It took an article in the school newspaper to bury Phillips Andover Academy in a controversy that many of its students didn’t even believe existed: gender inequality. What began as a furious Letter to the Editor, following the election of yet another male student president at Andover, quickly spread to the pages of The New York Times, and raised questions across the country about the condition of gender equality in our schools. The writers of the article criticized the student body’s “casual attitude” towards gender equality, and condemned what it called the “omnipresent ‘but there isn’t a gender problem at this school.’” Like at Andover, Latin students tend to question any arguments that the school has yet to guarantee equal opportunity to both sexes; out of twenty-one people who were surveyed, only two students believed that Latin could not boast true gender equality. While many students may be confident in Latin’s encouragement of men and women alike, Mr. O’Toole reminds us that “there’s a difference between equal opportunity and equal outcome.”

With student elections igniting the gender debate at Phillips Andover Academy, Latin’s upcoming student elections may be a good place to start. Since 1953 — the year Latin became co-educational — 62 males have filled Latin’s top student leadership position of Junior/Senior prefect. Over the same period of time there have been 24 females. That means 28% of students elected have been women: needless to say, equality would be 50%. Even in the past five years, there have been two female prefects and six males. While other factors certainly determine a candidate’s electability aside from their gender, the disparity in the numbers is worth noting.

What if, however, the inequity was limited to the top leadership of Latin’s student government? That is, at least, what the numbers suggest. Of the 88 club leadership positions, 47 of them are held by women compared to 41 by men. This balance more accurately reflects the fact that 55% of Latin students are women, and it is what one would expect the ratio of prefects to be as well. So why does Latin’s student government reflect such inequity? Senior Kevin Ward expressed his concern about Latin students falling victim to common stereotypes of a “good leader” when he said that “many Latin students, like a majority of the world, view men as better leaders while they stereotype women with qualities that they have deemed counterproductive in a leadership positions – for example, decision-making based on emotional response. I’m not saying Latin students necessarily believe this of their peers, but because they often see this portrayal of men and women in greater roles of leadership, it’s difficult for them to elect women to positions of power.” Kevin’s viewpoint suggests the need for action to combat what may be Latin’s inadvertent perpetuation of these gender-based stereotypes. While to most it is obvious that women and men are equally qualified to be leaders (see Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry), a significant minority of people still maintain the idea men are better leaders. To Kevin and many like him, the world — Latin included — has failed to stay committed to gender equality, and needs to redouble its efforts to achieve it.

Our focus on student government as an example of unequal gender “outcome” is similar to a larger trend in which analysts focus on political, high-profile cases of gender inequity. In reality, the issue extends far beyond that particular field and applies to every career, particularly in areas Latin students tend to gravitate towards. Latin encourages us to fulfill our full potential, but at the same time some of the strongest gender inequality can be found on those high-achieving paths. In top-level management, it is estimated that men account for around 75% of the highest-ranking positions. As of the beginning of this year, 3.6% of the Fortune 500 chiefs are women, and analysts are calling that number a “milestone.” How we act in high school is preparation for real-world application. If we fail to address gender inequality on a small-scale, how will we respond when we encounter it later on? While we may not have a “glass ceiling” –a term in economics for the barrier that prevents women from ascending the corporate ladder– above our heads at Latin, its existence is as significant for us and our futures as it is for those in the workforce right now.

We go to a school where more than half of the student body and over 52% of our classroom faculty is female. In contrast to schools like Andover, we cannot complain of a shortage of powerful, strong female role models in our community. While the New York Times said that Andover’s “paucity of girls in high-profile positions […] leaves younger students with few role models and discourages them from even trying for the top,” Latin’s club leadership and strong representation of women make up for the “paucity” of girls we may find in the junior/senior prefect position. We are also a community that has been unafraid to address the issue of gender inequality, like we have with bullying, hazing, or hate speech, and can easily boast significant progress. To many at Latin, we have come so far as to reach a point of diminishing returns –it is becoming harder to make even little amounts of progress. Maybe, if the efforts to promote equality at Latin are not producing much yield, the school should try helping other communities become more equal. Or maybe there is still work to be done at Latin. Either way, equality can only be reached when every person, every school, every community is cognizant of the problem and fighting to fix it. And everyone has equal reason to do so: equality is worth fighting for.