The Women Gain

With a judicious mixture of courage and caution, Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger's Department of Health, Education, and Welfare last week stepped into the middle of the battle against sex discrimination. It published a set of proposals designed to exorcise the substance if not the spirit of sexism from almost every educational institution in the U.S.

In 80 pages of regulations, HEW spelled out antidiscrimination bans under the Education Act of 1972. Carefully choosing its way through a minefield of custom, law and sensibilities in the sexual realm, HEW mapped the reforms that schools will have to make or else risk loss of federal funds and prosecution. The four main areas of change:

SEX SEGREGATION. Compulsory segregation by sex is to be banned in both classes and school-funded extracurricular activities. Gone will be such hoary educational standbys as all-girl home-economics classes and all-boy shop classes, along with all-boy and all-girl phys.-ed or hygiene courses.

ADMISSIONS. Sexual discrimination will be prohibited in the recruitment and admission of students to the 2,500 or so federally aided colleges and universities in the U.S. Also barred will be discrimination that takes the form of separate ranking of applicants by sex, sex-biased admission tests and consideration of whether or not an applicant is married, pregnant, or already a parent. Further, schools will be expected "to remedy the effects of past discrimination."

EMPLOYMENT. The proposed rules come down hard on discrimination against women teachers and other women employees. Women who perform the same work as men will receive equal pay and equal benefits. Since current federal regulations already deal with these problems in higher education, the new guidelines will have the heaviest impact in elementary and secondary schools.

ATHLETICS. On the playing field and in the locker room (TIME, March 11), already the scenes of impassioned brouhahas, the new rules are not so stringent. Though a coed school "may not provide varsity sports opportunities exclusively for male students," it is "not required to provide women access to men's teams." It can simply abide by the old, if not honored, separate-but-equal doctrine. Parity does not have to mean equal expenditures either.

Feminist Gloria Steinem was quick to take offense at what she called "Jock-ocracy." She saw the failure to guarantee equal funds for women's sports as a commitment to "equality if it doesn't cost anything." In Michigan, Jo Jacobs of the Committee to Study Sex Discrimination in Kalamazoo Public Schools also found the proposals wanting but was "not surprised. Most institutions, including HEW and the NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association), are controlled by males." Kay Hutchcraft, program coordinator of the Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women, offered a rare but cautious cheer for the new policy: it will mean "more participation for more women."

The sports provisions were not the only part of the proposed rules to draw fire. The exclusion of certain schools from the new regulations also came in for criticism. Not only are the service academies totally exempt, but in the admissions area so are preschools, elementary and nonvocational secondary schools, and public colleges that have historically been all-male or all-female. The greatest disappointment to many feminists was the failure of HEW to ban sex stereotyping in textbooks and other curricular material. The department was aware of the problem but claimed that "any specific regulatory provision would raise grave constitutional questions under the First Amendment." That failure to act, said Ann Scott, legislative vice president at the National Organization for Women, is "desperately serious. They are still allowing girls to be taught that they are inferior."

Back at HEW, Weinberger was pleased with the proposals. Critics will have until Oct. 15 to suggest changes; then the revised regulations will be submitted to the President for approval. Weinberger hopes to put the new rules into effect early next year. "Our role," says he, "is to be a catalyst, and we will use the full panoply of enforcement to bring about this change." But "flexibility" will be the watchword. "We don't want a backlash."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.