDERSON

Westlake Village