Sexism in the Classroom

Thank you for printing Clea Benson’s article (Op-Ed Page, Oct. 28) about the sex discrimination she encountered in her high school.

When California National Organization for Women first started talking about the continuing problem of sexism in the classroom, we were confronted with disbelief. People said, “What are you talking about? This is 1987! Things have changed!”

Well, some things have, but some things haven’t, judging by the reports we get. The most recent example involved the 9-year-old daughter of one of our own staff members. The girls in her co-ed P.E. class were told: “Girls, I’m not trying to hurt your feelings on the first day of school, but I believe that boys are better at sports than girls.” Later the teacher tried to rationalize by explaining that he was using humor to cajole the boys into working with hula hoops.

Awareness of sexism like this served as the impetus for California NOW to sponsor SB 724, a bill by Sen. Leroy Greene (D-Sacramento). This bill requires course work in educational equity for all new teachers, school counselors and administrators. It would raise awareness about the serious and damaging consequences of unequal treatment in the classroom. We made sure that SB 724 addresses educational equity for minority and disabled students as well. These students face the same discrimination with the same results--they don’t get an equal education. Studies show that training in non-discriminatory teaching techniques not only improves the performance of girls and other disadvantaged students, it also increases the overall effectiveness of the teacher.

The sexist joke contest which offended Clea Benson and her classmates offends us, too. Male-only computer clubs, sex-segregated English classes, and quotas on girls allowed in honor societies are other examples of the sex discrimination which is still alive and well in California schools. But these extreme examples of sexism are only the tip of the iceberg. Even more pervasive are the subtle (and often unconscious) ways that girls are encouraged to lower their sights to conform to a passive female ideal. The consequences are evident in girls’ lower Scholastic Aptitude Test scores, the large number of girls who could, but don’t go on to college, and the small number of girls enrolled in non-traditional job training.

This is 1987. We can’t afford to squander a precious human resource--the talent and potential contributions of half our population.

SHIREEN MILES

State Coordinator

California NOW

Sacramento