You are on page 1of 3

Gender discrimination, or sexism, is the idea that a certain sex is superior to another sex.

Nowadays, sexism is present in every environment that you can think of, even in schools where
children should feel safe and comfortable. Mr. Connolly’s case correlates with gender
discrimination because his son was denied admission to an all girls school. As first-year
associates, we should take Mr. Connolly’s case against single sex education because there’s a
good chance that we can win this case.

The court may see discrimination taking place in this case if rational basis is applied because
Mr. Connolly’s son’s Fifth and Fourteenth amendments were violated, these amendments
guarantee that everyone should receive equal protection of life, liberty, and property from undue
government interference. The Fourteenth Amendment in the ​U.S. Constitution ​clearly states that
“...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” No citizen should
be deprived of their basic rights. And Mr. Connolly is saying that his son’s right to study in their
desired school is a violation of their equal protection. The school that they wanted to admit the
son in denied his admission because of his gender.

Furthermore, gender shouldn’t prevent a child to obtain good educational programs that will
help brighten their future. In Krista Hillman's ​amicus curiae ​brief, she states that “... the
separation of young men and women in single sex public schools a violation of the 5th and 14th
Amendments.” The National Organization for Women supports our argument that the child’s 5th
and 14th amendments were violated due to discrimination against sex. The organization is
against single sex public schools because “... the Austin Independent School District's policies
limit young people’s ability to participate in schools that might suit them. It is well established
that these schools offer specialized programs dealing with social emotional needs and college
preparedness.” The school district’s policy restrict children from a specific sex to participate in
schools with programs that might suit them, and it can hinder the child’s progression. There are a
lot of single sex ed schools that offer specialized programs to their students that aren’t offered in
co-ed schools that can potentially help them in college and their future selves. Since the
programs are meant for a specific gender, the other gender is at a disadvantage. Similarly, a
previous court case, ​United States v. Virginia, ​where a female high school student applied for
VMI (Virginia Military Institute, an all male college) but was denied admission can be used for
Mr. Connolly’s case because at the end, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the female high
school student and requested for VMI to admit female students. The court mentioned that the
“categorization by sex may not be used to create or perpetuate the legal, and economic inferiority
of women.” Based on gender, you can’t create legal or economical inferiority based on priority
of genders. Everyone should be seen as equal, thus, should be given the same opportunities as
others.
On the other hand, a case of similar topic was handled before, ​Vorchheimer v. School Dist. Of
Philadelphia, ​and lost because “Vorchheimer was unable to show that the ​single-sex schools
constituted gender discrimination” (​Vorchheimer v. School Dist. Of Philadelphia ​case). The
rational basis for this case was shaky since they weren’t able to provide stronger evidence for
gender discrimination. We have a better chance of winning the case since we will be more
persuasive on the topic of equal opportunities for students. We will discuss that single sex ed
schools offer specialized programs for a specific gender and that the other gender will be unable
to participate in those programs which can affect their future. Not being able to be in those
programs can badly affect the other gender because those specialized programs will open them to
more opportunities and connections outside of school.

We believe that we should take Mr. Connolly’s case because we have a high chance of winning
it since we will provide strong evidence to support Mr. Connolly’s argument of being against
single sex ed schools. We will consider his case a gender discrimination because his Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments were violated when he was denied by the school. We will bring up old
cases such as the Vorchheimer and VMI cases as our precedent. We will also include the ​Amicus
Curiae​ brief submitted by the National Organization for Women to support our case. We will
present our case with the idea that every child should be able to access their basic right to
education where they can apply to schools that will help them with their future goals. Overall,
the First Associates and I are confident that we have gathered all necessary information and
evidence to win Mr. Connolly’s case.
Work Cited

Brief for the National Organization for Women as Amicus Curiae, p 1, Connolly v. Austin
Independent School District, 580 U.S. 141 (2017)

United States v. Virginia. 518 US 515. Supreme Court of the United States. 1996.

U.S. Constitution. Amendment. XIV, Section I.

Vorchheimer v. School Dist. of Philadelphia. 430 US 703. Supreme Court of the United States.
1977.