<p>I think Keil makes a fair argument. If you maintain that students who attend a WC experience a better, more supportive and empowering environment than those who attend a co-ed school, then there is no legitimate reason to have co-ed schools. It’s not fair to force women to live in a less-empowering environment where they won’t be able to succeed to as great a degree as if they were in a WC, right? But then we’d have all single-sex schools (all-male and all-female), which isn’t very progressive and didn’t seem to work out too well when we tried that last time in the early 20th century. </p>
<p>The only conclusion to draw then is that SOME women must benefit from co-ed education, and SOME must benefit from single-sex WCs. You can’t say that ALL women benefit from WCs because then you’d call for the abolishment of co-ed education. It must be that SOME benefit and SOME don’t. That’s the only fair way to talk about single-sex education. It’s good for some people, but not for everyone.</p>