Categories
Campus Civil Rights DED Sexual Assault Directive Department of Education Legal Office for Civil Rights Press Release Scholarships Sex Stereotyping Sexual Assault Title IX

DEI Programs Must be Eliminated to Reverse Declining Numbers of College Men

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

DEI Programs Must be Eliminated to Reverse Declining Numbers of College Men

WASHINGTON / March 11, 2024 – A shocking new report was issued last week that documents 12 areas in which globally, men and boys are lagging behind women (1). These areas include education, health, homelessness, unfair treatment by the legal system, and more. In American colleges, for example, men now comprise only 42% of all undergraduate students (2).

Observers implicate a climate of anti-male hostility at college campuses (3), which can be traced to several developments in recent decades:

  1. In 1979, the Department of Education issued a new Title IX policy on women’s sports that served to eliminate many male sports teams (4).
  2. In 2011, the Obama Administration’s Dear Colleague Letter served to stereotype men as sexual predators (5). (Ironically, the Centers for Disease Control reports that men are victims of sexual assault by females nearly as often as women who are victims of rape (6)).
  3. A growing number of women’s studies programs that promote Marxist-inspired theories of “patriarchal oppression” (7).
  4. Hundreds of universities sponsor female-only scholarships and leadership programs (8).

Adding to the onslaught, colleges began to develop “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” (DEI) programs in the latter part of the 2010s that granted preferences to Blacks and women. Among the 10 most highly paid DEI administrators at Ohio State University, for example, nine were female (9).

Viewing DEI programs as a “mortal threat to the American way of life” (10), nine states already have enacted laws to rein in DEI programs: Florida, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah (11). These laws seek to prohibit colleges from having DEI offices or staff, ban mandatory diversity training, forbid the use of diversity statements in hiring and promotions, and bar colleges from considering race, sex, or national origin in admissions or employment (12).

These efforts were given a boost last June by the Supreme Court decision against Harvard College and the University of North Carolina, in which the SCOTUS ruled that considering a student’s race violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (13).

In theory, DEI programs and Title IX have opposite goals. While DEI seeks to afford preferences to women, Title IX seeks to end sex discrimination against men.

But in practice, the DEI mindset has infiltrated many Title IX offices. For example, the Association of Title IX Administrators, known as ATIXA, sponsored a conference on “True Equity at the Intersection of Title IX and DEI” (14). In its list of groups affected by “Inequitable Practices,” the program lists Students of Color, LGBTQIA+, and Women. But the fact that beleaguered men are facing an increasingly hostile environment somehow escaped the notice of ATIXA.

As a result, we are seeing cases like the Title IX investigator at the University of Maryland who endorsed a sexist Facebook quote by William Golding that said, “I think women are foolish to pretend they are equal to men, they are far superior and always have been” (15).

If lawmakers want to assure the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not relegated to the dustbin of history, they need to move swiftly to ban Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs at colleges in their state.

Citations:

  1. https://endtodv.org/camp/council-on-men-and-boys/
  2. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98#:~:text=See%20Digest%20of%20Education%20Statistics%202022%2C%20table%20303.80.,percent%20(1.2%20million%20students).
  3. https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2023/11/13/the-collegiate-war-on-men/
  4. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/title9guidanceFinal.html
  5. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.html
  6. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4062022/
  7. https://www.rutgers.edu/news/birth-gender-studies-program
  8. https://www.saveservices.org/equity/scholarships/
  9. https://www.thecollegefix.com/ohio-state-university-doubled-dei-staff-in-five-years-payroll-costs-almost-tripled/
  10. https://americanmind.org/salvo/why-americas-anti-discrimination-regime-needs-to-be-dismantled/
  11. https://www.axios.com/2024/01/31/anti-dei-bills-target-colleges-surge-antiracism
  12. https://www.chronicle.com/article/here-are-the-states-where-lawmakers-are-seeking-to-ban-colleges-dei-efforts
  13. https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-08/post-sffa_resource_faq_final_508.pdf
  14. https://idhr.mit.edu/sites/default/files/documents/true%20equity%20presentation%20-%20ATIXA.pdf
  15. https://titleixforall.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Doe-v.-University-of-Maryland-Complaint-Cover-Sheet-12-27-2023.pdf
Categories
Campus Civil Rights Department of Education Due Process Legal Office for Civil Rights Sexual Assault Title IX

The Due Process Provisions of the 2020 Title IX Regulations Were Successful. We Should Fight to Keep Them.

The Due Process Provisions of the 2020 Title IX Regulations Were Successful. We Should Fight to Keep Them.

Jonathan Taylor, Founder, Title IX for All

March 1, 2024

The Title IX regulations that went into effect in August of 2020 were critically necessary. Before their implementation, schools too often punished and expelled students accused of misconduct (sexual harassment, assault, stalking, and so forth) in what were little more than sham proceedings. Wrongly punished students found their education prospects shattered, their careers derailed, and their reputations destroyed. Some students were punished despite not being found responsible for any misconduct. Some even committed suicide.

Among other provisions, the 2020 regulations required schools to provide accused students with meaningful notice of the accusation, meaningful access to evidence, and a meaningful opportunity to respond to the evidence. Those critical protections are now threatened by a regulatory rewrite spearheaded by the Biden administration.

The U.S. Office of Management and Budget is currently accepting meetings from the public regarding this rewrite. Advocates and concerned citizens should consider this an opportunity to make their voices heard and to push back on attempts by the Biden administration to roll back due process. To do this, it may help to draw attention to indicators that the regulations have been successful. Below are several arguments that the due process protections have been successful and should remain.

1. Trends in Lawsuits by Accused Students Reflect the Need for Due Process

The graph above shows the trend in annual filings of lawsuits by students accused of Title IX violations in state and federal courts since 2011.[1] This trend is highly consistent with changes to Title IX guidance and regulation. Simply put, the fewer the rights afforded accused students and the weaker the emphasis on due process by the current presidential administration, the more lawsuits by accused students we see. The reverse is also true.

In 2011, the Department of Education issued guidance (the “Dear Colleague” letter) for schools to investigate Title IX complaints more rigorously. The Department also threatened to revoke funding from schools that failed to comply and initiated highly visible investigations that named and shamed many of them. Afraid of lawsuits, federal investigations, and bad press, schools rushed to comply – and soon overcorrected. As you can see in the graph, that overcorrection was the genesis of the litigation movement for accused students. Lawsuits trickled in at first, gained a foothold in 2014 and 2015, and then spiked, reaching their peak in 2017 and 2018.

In September 2017, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos rescinded the Department of Education’s 2011 guidance letter and announced an imminent rulemaking process to further flesh out schools’ liabilities and the balance of rights between complainants and respondents in school grievance procedures. The Department issued a draft of the new regulations in November 2018 and published the final rule in May 2020. The rule went into effect on August 14, 2020.

DeVos’ rescinding the Dear Colleague letter and announcing a new rulemaking procedure made it clear that the era of federal complicity (if not encouragement) for schools to systematically railroad accused students was over. Consistent with this new era of due process, annual filings of lawsuits have declined by twenty or more since 2018. By 2023, lawsuits had declined by sixty percent from their peak: from 126 in 2018 to around 50 in 2013. This indicates that the regulations are having the intended effect: despite troublesome hotspots remaining, schools have, in many cases, made efforts to comply.

The decline stopped in 2022, however. That is no accident; it occurred a year after the Biden administration announced a plan to undo much of the due process protections afforded by the 2020 regulations. While 2024 has just begun, at least seven lawsuits have been filed by accused students as of mid-February. If recent trends continue, we will likely see at least as many lawsuits in 2024 as we did in 2023 – and likely more.

2. The 2020 Regulations Have Consistently Withstood Legal Challenges

Five legal challenges have been made against the regulations in federal court. All have failed to overturn them. While two failed simply because the plaintiffs lacked standing, others failed on the merits of their claims. The five lawsuits are:

  1. Victim Rights Law Center v. DeVos

This lawsuit failed to overturn the 2020 regulations by arguing it was in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act and discriminates against women. It was, however, successful in overturning a narrow provision[2] that required schools to not rely on statements that were not subject to cross-examination when making their determinations.

2. The Women’s Student Union v. U.S. Department of Education

This case was initially dismissed for lack of standing. WSU – a feminist student association – argued the 2020 regulations would “frustrate its mission” to assist complainants. The court held otherwise: that such a group “may not establish injury by engaging in activities that it would normally pursue as part of its organizational mission. WSU appealed the dismissal to the Ninth Circuit which then stayed the case pending the completion of the Biden administration’s rulemaking process.

3. State of New York v. U.S. Department of Education

Brought by the New York Attorney General’s office, this lawsuit sought an injunction to prevent the rule from going into effect. It failed on every factor upon which injunctive relief is decided: the likelihood they would succeed on the merits of their claims, whether they or students would suffer irreparable harm, the balance of equities (“harms”) between the parties if the injunction did or did not go into effect, and the public interest. The State of New York then withdrew the lawsuit.

4. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. DeVos

A coalition of state Attorneys General brought this lawsuit to postpone the effective date of the rule, declare it unlawful, vacate it, or enjoin the Department of Education from applying and enforcing it. The motion to postpone the rule failed. The rest of the proceedings have been stayed.

5. Know Your IX et al v. DeVos

Similar to the WSU case, Know Your IX and similar organizations argued that the 2020 rule “frustrates its mission” to assist and advocate for complainants in Title IX proceedings. Judge Bennett disagreed and dismissed the case.

3. Schools Have Continuously Exhibited a Desire to Deny Due Process

The due process protections provided by the 2020 Title IX rule had one “clever workaround” for schools: they did not apply to allegations of misconduct occurring off-campus and outside an educational program or activity.[3] Schools could, however, still investigate and punish students under a “non-Title IX” policy that lacked those protections.

Advocates for complainants believed that schools would use this as an excuse to forgo investigating such alleged misconduct at all since there was now no federal requirement to do so. The reality, however, is that Title IX bureaucracy tends to be staffed by what some have called the “sex police”: bureaucrats who regard it as their mission to root out any kind of potentially offensive behavior and continuously seek reasons to expand their reach rather than retract it. Lawsuits by accused students have shown this is the case. Starting in 2021, they brought a new batch of lawsuits arguing schools were erroneously applying “non-Title IX” policies[4] as an excuse to railroad them out of campus.

The Biden administration seeks to expand the requirements of Title IX so that schools must investigate off-campus activity but without the due process protections that would curb some of the worst impulses of the sex police.

4. The 2020 Regulations Have Forced Their Opponents to Inadvertently Defend Them

Opponents of due process often argue that such protections would make school grievance procedures “too quasi-judicial” or “too court-like.” This argument is not sincere, as such groups have demanded that courts and schools recognize and treat grievance procedures as quasi-judicial and court-like when it benefits accusers.

While many examples of this exist, perhaps the most blatant recent example comes from the lawsuit Khan v. Yale in which an accused student also sued his accuser Jane Doe for defamation. Jane Doe argued that even if her statements against Khan were deliberately false and malicious, she was nonetheless entitled to immunity from a defamation lawsuit because her statements were made in the context of a quasi-judicial proceeding. In 2022, fifteen powerful advocacy groups filed an amicus brief supporting Doe’s argument – including those who opposed the 2020 regulations for being too quasi-judicial.

But as Connecticut Supreme Court held, Yale’s investigation and punishment of Khan occurred before the 2020 regulations went into effect and hence lacked virtually all the key safeguards that would establish the proceedings as quasi-judicial and entitle Jane Doe to immunity.

Other Arguments and Conclusion

Although there are numerous indicators that the 2020 regulations have been successful, these are four particularly noteworthy ones. Other potential supporting arguments could be that:

  1. Litigation costs for universities will skyrocket if accused students are again routinely railroaded off campus, and that
  2. The due process protections of the 2020 regulations have disincentivized false reporting and sham proceedings, which in turn bolsters the integrity of Title IX grievance procedures and allows school resources to be distributed more effectively.

Advocacy opportunities are often time sensitive; once they are gone, they are gone. This advocacy window is still open. Please go to the Office for Management and Budget website and register a meeting to make your voice heard.

Links:

[1] See the Title IX Lawsuits Database for a full listing of these lawsuits.

[2] Section 106.45(b)(6)(i)

[3] Section 106.45(b)(3)(i)

[4] Examples include Doe v. Rutgers and Doe I v. SUNY-Buffalo.

Categories
Campus Civil Rights Department of Education Due Process Free Speech Legal Press Release Title IX

Tampon Dispenser Incident Highlights Growing Rejection of ‘Gender Agenda’

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Tampon Dispenser Incident Highlights Growing Rejection of ‘Gender Agenda’

WASHINGTON / February 5, 2024 – School officials at Brookfield High School in Connecticut recently installed a tampon dispenser in the boys’ bathroom. Within minutes, male students at the school took action. Principal Marc Balanda dryly reported, “The installation was completed at 9:30 (a.m.). By 9:52, tampons were on the floor, the newly installed distribution box was ripped off the wall along with the masonry anchors, and the distribution box itself was destroyed.” (1)

A few days later on January 25, the Maine Judiciary Committee voted to kill the LD 1735, a bill that was designed to allow children from other states to travel to Maine, without parental consent, and become a ward of the state to receive cross-gender treatments (2).

The following day, the Utah legislature passed HB 257, which prohibits men who identify as women from accessing women’s bathrooms (3).

These events in Connecticut, Maine, and Utah reveal how the so-called “Gender Agenda,” which seeks to reshape society by defining the meaning of sex to include “gender identity,” is facing setbacks in both Democratic and Republican-led states.

Five judicial decisions, all handed down during the month of January, further underscore how the Gender Agenda is in retreat across the nation:

California: On January 10, federal judge Roger Benitez ordered the Escondido Union School District to reinstate two teachers who were placed on administrative leave for refusing to keep students’ gender transitions a secret from their parents (4).

Alabama: In 2022, the Alabama legislature passed the Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection (VCAP) Act that banned the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for underage children. But the US Department of Justice challenged the law. On January 12, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals lifted the injunction against the VCAP law, allowing its protections for children to go into effect (5).

Illinois: Disturbed by a long list of due process violations by the college, federal judge Colleen Lawless issued a restraining order on January 19 against the University of Illinois, allowing student Terrence Shannon to return to school (6).

Ohio: In late December, Gov. Mike DeWine vetoed House Bill 68, which sought to protect minors from transgender medical interventions and block males from competing against girls and women in sports. On January 24, the Ohio Senate voted to override the governor’s veto, allowing House Bill 68 to go into effect (7).

Florida: A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit on January 31 that had been filed by the Disney Corporation over the state legislature’s decision to alter the governing structure of Disney’s Reedy Creek Improvement District. Disney had argued in the lawsuit that the change to the district was made in retaliation for the organization’s criticism of the Parental Rights in Education Act (8).

In 2023, dozens of laws were enacted around the country to ban gender transitioning among underage students (9), uphold parental rights (10), stop pronoun mandates (11) and protect women’s sports (12).

A strong majority of Americans opposes the Gender Agenda (13). SAVE encourages lawmakers to work to block the Gender Agenda.

Citations:

  1. https://www.ctinsider.com/news/article/brookfield-high-tampon-dispenser-vandalized-18637010.php?src=ctipdensecp
  2. https://www.wabi.tv/2024/01/26/legislative-committee-kills-controversial-bill-regarding-gender-affirming-care/
  3. https://www.ntd.com/utah-passes-bills-banning-dei-and-men-using-womens-bathrooms_969319.html
  4. https://freebeacon.com/california/judge-orders-california-district-to-reinstate-teachers-who-refused-to-hide-students-gender-transitions/
  5. https://eagleforum.org/publications/press-releases/alabama-to-protect-vulnerable-children.html
  6. https://www.wcia.com/sports/your-illini-nation/judge-rules-in-favor-of-shannon-jr-in-temporary-restraining-order-case/
  7. https://lumennews14.substack.com/p/ohio-legislature-overrides-governors
  8. https://abcnews.go.com/Business/judge-dismisses-disney-lawsuit-gov-ron-desantis/story?id=106840357
  9. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/network/gender-transitioning/
  10. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/network/parental-rights/
  11. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/pronouns-for-trans-nonbinary-students-the-states-with-laws-that-restrict-them-in-schools/2023/06
  12. https://concernedwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/womens-sports-2023-August-States-Act-to-Protect-Female-Athletes-from-Discrimination.pdf
  13. https://www.saveservices.org/2022/06/63-of-americans-oppose-expanding-definition-of-sex-to-include-gender-identity/
Categories
Campus Department of Education Due Process Office for Civil Rights Press Release Title IX

Popular Support for Campus ‘Kangaroo Courts’ is Collapsing

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Popular Support for Campus ‘Kangaroo Courts’ is Collapsing

WASHINGTON / January 24, 2024 – Campus Kangaroo Courts have reached the point that even the kangaroos are becoming embarrassed. Case in point is a recent judicial decision involving the University of Illinois.

Last week, Judge Colleen Lawless granted a restraining order against the university, allowing Terrence Shannon to return to his classes and varsity sports activities. In her decision, Judge Lawless enumerated a lengthy list of due process violations (1):

  • Shannon had not been informed of the accuser’s name or given access to the evidence used against him.
  • The university did not investigate the allegation or “weigh the credibility of the evidence in light of the nature of the allegation.”
  • Shannon had not been allowed to attend the hearing.
  • The university issued its ruling “without any findings of fact or reasoning for the decision.”

When Shannon rejoined his team on the court, the crowd greeted him with whistles, towel-waving, and sustained applause (2).

In years past, a student accused of sexual assault likely would have faced fevered protests and petitions demanding his immediate removal (3). But the tide of public opinion is turning.

One lawsuit recently filed against George Mason University opened with this laughable introduction (4):

“George Mason University would rather lose in court than lose in the press. In its handling of false misconduct allegations against Mr. Wright, the University repeatedly and flagrantly violated Title IX regulations and its own policies. In a clear showing of bias, the University hosted Mr. Wright’s false accuser as a #metoo speaker on campus, paid her and her co-conspirator hundreds of thousands of dollars each, made public statements in support of her and against Mr. Wright, retaliated against him for his lawsuit, and used different standards.”

The Title IX high-jinks are taking a financial toll, as well.

In August, a jury awarded $4 million to Peter Steele whose sexual assault case was mishandled by Pacific University, ruling the institution had intentionally caused the man emotional distress (5).

Then in December, a Philadelphia jury awarded Dr. John Abraham a record-setting $15 million award for egregious Title IX offenses by Thomas Jefferson University (6).

Even state Supreme Courts are losing patience with Title IX over-reach. In June, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that Yale University’s Title IX procedures “lacked important procedural safeguards,” opening the door to costly defamation lawsuits against the institution (7).

Then in January, the Washington Supreme Court weighed in, ruling that Washington State University was not liable for protecting a student from a sexual assault that occurred off-campus (8).

Attorney Scott Greenfield has posited that “activists sought to increase their powers on campus to control the actions of their male peers, while ignoring whether it had anything to do with the purposes of Title IX” (9).  Indeed, there is a growing perception that campus Title IX offices are staffed by gender ideologues, not legal professionals (10).

Citations:

  1. https://www.wcia.com/sports/your-illini-nation/judge-rules-in-favor-of-shannon-jr-in-temporary-restraining-order-case/
  2. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/svF9tNiMQEo
  3. https://www.saveservices.org/camp/mob-justice/
  4. https://titleixforall.com/title-ix-lawsuits-database/#new-title-ix-lawsuits-database/lawsuits4/all-lawsuit-info4/65a5ffdd9e46b40027e82b6d/
  5. https://www.oregonlive.com/education/2023/08/jury-awards-4m-to-student-who-said-pacific-university-mishandled-sexual-assault-complaint-against-him.html
  6. https://www.lindabury.com/firm/insights/15m-verdict-for-surgeon-who-claimed-employer-mishandled-its-investigation-into-sexual-assault-allegations-against-him-and-was-the-product-of-anti-male-bias.html
  7. https://cases.justia.com/connecticut/supreme-court/2023-sc20705.pdf?ts=1687953693
  8. https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/1010451.pdf
  9. https://blog.simplejustice.us/2020/05/08/did-doe-forget-why-title-ix-exists/
  10. https://www.campusreform.org/article/watch-campus-title-ix-offices-staffed-by-ideologues/20026
Categories
Campus Department of Education Due Process Free Speech Office for Civil Rights Sexual Assault Title IX

To Thwart Harmful Changes to Federal Title IX Policy, Candidates for Office Are Invited to Sign Pledge

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

To Thwart Harmful Changes to Federal Title IX Policy, Candidates for Office Are Invited to Sign Pledge

WASHINGTON / January 17, 2024 – Proposed changes to the federal Title IX law have become a flash-point of controversy in the upcoming 2024 elections. The new policy, which is expected to expand the definition of sex to include “gender identity,” would have destructive effects on women’s sports, gender transitioning among children, parental rights, free speech, and due process (1).

Title IX is the law designed to curb sex discrimination in schools. The U.S. Department of Education is vowing to release a new Title IX regulation in March (2).

Some have charged that Title IX has become “weaponized” to curtail free speech (3) and curb due process (4). Last month, a jury awarded a historic $15 million verdict against Thomas Jefferson University for flagrant due process violations by its Title IX office (5).

Abuses of the federal law have become a recent focus of heated debate:

  • Numerous attorneys general and federal lawmakers have issued statements of opposition (6).
  • 25 Republican governors have called on the Biden administration to withdraw its proposed changes to Title IX. (7)
  • Title IX has been hotly discussed during the Republican presidential debates (8, 9).
  • Presidential candidates Ron DeSantis and Donald Trump have both issued statements calling for the abolition of the U.S. Department of Education (10).

In response, SAVE is inviting candidates for federal, state, or local office to sign the “Candidate Pledge to Protect Schools, Children, and Families from the Federal Title IX Plan.” The Pledge states,

When elected to office, I pledge to work to assure that:

  1. Schools and other organizations shall utilize the traditional binary definition of “sex.”
  2. Schools shall obtain prior consent from parents for any use of gender pronouns, or gender-dysphoria counseling or treatments.
  3. Parents shall have the right to examine and opt their children out of any school curricula dealing with sexuality and gender identity.
  4. Schools shall only allow biological females to participate in women’s sports, enter women’s locker rooms, and use women’s bathrooms.
  5. Schools shall adhere to Constitutional due process procedures to protect falsely accused males from Title IX complaints.
  6. Schools and other institutions shall fully uphold Constitutional free speech guarantees.

The Candidate Pledge can be viewed online (11).  To date, 44 lawmakers have signed the statement (12). The elected officials come from the following 19 states: Alabama, Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia.

Candidates can indicate their support for the Pledge by sending a confirmatory email to: rthompson@saveservices.org

Citations:

  1. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/network/
  2. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2023/12/08/new-title-ix-regulations-pushed-march
  3. https://www.iwf.org/2022/08/08/weaponizing-title-ix-to-punish-speech/
  4. https://www.nas.org/reports/dear-colleague
  5. https://www.saveservices.org/2023/12/15-million-verdict-against-thomas-jefferson-univ-signals-fall-of-believe-women-movement/
  6. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/lawmakers/
  7. https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/12/politics/republican-governors-letter-transgender-sports-ban-title-ix/index.html
  8. https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/watch-5-key-takeaways-on-education-from-the-1st-gop-presidential-debate/2023/08
  9. https://www.saveservices.org/2023/10/second-republican-presidential-debate-addresses-title-ix-issues/
  10. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/abolish-doe/
  11. https://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Candidate-Pledge-to-Protect-Schools-Children-and-Families2.pdf
  12. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/lawmakers/pledge/
Categories
#MeToo Believe the Victim Campus Due Process False Allegations Investigations Rape-Culture Hysteria Sexual Assault Title IX

$15 Million Verdict Against Thomas Jefferson Univ. Signals Fall of ‘Believe Women’ Movement

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

$15 Million Verdict Against Thomas Jefferson Univ. Signals Fall of ‘Believe Women’ Movement

WASHINGTON / December 13, 2023 – On September 28, 2018, a full-page advertisement appeared in the New York Times that stated simply, “Believe women” (1). These words would be repeated countless times over the years, eviscerating the presumption of innocence and tilting the outcome of sexual assault cases against the accused. But a sexual assault allegation that recently ended with a $15 million jury verdict reveals the days of the vacuous “Believe women” phrase may be numbered.

The former Soviet Union was famous for its notorious Show Trials in which innocence or guilt was decided not by the evidence presented, but rather by whether the accused person came from a favored social group. If an investigation was conducted, it only was intended to create a façade of impartiality for the bogus trial with a predetermined outcome.

Which is exactly what happened in Thomas Jefferson University’s adjudication of medical resident Jessica Phillips’ accusation of rape against attending orthopedic surgeon John Abraham.

The saga began at an alcohol-fueled party on June 23, 2018 in Philadelphia. As the party began to wind down, Phillips forced whiskey into Abraham’s mouth and began to aggressively kiss him, according to the man. She pulled him to the floor, where they had sex. Abraham promptly reported the incident to his supervisor at the university. But inexplicably, his complaint was not forwarded to the Title IX office and never investigated (2).

In the meantime, the woman informed her husband of the incident and filed a complaint with her residency director. Four days after the sexual liaison occurred, Abraham received a Notice of Concern from Jefferson’s Title IX coordinator, alleging that he had engaged in “non-consensual sexual intercourse” with Phillips.

The university Chief Medical Officer also warned Abraham that if he did not immediately take a leave of absence, he would be suspended and reported to the Medical Staff and National Practitioner Database (3). Abraham believed he had choice but to capitulate.

All this happened before the University had completed its investigation.

On January 8, 2019, the University concluded its probe, with no finding of responsibility against the man. A police investigation of the incident likewise did not result in any charges being filed.

But the damage had been done. Abraham had been forced out of his position, his reputation destroyed, his career in tatters. The acclaimed surgeon was the latest victim of a campus Kangaroo Court.

A year later, Abraham filed a Title IX lawsuit against the University, accusing the institution of sex bias for failing to investigate his original complaint of sexual assault. At the trial, attorneys invoked the damsel-in-distress argument, claiming that Abraham “was in a powerful hierarchy position” relative to Phillips, as if a high-achieving woman in a medical residency somehow had lost her ability to utter the word, “no.”

On December 3, the jury met to decide on the case. Appalled at the university’s failure to investigate the surgeon’s complaint, the jury decided in favor of Abraham, awarding him $11 million in compensation for his financial losses, and $4 million in punitive damages for the university’s “outrageous conduct.” (4)

After five years of legal wrangling, a jury of five women and three men unanimously decided to not believe the woman. And the millions of falsely accused Americans could give a sigh of relief (5).

Links:

  1. https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/408946-female-driven-dating-app-bumble-publishes-full-page-ad-in-the/
  2. https://casetext.com/case/abraham-v-thomas-jefferson-univ-1
  3. https://www.inquirer.com/health/thomas-jefferson-university-john-abraham-rothman-20231207.html
  4. https://www.inquirer.com/health/thomas-jefferson-university-john-abraham-rothman-federal-jury-20231211.html
  5. https://endtodv.org/pr/outcry-false-allegations-have-become-a-global-threat-to-all/
Categories
Campus Department of Education Due Process Office for Civil Rights Title IX

Judicial Bias Rewarded?

Judicial Bias Rewarded?

Philip A. Byler

November 4, 2023

In this disturbing period of our country’s history, the last thing we need are judges who are promoted to a U.S. Court of Appeals judgeship for having greatly tilted the scales of justice in a case in favor of a big institutional litigant against an individual seeking to vindicate due process and federal non-discrimination rights. But that is precisely what appears to be happening with respect to Northern District of Indiana U.S. Magistrate Judge Joshua Kolar and Plaintiff John Doe (“John Doe”) in Doe v. Purdue.

Significance of Judge (now Justice) Barrett’s Opinion in Doe v. Purdue.

On June 28, 2019, the Seventh Circuit, in an opinion written by then Judge (now Justice) Amy Coney Barrett, upheld an action brought by John Doe claiming due process violations and Title IX discrimination by Purdue when it suspended John Doe for alleged sexual misconduct with an ex-girlfriend.  Doe v. Purdue, 928 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2019).  The national importance of the due process rulings of then Judge (now Justice) Barrett in Doe v. Purdue, 928 F.3d at 661-664, 667, cannot be understated, holding: (i) that John Doe had pleaded a stigma-plus liberty interest; (ii) that Purdue’s disciplinary process was woefully deficient and did not provide due process, citing among other things not giving John Doe the investigation report and not holding a real hearing (“Purdue’s process fell short of what even a high school must provide to a student facing a days-long suspension”); and (iii) that the District Court on remand was to consider the expungement of the disciplinary file (“we instruct the court to address the issue of expungement on remand”).

When then Education Secretary DeVos announced on May 6, 2020, what would be the current due process Title IX regulations, she pointed to three cases that were particularly instructive, one of which was the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Doe v. Purdue. “Secretary DeVos Announces New Title IX Regulation,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTb3yfMNGuA; U.S. Department of Education Press Release, “Secretary DeVos Takes Historic Action to Strengthen Title IX Protections for All Students,” May 6, 2020; 34 C.F.R. 106.45.    Secretary DeVos noted that it was a three-woman panel with then Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett as the author of the opinion. “Secretary DeVos Announces New Title IX Regulation” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTb3yfMNGuA.

When Judge Barrett was nominated for the U.S. Supreme Court, her Doe v. Purdue opinion was a subject of attention.  Defending Judge Barrett’s opinion in the Wall Street Journal was K.C. Johnson, “Sex, Due Process and Amy Coney Barrett,” Wall Street Journal, Oct. 1, 2020.  Purdue responded with its defiant defense, “Purdue Responds on Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Title IX Opinion,” Wall Street Journal, Oct. 12, 2020.  Judge Barrett’s opinion has been a thorn in Purdue’s side, and Purdue has not wanted to live in accordance with it.

Magistrate Judge Kolar’s Biased Treatment of Doe v. Purdue On Remand and the Circumstances of John Doe’s Seventh Circuit Stay Motion.

So, here it is November 2023, 4½ years after Doe v. Purdue was issued, and where are we?  In that time, we have been before U.S. Magistrate Judge Joshua Kolar, who has been acting as the judge for all purposes and who in July 2023 was finally subjected to a motion to recuse for pervasive bias by John Doe because Magistrate Judge Kolar “has made common cause with Purdue counsel to frustrate John Doe’s effort to vindicate his due process and Title IX rights and to undermine and eviscerate [current U.S. Supreme Court] Justice Barrett’s opinion in this case” (Byler Decl., Dist. Ct. DE 257-1 p. 2).  Strong language, yes, but the truth.

The latest development is that John Doe has moved in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to stay proceedings in the District Court, invoking the interests of judicial integrity and safeguarding the fairness of a trial in this case, given the extraordinary circumstances in the case. Magistrate Judge Kolar was subject to a motion to recuse for pervasive bias for Purdue made by John Doe on July 9, 2023, and is subject to a still pending appeal to the Seventh Circuit filed on September 7, 2023, of Magistrate Judge Kolar’s denial of recusal for bias.  Magistrate Judge Kolar, with four years’ experience as a Magistrate Judge and none as an Article III District Judge, was nominated on July 27, 2023, to be a judge on the Seventh Circuit by the Biden Administration.  When Magistrate Judge Kolar denied the recusal for bias motion on August 14, 2023, he did not disclose the fact that he was nominated to be a judge on the Seventh Circuit.  When Magistrate Judge Kolar appeared on September 6, 2023, before a Senate Committee, he did not disclose that he had been subject to a motion to recuse for pervasive bias favoring Purdue.

John Doe and his counsel first learned of Magistrate Judge Kolar’s nomination to be a judge on this Court when the Northern District of Indiana federal court announced in a press release on October 11, 2023, that there would  be an anticipated opening for a Magistrate Judge position given Magistrate Judge Kolar’s nomination to be a judge on this Court; and (vi) Magistrate Judge Kolar continues on insisting that he be the trial judge in this case and has scheduled a trial date.

John Doe’s Stay Motion to the Seventh Circuit        

The stay motion to the Seventh Circuit submitted three key documents concerning Magistrate Judge Kolar’s bias.

Exhibit A to the stay motion was the 33-page Declaration of John Doe’s lawyer [Dist.Ct. DE 257-1] that was submitted in support of the motion to recuse Magistrate Judge Kolar for pervasive bias favoring Purdue and that details the bias case against Magistrate Judge Kolar.  Importantly, the Byler Declaration states [DE 257-1, pp. 6-7]:

Plaintiff is not relying upon the mere fact of adverse rulings but upon the manifestations of “judicial predispositions that go beyond what is normal and acceptable,” and show a case of “pervasive bias.”  Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. at 551. In particular, Magistrate Judge Kolar’s July 2, 2021, August 11, 2022 and February 14, 2023 opinions mishandled the law in a way an impartial judge would not do, misstate the factual record in a way an impartial judge would not do, and do so all to Purdue’s benefit, establishing Magistrate Judge Kolar won’t be impartial due to pervasive bias.

In the July 2, 2021 opinion, Magistrate Judge Kolar found spoliation over 11 Snapchat personal photographs and short videos that were made well after John Doe’s suspension at Purdue and that were inadvertently deleted when John Doe cleared memory on his cell phone.  Magistrate Judge Kolar acknowledged the Snapchat posts not to be prejudicial (“there is nothing in the record to indicate whether the files were in fact adverse to Plaintiff’s case” (DE168, p. 29)), but Magistrate Judge Kolar still speculated that “it was not inconceivable” the 11 Snapchat personal posts might be potentially relevant to John Doe’s desired Navy career — without giving an explanation how it was conceivable, much less actually relevant (DE168, p. 16), which a glance at the Snapchat listing showed it wasn’t. Magistrate Judge Kolar nevertheless lambasted John Doe for the deletion, ordered payment of Purdue’s attorney fees (which were claimed to be $30,000 and which would wrongly burden John Doe’s effort to vindicate his due process and Title IX rights), and outlined jury instructions regarding what were irrelevant documents [Dist Ct. DE168], even though adverse inference instructions require intentional destruction and relevance.  Crabtree v. Nat’l Steel Corp., 261 F.3d at 721; Keller v. United States, 58 F.3d 1194 (7th Cir.1995).  What’s worse, the spoliation order was made in the background of John Doe’s full compliance with Purdue’s scorched earth discovery.

In the August 11, 2022 opinion, the Magistrate Judge Kolar essentially reversed Judge (now Justice) Barrett’s opinion on due process.  Before the Seventh Circuit in 2019, Purdue had argued that Plaintiff John Doe had engaged in self-defamation by authorizing the release of the university disciplinary files to the Navy.  That argument then was premised on the NROTC only learning of John’s disciplinary case because of John’s authorization of disclosure to the Navy ROTC.  Judge Barrett stated in her opinion Purdue’s position: “The university maintains that it has not and will not divulge John’s disciplinary record without his permission.  The Navy knows about it only because John signed a form authorizing the disclosure after the investigation began.”  928 F.3d at 661.  Purdue cited Olivieri v. Rodriguez, 122 F.3d 406 (7th Cir.1997), where a voluntary disclosure was the reason for an employment discharge in a situation that the Seventh Circuit considered speculative whether the disclosure would ever be called for.  Judge Barrett, however, rejected Purdue’s argument (928 F.3d at 652):  “John’s case is different. He does not claim simply that he might someday have to self-publish the guilty finding to future employers. Instead, John says that he had an obligation to authorize Purdue to disclose the proceedings to the Navy.”

In fact, the discovery record, which only made John Doe’s case stronger, made Purdue’s argument and Magistrate Judge Kolar’s ruling about self-defamation wholly untenable.  Indisputably: (i) the NROTC knew about the disciplinary proceeding well before the May 24, 2016 authorization because on April 4, 2016, Jane Doe first went to the NROTC to make her accusations; (ii) Purdue first learned of Jane Doe’s accusations from the NROTC; and (iii) according to the NROTC Commander, the NROTC was looking to the Purdue investigation from the start.  According to Plaintiff John Doe, the Navy wanted “in the loop” (DE183-5, tr 21-22) and he was in no position to refuse the authorization” (DE208-1 ¶ 7).  Magistrate Judge Kolar’s derision, as speculative, military realities framing John Doe’s obligation to disclose only underscores how Magistrate Judge Kolar was willing to kowtow to Purdue in essentially reversing Judge (now Justice) Barrett’s opinion.

Additionally, the August 14, 2022 opinion with respect to Magistrate Judge Kolar’s proof of falsity requirement to establish a stigma plus liberty interest, which the Seventh Circuit has never adopted, gave a purported review of triable issues that did not reflect the factual discovery record (which made John Doe’s case stronger) but that contributed significantly to the August 11 Opinion being a propaganda piece for Purdue.  Magistrate Judge Kolar, in a partisan slip, repeated what were the allegations of Jane Doe when in fact she never testified, which was in distinct contrast to John Doe who repeatedly testified.    Magistrate Judge Kolar referred to what were 133 pages of John Doe-Jane Doe texts in accordance with Purdue’s jaundiced misreading as admissions of guilt (which they weren’t) based on Purdue’s misleading excerpting without discussing John Doe’s testimony on the texts that he alone had provided.  There was also no good impartial reason for Magistrate Judge Kolar to ignore that: (i) John Doe was not provided an opportunity to review the investigation report during the disciplinary case, (ii) the investigation report included only short portions of 7 pages of the 133 pages of texts (the selected portions did not include texts showing an ongoing relationship after Jane Doe’s claims), and (iii) Vice President Rollock and Dean Sermersheim did not know that there were 133 pages of texts submitted by John Doe to the investigators.  Magistrate Judge Kolar further did not address the fact that the three-person panel of the Advisory Committee on Equity and Dean Sermersheim, never met and never heard any direct testimony from Jane Doe and did not have the opportunity to ask any questions of Jane Doe.

In the February 14, 2023 opinion, Magistrate Judge Kolar ignored the Navy Regulations for Officer Development (“ROD”) which clearly substantiated that John Doe could not properly refuse authorization of disclosing the Purdue disciplinary documents to the Navy.  The Navy ROD compelled giving authorization, would make John subject to sanction upon refusing authorization, and required disclosure upon re-application due to a permanent federal record (DE208-3) – which even the Magistrate Judge Kolar’s August 11 opinion indicated would make summary judgment inappropriate (DE206, pp. 16-17) but which Magistrate Judge Kolar avoided on reconsideration, so much lacking in impartiality Magistrate Judge Kolar had become.  Instead, Magistrate Judge Kolar essentially adopted Purdue’s dismissal of the Navy ROD as “a set of internal Navy rules, not law” and Purdue’s denial that the Navy ROD had the force of law to compel executing the authorization (DE221, p. 12).  That, however, leads to the absurd, erroneous result that a Navy ROTC midshipman who acts per the requests of his Navy superiors and the obligations reflected in the Navy ROD has no due process rights. Purdue’s position that whether Purdue’s disciplinary process complied with Fourteenth Amendment due process is “immaterial” (DE213, p. 12) and the Magistrate Judge Kolar ’s effective adoption of that position reflects how much at odds Purdue and Magistrate Judge Kolar are with Justice Barrett’s Doe v. Purdue opinion.

Exhibit B to the stay motion was Magistrate Judge Kolar’s opinion denying the recusal for bias motion without disclosing the fact that he was nominated to the Seventh Circuit Court.  [Dist. Ct. DE 261.] Magistrate Judge Kolar’s opinion avoided the actual reasons establishing the pervasive bias in this case presented and certified in the Byler Declaration [Dist. Ct. DE 257-1], and instead gave rationalizations and inapposite general propositions to justify his functioning as a biased trial judge in an important case.  Magistrate Judge Kolar’s failure to disclose avoided the nomination to the Seventh Circuit being identified as the extra-judicial source of bias favoring Purdue documented in the Byler Declaration.

Exhibit C to the stay motion was John Doe’s Notice of Appeal [Dist. Ct. DE 267] that from pages 1 to 5 invoked the Seventh Circuit case law establishing the jurisdiction of the Seventh Court for the appeal of what is often called a collateral order and from pages 7 to 38 dissected Magistrate Judge Kolar’s opinion denying the recusal for bias and demonstrates that Magistrate Judge Kolar yet again avoided the actual reasons establishing the pervasive bias in this case presented in the Byler Declaration and has no real answers to the bias case against him.

Chronology of Events

The chronology of pertinent events helps show Magistrate Judge Kolar’s bias in Doe v. Purdue and his nomination to the Seventh Circuit:

­July 9, 2023: John Doe moves to recuse Magistrate Judge Kolar for bias, submitting Declarations by John Doe and his lawyer. [Dist. Ct. DE 257, 257-1, 257-2.]

­July 19, 2023: Purdue submitted a short Response to the recusal for bias motion that did not take on the facts presented and analysis in the Byler Declaration.  [Dist. Ct. DE 258.]

­July 25, 2023: John Doe submitted a Reply in further support of the motion to recuse Magistrate Judge Kolar for bias, replying to the few arguments of Purdue.  [Dist. Ct, DE  260.]

­July 27, 2023: The White House Briefing Room announces in a White House Statement and Release, “President Biden Announces Thirty-Sixth Round of Judicial Nominees” (July 27, 2023), that Magistrate Judge Kolar is nominated to the Seventh Circuit.

­August 14, 2023: Magistrate Judge Kolar issues an opinion denying John Doe’s motion to recuse Magistrate Judge Kolar for bias.  In that opinion, Magistrate Judge Kolar does not disclose that he has been nominated to be a judge on the Seventh Circuit.  [Dist. Ct. DE 261] Magistrate Judge Kolar sets a trial date of November 28, 2023.  (Dist. Ct. DE 262.]

­September 6, 2023: Magistrate Judge Kolar appears before a Senate Judiciary Committee and does not disclose he had been subject to a motion to recuse for bias favoring Purdue in a case he had been overseeing for four years.  YouTube: Circuit Court Judge Nominees Face Senate Judiciary Committee – YouTube.

­September 7, 2023: John Doe files a Notice of Appeal of Magistrate Judge Kolar’s opinion denying John Doe’s motion to recuse Magistrate Judge Kolar for bias.  [Dist. Ct. DE 267.]

­September 11, 2023: John Doe’s appeal of Magistrate Judge Kolar’s denial of the motion to recuse for bias is assigned Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Case Number 23-2764.

­September 13, 2023: Magistrate Judge Kolar issues an order requesting the parties to submit status reports whether the Court retains jurisdiction over the case in light of John Doe’s Notice of Appeal. [Dist. Ct. DE 270.] This Court issues an Order requesting John Doe to submit a “Jurisdictional Memorandum” by September 26, 2023.

­September 21, 2023: Purdue files a report in the District Court taking the positions that Magistrate Judge Kolar should await whether the Seventh Circuit accepts jurisdiction of Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Case Number 23-2764   [Dist Ct. DE 271] and that Magistrate Judge Kolar should proceed with pretrial motions anyway based on inapposite interlocutory cases (not collateral order cases).

­September 26, 2023: John Doe files in the Seventh Circuit the requested “Jurisdictional Memorandum” showing this Court has jurisdiction of Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Case Number 23-2764.  John Doe also files in the District Court the requested report showing that Magistrate Judge Kolar does not have jurisdiction of the case if the Seventh Circuit has jurisdiction of Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Case Number 23-2764, but if the Seventh Circuit has jurisdiction, Magistrate Judge Kolar should not take any action as urged by Purdue, which would have Magistrate Judge Kolar proceed to decide pretrial issues critical to the fairness of a trial, particularly the motion in limime, while the Seventh Circuit is deciding whether Magistrate Judge Kolar has demonstrated bias and a lack of impartiality such that Magistrate Judge Kolar should be recused from deciding pretrial and overseeing the trial.  [Dist. Ct. DE 272.]

­October 11, 2023: John Doe and his counsel first learn of Magistrate Judge Kolar’s nomination to be a judge on the Seventh Circuit when the Northern District of Indiana federal court announced in a press release on October 11, 2023, that there would be an anticipated opening for a Magistrate Judge position given Magistrate Judge Kolar’s nomination to be a judge on the Seventh Circuit.

­ October 27, 2023: Magistrate Judge Kolar holds a status conference during which he announces that the trial set to begin November 28, 2023, is still on subject to whether the Seventh Circuit has jurisdiction of Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Case Number 23-2764. [Dist. Ct. DE 277.]   During the teleconference, Magistrate Judge Kolar again failed to address his nomination to be a Judge to the Seventh Circuit, even though counsel for John Doe in a pre-teleconference email inquired what the subjects of the teleconference would be given Magistrate Juge Kolar’s highly relevant nomination.

Magistrate Judge Kolar’s Bias and Nomination to the Seventh Circuit

Magistrate Judge Kolar failed to disclose his own nomination to be a judge on the Seventh Circuit when denying John Doe’s motion to recuse for bias favoring Purdue.  Magistrate Judge Kolar’s nomination to be a judge to the Seventh Circuit, with four years’ experience as a Magistrate Judge and none as an Article III District Judge, has more than just the appearance of being the extra-judicial source of bias favoring Purdue; applying res ipsa loquitur, the nomination establishes the extra-judicial source of bias favoring Purdue.

Phil Byler was the lawyer for Plaintiff John Doe in Doe v. Purdue.  Mr. Byler is a 1976 graduate of the Harvard Law School, who then clerked for two years to the Hon. John W. Peck of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit before entering the private practice of law. Mr. Byler briefed and orally argued: Immuno A.G. v. Dr. Jan Moor-Jankowski, 77 N.Y.2d 235, 567 N.E.2d 1270, 566 N.Y.S.2d 906 (Kaye, J.), cert denied, 500 U.S. 954 (1991); Doe v. Columbia, 831 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2016) (Leval, J.); Doe v. Purdue, 928 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2019) (Barrett, J.); Doe v. MIT, 46 F.4th 61 (1st Cir. 2022) (Selya, J.); and Mesnard v. Campagnolo, 47 Ariz. Cases Dig. 21, 489 P.3d 1184 (2021).

Categories
Campus Department of Education Due Process Office for Civil Rights Press Release Title IX

Presidential Candidates — Republican and Democratic — Denounce Biden Title IX Plan

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Presidential Candidates — Republican and Democratic — Denounce Biden Title IX Plan

WASHINGTON / September 25, 2023 – The Biden Department of Education released a proposed Title IX regulation in 2022 that would redefine sex to include “gender identity.” (1) The proposal has faced strong criticism from lawmakers, attorneys general, and others (2).

A number of presidential candidates, Republican and Democratic, have spoken out against the Biden plan, as well:

Ron DeSantis: DeSantis called Biden “off his rocker” over the Title IX proposal, vowing his administration will be “fighting on that.” (3) In 2021, Gov. DeSantis signed the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, which prohibits biological male students from participating in women’s sports (4).

Robert Kennedy: “I am against people participating in women’s sports who are biologically male. I think women have worked too hard to develop women’s sports over the past 30 years, I watched it happen, and I don’t think that’s fair.” (5)

Mike Pence: Pence has promised to “Eliminate the U.S. Department of Education and convert some of its current budget to grants to states and localities, providing maximum flexibility in how to deploy federal dollars.” (6)

Vivek Ramaswamy: “The U.S. Dept of Education strikes again – now saying local schools can’t stop boys from competing in girls’ sports. It’s appalling that we spend *$83 billion per year* on this toxic agency. It’s rotten waste. That’s why I’ll shut it down without apology.” (7)

Tim Scott: In 2022, Scott introduced the Parental Rights Over the Education and Care of Their Kids Act, which would bar schools from allowing a student to use a different name, pronoun, restroom or locker room without the knowledge of their parents (8).

Donald Trump: “On Day One, I will revoke Joe Biden’s cruel policies on so-called ‘gender-affirming care,’…we will promote positive education about the nuclear family…I will ask Congress to pass a bill establishing that the only genders recognized by the U.S. government are male and female…the bill will also make clear that Title IX prohibits men from participating in women’s sports.” (9)

The Title IX Network was formed in 2022 to oppose the Biden Title IX proposal, and now consists of 217 organizations working at the national, state, and local levels (10).

Last week, 59 member organizations called for the resignation of Assistant Education Secretary Catherine Lhamon for violations of her Oath of Office in connection with her efforts to change Title IX. The Statement was released at a press conference held in Washington, DC (11).

Lawmakers and others who support the resignation of Catherine Lhamon should express their concerns directly to the Department of Education: alejandro.reyes@ed.gov

Citations:

  1. https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-releases-proposed-changes-title-ix-regulations-invites-public-comment
  2. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/attorneys-general-and-lawmakers/
  3. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/28/florida-schools-disregard-federal-title-ix-guidance-00048505
  4. https://www.flgov.com/2021/06/01/governor-ron-desantis-signs-fairness-in-womens-sports-act/
  5. https://nypost.com/2023/04/29/robert-kennedy-jr-does-not-support-trans-women-in-female-sports/
  6. https://advancingamericanfreedom.com/american-opportunity/
  7. https://twitter.com/VivekGRamaswamy April 6, 2023.
  8. https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/equality/3653864-tim-scott-introduces-legislation-to-pull-funding-from-schools-with-transgender-support-policies/
  9. https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1620489059608023042
  10. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-Policy/
  11. https://www.saveservices.org/2023/09/59-groups-call-for-assistant-education-secretary-catherine-lhamon-to-resign-for-violating-oath-of-office/
Categories
Campus Civil Rights Department of Education Due Process Free Speech Gender Agenda Office for Civil Rights Press Release Sexual Harassment Title IX

In the Face of Overwhelming Opposition, DOE Backs Away from Controversial Title IX Plan

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

In the Face of Overwhelming Opposition, DOE Backs Away from Controversial Title IX Plan

WASHINGTON / August 31, 2023 – Responding to growing criticisms from many sectors of society, the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) reportedly is delaying the release of its controversial Title IX regulation until 2024 or later. A Higher Ed Dive article confirmed that the DOE “hasn’t even sent its regulatory plans to the Office of Management and Budget, which can take up to 120 days to review them.” (1)

The Title IX regulation would have had far-reaching effects on campus due process, free speech, women’s sports, parental rights, and gender transitioning among underage students.

Opposition to the policy has come from many directions:

Public Opinion Polls: Public opinion polls have consistently shown that most Americans oppose the proposed changes to Title IX, the law that was enacted to curb sex discrimination in schools (2). A recent NPR/Ipsos poll reports that 63% of Americans oppose allowing biological males to compete on women’s and girls’ sports teams (3).

Lawsuits Against the DOE: On June 14, 2023 the Texas Attorney General filed a lawsuit challenging the Department of Education’s Title IX guidance as an illegal effort to force schools to adopt transgender ideology (4). The Texas lawsuit was the fifth such lawsuit filed against the Biden Administration for its Title IX-related proposals (5).

Calls for Abolition: Republican presidential candidates Ron DeSantis, Mike Pence, Vivek Ramaswany, and Tim Scott have issued calls for the abolition of the DOE (6). Forty-seven state lawmakers have made similar calls (6).

Criticism from Liberals: The liberal Gays Against Groomers has been one of the most vocal critics of the transgender movement. On August 22, Gays Against Groomers posted a tweet saying, “Norway, Finland, Sweden, Holland and the UK have now BANNED gender transition surgeries and drugs for minors. WHEN WILL THE UNITED STATES CATCH UP?!” (7)

Legislation: Numerous bills were introduced and laws enacted to counter the effects of the proposed Title IX regulation:

  • Thus far, 134 bills designed to restrict transgender treatments for underage children have been introduced in states around the country (8).
  • Laws designed to protect women’s sports were enacted in Alabama, Kansas, North Carolina, North Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming (9).
  • On June 16, Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signed a bill to codify parental rights as fundamental, making Alabama the 18th state in the nation to formalize this protection (10).

Due Process Victories: Falsely accused male students continue to win due process lawsuits against their former universities (11). On August 22, an Oregon jury awarded the largest jury verdict ever — nearly $4 million — to a man wrongfully accused of a Title IX offense (12).

The proposed Title IX regulation re-defined the meaning of the Constitution, especially the First and Fourteenth Amendments; usurped Congressional responsibility by seeking to change the definition of sex to include “gender identity;” and negated the Supreme Court’s Davis v. Monroe definition of sexual harassment (13).

Currently, 217 national, state, and local groups belong to the Title IX Network, which stands in principled opposition to the DOE’s proposed changes to the Title IX law (14). Organizations wishing to join the Title IX Network should contact Robert Thompson at rthompson@saveservices.org

Links:

  1. https://www.highereddive.com/news/final-title-ix-rules-likely-to-be-pushed-beyond-october/692378/
  2. https://www.saveservices.org/2022/06/63-of-americans-oppose-expanding-definition-of-sex-to-include-gender-identity/
  3. https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/npr-transgender-issues-2022
  4. https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/press/2023/docs/filed%20Title%20IX%20complaint.pdf
  5. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/network/
  6. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/attorneys-general-and-lawmakers/
  7. https://twitter.com/againstgrmrs/status/1694074990121951321
  8. https://www.equalityfederation.org/tracker/anti-transgender-medical-care-bans
  9. Email from Doreen Denny, Concerned Women for America, August 31, 2023.
  10. https://parentalrightsfoundation.org/parental-rights-fundamental-in-18-states/
  11. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CsFhy86oxh26SgTkTq9GV_BBrv5NAA5z9cv178Fjk3o/edit#gid=0
  12. https://www.opb.org/article/2023/08/21/pacific-university-forest-grove-oregon-education-lawsuit-sexual-physical-assault/
  13. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-843.ZS.html
  14. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-Policy/
Categories
Campus Civil Rights Department of Education Due Process Free Speech Gender Agenda Gender Identity Office for Civil Rights Press Release Sexual Harassment Title IX

Five Presidential Contenders Have Called for Abolition of the U.S. Department of Education

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Five Presidential Contenders Have Called for Abolition of the U.S. Department of Education

WASHINGTON / July 18, 2023 – The U.S. Department of Education has introduced two proposed Title IX regulations in the past year (1,2) that would expand the definition of sex to include “gender identity,” a change that would have far-reaching effects on students, families, and women’s sports. The proposals also would serve to revamp the meaning of the Constitution, especially its provisions regarding free speech (First Amendment) and due process (Fourteenth Amendment).

In response, five current or previous Republican presidential contenders, listed below in alphabetical order, have called for the abolition of the Department of Education (3):

  1. Ron DeSantis: In response to the question, Are you in favor of eliminating any agencies: “We would do education, commerce, energy, and the IRS….With the Department of Education, we reverse all the transgender sports stuff. Women’s sports should be protected.”
  2. Mike Pence: “Eliminate the U.S. Department of Education and convert some of its current budget to grants to states and localities, providing maximum flexibility in how to deploy federal dollars.”
  3. Mike Pompeo: Asked by commentator John Stossel, “Should America abolish the Department of Education?” Pompeo replied, “Yes, you should get rid of it.” (Pompeo subsequently announced his decision to not run as a presidential candidate).
  4. Vivek Ramaswamy: “I would shut down the U.S. Department of Education…Do I favor 6-year-olds being educated on sexuality and gender ideology? No, I don’t.”
  5. Tim Scott: “The federal government has absolutely no role in our education system whatsoever. So let’s get them out and let’s abolish the Department of Education.”

Four other persons, discussed in media accounts as possible presidential candidates, have called for major changes to Title IX-related education policies (3):

  1. Nikki Haley: “When I was in school you didn’t have sex ed until seventh grade. And even then, your parents had to sign whether you could take the class. That’s a decision for parents to make.”
  2. Kristi Noem: “The [South Dakota] Board of Regents should remove all references to preferred pronouns in all school materials…Students should have the ability to exercise their right to free speech.” “Our universities should not be hosting and/or promoting drag shows…Just as other dangerous theories have been allowed to thrive on college campuses, gender theory has been rebranded and accepted as truth across the nation.” (Noem subsequently announced her decision to not run as a presidential candidate).
  3. Donald Trump: “On Day One, I will revoke Joe Biden’s cruel policies on so-called ‘gender-affirming care,’…we will promote positive education about the nuclear family…I will ask Congress to pass a bill establishing that the only genders recognized by the U.S. government are male and female…the bill will also make clear that Title IX prohibits men from participating in women’s sports.”
  4. Glenn Youngkin: “Political indoctrination has no place in our classrooms….Inherently divisive concepts, like Critical Race Theory and its progeny, instruct students to only view life through the lens of race and presumes that some students are consciously or unconsciously racist, sexist, or oppressive, and that other students are victims.” (Youngkin subsequently announced his decision to not run as a presidential candidate).

State lawmakers in Alabama, Delaware, Idaho, Missouri, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Tennessee also have gone on record to abolish the federal Department of Education (3).

In addition, former Department of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos has stated, “I personally think the Department of Education should not exist.” (4)

All persons are invited to sign the petition, “Tell the Dept. of Education to Stop Its Radical Title IX Plan:” https://www.change.org/p/tell-the-dept-of-education-to-stop-its-radical-title-ix-plan

Note: This press release was updated to clarify that Mike Pompeo, Kristi Noem, and Glenn Youngkin later announced their decision to not run for president.

Citations:

  1. https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-releases-proposed-changes-title-ix-regulations-invites-public-comment
  2. https://www.foxnews.com/media/biden-admin-releases-new-title-ix-rules-bars-states-banning-transgender-students-competing-sports
  3. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/attorneys-general-and-lawmakers/
  4. https://www.axios.com/2022/07/17/betsy-devos-abolish-department-of-education