Seperate and better than equal

Let me preface this post by saying that it is not complete. It has really made some people angry. The main point I am trying to get across is that sometimes we must distinguish between two different groups, and that differentiation and separate treatment is necessary and better than two groups being the same. I use the example of gender because it was what is used in class, but the idea has broader applications to life. So here it goes:

The term "Separate and equal" has quite a storied past in the United States. As the basis of segregation, it provided cover for a scenario that was separate, but most definitely not equal. In the court cases which eventually struck down segregation, they ruled that segregated schools had failed to provide education which was "separate and equal." As these laws fell, which rightly they should have, they took the idea of "separate and equal" along for the ride. We no longer believe separate yet equal can apply to anything. America generally believes separation inherently implies inequality.

However, is this really the case? There certainly are real life cases where separate is not unequal. For example, consider women's and men's sports. We demand that men and women are separated from sports because putting them together simply wouldn't be fair for at the level of elite athletes, men and women have genuinely different abilities. Instead, we make things equitable by separating the sports programs (and providing equal funding and number of sports) so that each can compete within their equals making skill and practice more important than male or female.

Taking this idea beyond gender, lets move into the classroom where we have a much more gradated scale. People have different levels of academic talent, and they are focused in different areas. Our school system generally reflects that. First, we have different levels of classes from a remedial classes to honors. Now these have often been misused, by denying children access to advanced classes without just cause or neglecting true teaching in a remedial class, but the heart of the idea is excellent. Instead of teaching to the top of the class -- and leaving much of the class to learn nothing -- or to the bottom of the class -- and failing to engage the brighter students -- we separate the classes to provide the best, and most equitable, education to all.

These are two specific cases, which I hope will be accepted as cases where integration could destroy the equality of a situation, and from here we can generalize to the rule for when separate will be more equal than together. From both examples we see the key point: we should separate only in cases where there are true differences that impact the arena in which the separation is occurring.

The two examples will help to shed light on this. In the first example with sports, we see that it is necessary to separate when combining would provide undue advantage to one group or the other. The rules of sports determine that men will generally be better at every level, so by separating we make new rules which make the groups more competitive. So in competitive environments we separate to defend whoever is weaker by the rules of that specific arena. From the second example, in a non-competitive area, we see that separation is to the benefit of all to provide specialized services to those who could gain a greater advantage. This concept shows up all over our society in specialization. Therefore, we conclude that separation is not only not a problem but in fact necessary for equality in arenas with high levels of differentiation.

So how does this apply to gender? We know there are differences between the genders, but it is very challenging to know exactly what they are. We know we must separate, but is hard to say exactly where and how. So let us seek earnestly to understand, but be careful where we go.