Inconsistent, Unequal, and Unintegrated: How U.S. Legal Definitions of Race and Gender Shape Education Policy

• In Event: 66.061 - Intersectional Examinations of Race, Class, and Gender Structured Poster Session

Abstract

This instrumental case study (Stake, 1995) uses the trial Equity v. Department to explore why higher education can use quota-like systems for gender but not for race. The case reaffirmed Title IX precedent that schools can eliminate men’s opportunities for compliance (Strauwosky et al., 2013). I argue the case had a far broader impact. Data collected through a constitutional review (Chemerinsky, 2016) of Equity v. Department are examined through an intersectional framework (Crenshaw, 1991) to reveal how U.S. educational programs can explicitly use gender but not race in offering legal remedies. Findings uncover how Equity v. Department reaffirmed three legal facets of educational programs which define race and gender differently under U.S. law: scrutiny tests, quotas and separate-but-equal.

Author

• Kirsten Hextrum, The University of Oklahoma