News and Commentary

Categories
Campus Office for Civil Rights Sex Stereotyping Title IX Title IX Equity Project Victims

PR: Hinting at Sex Bias, Federal Judge Slaps Down RPI for Circumventing New Title IX Regulation

PRESS RELEASE Contact: Rebecca Stewart Telephone: 513-479-3335 Email: info@saveservices.org Hinting at Sex Bias, Federal Judge Slaps Down RPI for Circumventing New Title IX Regulation WASHINGTON / October 26, 2020 – A federal judge has ruled against Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute for utilizing its old Title IX policy for a case that was adjudicated after the August

Sharing is caring!

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Hinting at Sex Bias, Federal Judge Slaps Down RPI for Circumventing New Title IX Regulation

WASHINGTON / October 26, 2020 – A federal judge has ruled against Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute for utilizing its old Title IX policy for a case that was adjudicated after the August 14 effective date of the new regulation. The decision is widely seen as a rebuke to RPI, both because it reversed a decision by college administrators, and because of the strong language used in the opinion (1).

In this case, John Doe and Jane Roe had a sexual encounter while under the strong influence of alcohol. Echoing the familiar he-said, she-said pattern, Doe alleged that Roe pressured him to put his hands around her neck and engage in unprotected sex. In contrast, Roe claimed that his hands were placed on her neck in a non-sexual way, and that the sexual activity was non-consensual.

Doe and Roe filed Title IX complaints against each other with school officials.

During the campus adjudication, RPI applied different standards against the two parties, deciding that “Doe’s complaint against Roe was insufficiently substantiated because he failed to prove that he did not voluntarily consume alcohol and did not initiate sexual contact with Roe.” As a result, the college made a determination in favor of Roe.

Doe then filed a lawsuit in the New York Northern District Court. In his October 16 ruling, Judge David Hurd suggested that sex bias was at work: “[T]he female’s complaint proceeded without issue, the male’s was struck down in part on grounds not contemplated anywhere in the policy’s definition of consent. That inequitable treatment provides not inconsiderable evidence that gender was a motivating factor in RPI’s treatment of Doe.”

Relying on unusually strong language, the court commented that “whatever answer may come to the question of how to secure the rights of an accusing woman and an accused man, that answer cannot be that all men are guilty. Neither can it be that all women are victims.” Doe had presented strong evidence that “RPI has come down on the opposite side of that truth,” the court concluded.

Sex discrimination against male students appears to be widespread on college campuses. Recently, George Washington University ordered 23 student groups to amend their constitutions to comply with the school’s nondiscrimination policy. These groups include Girls Who Code, Queens Movement, and female-only service groups (2).

Other forms of sex discrimination include female-only services (3), female-specific scholarships (4), one-sided gender studies courses (5), and sex stereotyping (6).

This appears to be the first judicial ruling regarding the applicability of the new Title IX regulation. Judge Hurd’s decision can be viewed online (7).

Links:

  1. https://www.thefire.org/judge-benchslaps-rensselaer-polytechnic-institute-for-its-treatment-of-accused-student/
  2. https://www.gwhatchet.com/2020/10/07/student-groups-required-to-update-bylaws-to-meet-gw-inclusion-policy/
  3. https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/another-victory-from-my-efforts-to-advance-civil-rights-and-challenge-systemic-sexism-in-higher-education/
  4. http://www.saveservices.org/equity/scholarships/
  5. https://www.haaretz.com/1.5119341
  6. http://www.saveservices.org/2020/10/pr-noting-the-seriousness-of-penalties-college-administrators-suspend-trainings-that-promote-sex-stereotypes/
  7. https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nynd.125951/gov.uscourts.nynd.125951.16.0.pdf