Category: Civil Rights

U.S. Department of Education: The New ‘Evil Empire’?

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date July 5, 2023

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

U.S. Department of Education: The New ‘Evil Empire’?

WASHINGTON / July 5, 2023 – The Constitution defines the authorities and roles of the judicial, legislative, and executive branches of government as having co-equal powers (1). But in the past two years, the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) has repeatedly ignored this bedrock principle:

In its proposed Title IX regulation, re-wrote the meaning of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, to the severe detriment of free speech and due process (2).
Proposed to expand the definition of sex to include “gender identity,” thereby usurping the responsibility of Congress to exercise “All legislative Powers.”
Overhauled the definition of sexual harassment:

- Supreme Court Davis v. Monroe: Actions that are “so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, and that so undermines and detracts from the victims’ educational experience.” (3)
- New definition on the DOE website: “Sexual harassment is unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature.” (4)

Now, the Department of Education has gone beyond trampling on the authority of the Constitution, Congress, and the Supreme Court. Following release of its controversial Title IX proposal in 2022, the DOE has aggressively promoted the transgender agenda, which has had the effect of:

Weakening the authority of parents: “Teachers know what is best for their kids because they are with them every day.” – DOE Secy. Miguel Cardona, May 19, 2023 (5).
Promoting harmful and irreversible “gender transitioning” among under-age children, often without parental knowledge or consent (6).
Enabling violent attacks and bomb threats by transgender activists (7), including the March 27 attack at Covenant School in Nashville that killed six children and staff members.

During the month of June, the DOE issued eight tweets in support of Pride Month (8). The June 1 tweet went far beyond DOE’s Congressionally mandated authority by offering this sweeping endorsement: “Our message to LGBTQI+ students, teachers, and staff as we begin #PrideMonth: ED has got your back.” (9)

Accordingly, at the annual Drag March in New York City, hundreds of drag performers chanted, “We’re here. We’re queer. We’re coming for your children.” (10) In response, pundits referred to the marchers as “demonic” and “evil.” (11) The liberal-leaning Gays Against Groomers reached a similar conclusion about persons who might say a child was born in the wrong body: “And telling them otherwise is EVIL.” (12)

Not surprisingly, five Republican presidential candidates are now calling for the abolition of the Department of Education (13):

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.”
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.”
Mike Pompeo: Asked by commentator John Stossel, “Should America abolish the Department of Education?” Pompeo replied, “Yes, you should get rid of it.”
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.”
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.”

Lawmakers are urged to institute appropriate responses to curtail the illegal actions of the U.S. Department of Education.

Citations:

Civil Rights Gender Agenda Legal Press Release Violence

HOAX: White House Claim of a ‘Surge’ of ‘Hate-Fueled Violence’ Against Transgenders is Total Inversion of the Truth

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date June 15, 2023

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

HOAX: White House Claim of a ‘Surge’ of ‘Hate-Fueled Violence’ Against Transgenders is Total Inversion of the Truth

June 19, 2023 – The White House announced a new initiative on June 8 to counter a purported “surge” of “hate-fueled violence” against the LGBTQI+ community (1). But a review of evidence from the Department of Homeland Security and the Human Rights Campaign reveals no evidence of any “surge” of violence against transgender persons.

Department of Homeland Security: The White House “FACT SHEET” links to the Department of Homeland Security’s Summary of Terrorism-Related Threat to the United States (2). The DHS Summary lists four “terrorism-related” incidents that occurred in 2023.

One incident was the March shooting by transgender Audrey Hale of three students and staff members in Nashville (3). The other incident involved the burning of an Ohio church that was planning to hold a drag-themed event (4).

The two other incidents listed by DHS had no connection to LGBTQI+ issues (5,6).

Human Rights Campaign: The Human Rights Campaign tracks homicides of transgendered and nonbinary persons. Thus far in 2023, the HRC lists 12 homicides of these persons. A review of these cases provides no evidence of a “surge” of violence, or that the murders were “hate-fueled.” Indeed, the HRC reveals, “Most of these victims were killed by partners and acquaintances.” (7)

Real Surge of Violence: A surge of transgender-related violence has occurred in recent months. In contrast to the White House claim, the attacks have been perpetrated by transgender activists. SAVE has documented 20 such cases thus far in 2023. The incidents involved murders, bomb threats, and other assaults against parents, children, law enforcement, and others (8).

The most recent incident, reported on June 14, was the life sentence handed down to Dana Rivers, a prominent trans rights activist, for Rivers’ triple homicide of a lesbian couple and their son. Alameda County Judge Scott Patton described the bloody attack as “The most depraved crime that I’ve ever handled.” (9)

Overall, a detailed review of the cases listed by the Department of Homeland Security and the Human Rights Campaign identifies only one incident that could be classified as “hate-fueled” — the Ohio church conflagration. A single incident does not qualify as a “surge.”

In contrast, SAVE identified three incidents of violence by transgender persons in 2022, and 20 such cases thus far in 2023. This six-fold increase in a single year clearly represents a “surge” of violence committed by transgender individuals.

The claim of a “surge” of “hate-fueled” violence against the LGBTQI+ community is a categorical inversion of the truth.

SAVE urges persons to contact the White House and tell them to retract its dishonest “FACT SHEET” about transgender violence. Telephone: 202-456-1111. Email: comments@whitehouse.gov

Links:

Civil Rights Department of Education Due Process Gender Agenda Gender Identity Title IX

Dwindling Support Among Gay Community for Transgender Agenda

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date June 8, 2023

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Dwindling Support Among Gay Community for Transgender Agenda

June 8, 2023 – Gay teacher Ray Shelton recently addressed a meeting of the Glendale Unified School District. Twice named Teacher of the Year, Shelton explained to the board:

“Two plus two equals four. The world is not flat. Boys have penises; girls have vaginas. Gender is binary and cannot be changed. Biology is not bigotry. Heterosexuality is not hate. Gender confusion and gender delusion are deep psychological disorders. No caring professional or loving parent would ever support the chemical poisoning or surgical mutilation of a child’s genitalia….And I can also say this as a gay man.” (1)

The California incident illustrates the reality of dwindling support in the gay and lesbian community for the transgender agenda.

One of the strongest critics of transgender ideology is Gays Against Groomers, which describes itself as an “organization of gays against the sexualization, indoctrination and medicalization of children under the guise of LGBTQIA+.” (2)

Jaimee Michell, president of Gays Against Groomers, recently explained, “As a lesbian and the founder of Gays Against Groomers, I’m done with Pride. Because it’s become a degenerate kink-fest…They’re shoving it down everyone’s throats, especially children’s. It’s disgusting.” (3)

David Leatherwood, Gays Against Groomers secretary, charged, “I’m done with Pride because it’s become an embarrassment. As a gay man, I want nothing to do with it. All it has become now is a celebration of debauchery, indulgence in narcissism, victimhood, and grooming of kids.” (3)

Another outspoken critic is gay activist Simon Edge, who recently derided the transgender movement as “trying to redefine language, reorganize public toilets and changing rooms, kibosh women’s sport and take control of HR departments.” Edge concludes, “Some people don’t think the T belongs with the LGB.” (4)

Transgenderism has become emboldened in recent months by proposed changes to the federal Title IX sex discrimination law (5). Its advocates claim they are working for inclusion and equality. In fact, they are resorting to the use of coercion and violence (6) in their quest to eliminate fairness in women’s sports, persuade vulnerable children to undergo life-altering medical procedures, and encroach on parental rights (7).

Democratic and Republican lawmakers around the country are urged to join forces to oppose any bills being considered that are designed to promote the transgender agenda.

Citations:

Civil Rights Free Speech Gender Agenda Gender Identity Press Release Title IX

UN Women Must Renounce Its Support for Dishonest and Dangerous Transgender Agenda

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date June 5, 2023

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

UN Women Must Renounce Its Support for Dishonest and Dangerous Transgender Agenda

June 6, 2023 – The transgender agenda is a global movement that seeks to erase the distinctions between male and female, thereby weakening the nuclear family (1). Recent weeks have witnessed a rapid expansion of opposition by groups and persons from both the Left and Right.

One of the strongest critics is Gays Against Groomers, a liberal-leaning group that describes itself as an “organization of gays against the sexualization, indoctrination and medicalization of children under the guise of LGBTQIA+.” The group has chapters in Canada, Japan, and the United States (2).

Another vocal critic is British gay activist Simon Edge, who recently derided the transgender movement as “trying to redefine language, reorganise public toilets and changing rooms, kibosh women’s sport and take control of HR departments.” Edge concludes, “Some people don’t think the T belongs with the LGB.” (3)

Echoing many of these concerns, Canadian libertarian Wendy McElroy reveals, “Critics of the trans movement are rebelling against the forced redefinition of biology, the destruction of women’s sports by trans athletes, the hijacking of children’s education, the medical experiment of gender-transitioning children, and the intrusion of penises in women-only spaces.” (4)

In the United States, transgenderism has been emboldened by proposed changes to the Title IX sex discrimination law (5). In recent weeks, the stock prices of Anheuser-Busch (6) and Target (7) have plummeted due to their promotion of trans-themed products.

American media personality Megyn Kelly recently affirmed that she will not engage in the “dishonesty” of using preferred pronouns because they constitute a “gateway drug to genital mutilation.” (8) Twitter CEO Elon Musk is more candid in his analysis: “Gender-affirming care for minors is pure evil.” (9)

Transgenderism has been denounced by the Pope (10), Moslem clerics (11), and other religious groups (12).

To advance its agenda, transgender activists are stifling free speech and resorting to the use of violence (13).

Despite these concerns, UN Women has issued a number of pro-trans tweets in recent days (14), and published a series of reports and position statements in support of the transgender movement (15-17).

Lawmakers around the world are invited to contact UN Women and urge the agency to immediately renounce its support for transgenderism, or face major reductions in its financial support.

Contact information for UN Women liaison offices around the world is available online (18).

Citations:

Campus Civil Rights Due Process Legal Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX

Supreme Court Must Resolve the Many Circuit Splits that Divide Students’ Rights

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date May 25, 2023

Supreme Court Must Resolve the Many Circuit Splits that Divide Students’ Rights

Benjamin North

Associate & Title IX Advisor, Binnall Law Group

May 24, 2023

When a student graduates from high school and looks at potential colleges, they don’t typically do legal research to see where their federal rights differ across federal circuits. They make a very reasonable assumption that their basic rights are the same, because all colleges in the United States are subject to the same federal laws. Unfortunately, this could not be further from the truth when it comes to student discipline. And the recent proliferation of litigation against colleges (meticulously tracked by Brooklyn College professor KC Johnson [1]) has only made the issue more dire.

Court simply cannot agree on the Title IX disciplinary process. Without uniformity in the law, students across the country are subject to wildly different standards, both with respect to what process a university must take before depriving students of their education, and as to what they must allege in a lawsuit if it becomes necessary to correct discriminatory disciplinary actions in court.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has been thus far reluctant to take any of these issues up on certiorari, and its continued delay in resolving these divides will only result in more inconsistencies. Students deserve the same rights under the same law, and it is critical that the Supreme Court ensure that basic consistency.

The first area in which courts are split is the requirement of constitutional due process; that is, the process that a public school must follow before depriving its students of their education in the form of a suspension or expulsion.

The threshold question, of course, is whether education is protected by due process, and if there is any “due process” required at all. If there is no due process required at all, public schools are free as a constitutional matter to expel tuition paying students for no reason at all, and students have no recourse.

While this would seem on its face to be unjust and incompatible with our system of government (and contrary to existing Supreme Court law in Goss v. Lopez [2]), federal district courts in the Fourth Circuit [3] consistently decline to find any protected interest in public university students’ education, leading to that same result: that students are not entitled to any due process at all. While several circuit courts have held that due process applies (at least the First, [4] Fifth, [5] Sixth, [6] Seventh, [7] and Eighth [8] Circuits), the continued failure of the Supreme Court to address the issue directly means that students in the Fourth Circuit very likely will continue to be on the receiving end of judicial opinions that fail to recognize any due process interests whatsoever. Students deserve a clear and basic rule, that due process applies in the public university setting.

Of course, once it is decided that due process applies, the next question is what process is due? On this question, circuits also are split.

The Sixth Circuit, for example, held in Doe v. Baum [9] that live adversarial cross examination was required by due process in student discipline cases where credibility is an issue. The First Circuit disagreed, holding in Haidak v. University of Massachusetts-Amherst [10] that live cross examination is not required; rather, impartial questioning by a hearing panel is required. Setting aside the point that the Sixth Circuit took the correct approach (the standard of an “impartial” hearing panel is more vague and far less workable that simply requiring cross examination, among other issues), the issue remains that students in different circuits have different rights, under the same Constitution.

Similarly, circuits are split on what Title IX requires in these cases. The Second Circuit held in Yusuf v. Vassar College [11] that students seeking to remedy discriminatory discipline under Title IX must plead “erroneous outcome” or “selective enforcement” causes of action under the statute. The Seventh Circuit in Doe v. Purdue [12] disagreed, holding that students need only plead facts sufficient to infer discrimination (which tracks almost exactly the language of the Title IX statute itself). This is a foundational difference on what it takes to bring a Title IX lawsuit in the first place, and again, students have wildly different standards based on where they live or attend school.

Even more alarming, sometimes schools assert during litigation that they may have been biased against the student, but it wasn’t on the basis of sex. This argument, schools hope, saves them from liability under Title IX because the law does not prohibit schools from railroading students per se, only if they do so on the basis of the student’s sex.

Circuits again disagree on whether this argument is sufficient to save the school from liability, or put another way, whether a student has to disprove other potential causes of discipline before getting to discovery or to trial. For example, whereas the Eleventh Circuit in Doe v. Samford [13] affirmed a dismissal of a Title IX lawsuit because the student did not disprove other potential causes of the discipline (other than bias on the basis of sex) in his complaint, the Tenth Circuit in Doe v. University of Denver [14] permitted a lawsuit to go to trial on this issue. The Tenth Circuit reasoned, correctly, that the issue of what bias the university used (bias on the basis of sex or bias on the basis of the student being the accused) is a question of fact that needs to be resolved by a jury, because it comes down to what is more believable. Once again, circuits are split, and students across the country do not have uniform rights.

The above is not an exhaustive listing of all of the disagreements among the federal circuit courts in this area. There are other important areas where courts disagree, including the causation standard for Title IX. But for sake of brevity, suffice it to say that students across the country do not have a clear view of what their rights are. Students deserve the same rights under the same law, and I desperately hope that the Supreme Court takes the opportunity to make that a reality in the near future.

Citations:

[1] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CsFhy86oxh26SgTkTq9GV_BBrv5NAA5z9cv178Fjk3o/edit#gid=0

[2] Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975)

[3] See, e.g., Doe v. Alger, 175 F. Supp. 3d 646 (W.D. Va. 2016); Dillow v. Virginia Polytechnic Inst. & State Univ., No. 7:22CV00280, 2023 WL 2320765 (W.D. Va. Mar. 2, 2023); Doe v. Virginia Polytechnic Inst. & State Univ., 400 F. Supp. 3d 479 (W.D. Va. 2019).

[4] See Haidak, infra.

[5] Walsh v. Hodge, 975 F.3d 475 (5th Cir. 2020)

[6] See Baum, infra.

[7] See Purdue, infra.

[8] Doe v. Univ. of Arkansas – Fayetteville, 974 F.3d 858 (8th Cir. 2020)

[9] Doe v. Baum, 903 F.3d 575 (6th Cir. 2018)

[10] Haidak v. Univ. of Massachusetts-Amherst, 933 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2019)

[11] Yusuf v. Vassar Coll., 35 F.3d 709 (2d Cir. 1994)

[12] Doe v. Purdue Univ., 928 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2019)

[13] Doe v. Samford Univ., 29 F.4th 675 (11th Cir. 2022)

[14] Doe v. Univ. of Denver, 1 F.4th 822 (10th Cir. 2021)

Campus Civil Rights Department of Education Due Process Free Speech Gender Agenda Gender Identity Office for Civil Rights Title IX

79 Members of Congress Speak Out in Opposition to Biden Title IX Plan

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date May 23, 2023

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

79 Members of Congress Speak Out in Opposition to Biden Title IX Plan

WASHINGTON / May 24, 2023 – The Biden Department of Education has issued proposed regulations that would expand the definition of biological “sex” to include “gender identity” (1) and allow the participation of transgender athletes in women’s sports (2).

If approved, these proposals also will have far-reaching, harmful consequences for parental rights (5), free speech (3), due process (4), religious freedom (6), and gender transitioning of minors (7).

In response, 79 members of Congress have released statements of opposition, many of them strongly-worded:

Senate — 29 members:

John Barrasso – WY
Marsha Blackburn – TN
John Boozman – AR
Mike Braun – IN
Katie Britt – AL
Ted Budd – NC
Richard Burr – NC
Bill Cassidy – LA
Tom Cotton – AR
Kevin Cramer – ND
Mike Crapo – ID
Ted Cruz – TX
Steve Danies – MT
Joni Ernst – IA
Josh Hawley – MO
Ron Johnson – WI
James Lankford – OK
Mike Lee – UT
Cynthia Lummis – WY
Roger Marshall – KS
Markwayne Mullins – OK
Pete Ricketts – NE
Marco Rubio – FL
Rick Scott – FL
Tim Scott – SC
Cindy Hyde Smith – MS
Dan Sullivan – AK
Thom Tillis – NC
Tommy Tuberville – AR

House of Representatives — 50 members:

Jodey Arrington – TX
Brian Babin –TX
Jim Banks – IN
Andy Biggs – AZ
Dan Bishop – NC
Lauren Boebert – CO
Mike Bost – IL
Josh Brecheen – OK
Michael C. Burgess – TX
Eric Burlison – MO
Ben Cline – VA
Michael Cloud – TX
Andrew S. Clyde – GA
Eli Crane – AZ
Dan Crenshaw – TX
Byron Donalds – FL
Jeff Duncan – SC
Michelle Fischbach – MN
Virginia Foxx – NC
Bob Good – VA
Mark E. Green, M.D. – TN
Marjorie Taylor Greene – GA
Glenn Grothman – WI
Michael Guest – MS
Andy Harris, M.D. –
Kevin Hern – OK
Clay Higgins – LA
Randy L. Jackson – TX
Mike Johnson – LA
Doug Lamborn – CO
Debbie Lesko – AZ
Anna Paulina Luna – FL
Nancy Mace – SC
Kevin McCarthy – CA
David McKinley – WV
Mary E. Miller – IL
Cory Mills – FL
Nathaniel Moran – TX
Alex X. Mooney – WV
Troy E. Nehls – TX
Ralph Norman – SC
Andy Ogles – TN
George Santos – NY
Steve Scalise – LA
Pete Sessions – TX
Chris Smith – NJ
Gregory Steube – FL
Ann Wagner – MO
Randy Weber – TX
Daniel Webster – FL

In addition, numerous state lawmakers and attorneys general have issued statements of disapproval. Links to all statements are available online (8).

SAVE calls on federal and state lawmakers to continue to voice their opposition to both Title IX regulations. Send email to: alejandro.reyes@ed.gov

Links:

Bills Civil Rights Office for Civil Rights Title IX

Growing Wave of Bills Frustrate Biden Plan to Allow Biological Males to Compete in Women’s Sports

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date February 13, 2023

	Dating		Married
	Male %	Female %	Male %	Female %
Any physical violence	14.6	17.4	13.6	12.1
Severe physical violence	11.9	5.6	4.9	4.4

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Growing Wave of Bills Frustrate Biden Plan to Allow Biological Males to Compete in Women’s Sports

WASHINGTON / February 14, 2023 – Surfer Bethany Hamilton is speaking out against the World Surf League’s newly announced policy that would allow biological males to compete against women in professional surfing events (1).

Hamilton’s comments spotlight the growing controversy arising from a Department of Education proposal, issued last June, to redefine the meaning of “sex” in the Title IX law to include “gender identity” (2). Such a change would impose a competitive disadvantage on biological females (3).

In response, a milestone court decision was handed down, and a series of proposed bills have been introduced at the federal and state levels that are designed to protect women’s sports.

On January 5, 2023, the Southern District Court of West Virginia ruled in favor of the Save Women’s Sports Bill, which defines “girl” and “woman” as biologically female for the purpose of secondary school sports (4).

In Congress, Rep. Greg Steube recently introduced the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act. The bill, which now has 20 co-sponsors, would require that sex “be recognized based solely on a person’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth” (5).

In 12 states, lawmakers recently have introduced bills designed to protect women’s sports:

Alaska: HB 27 (6)
Colorado: HB 23-1098 (7)
Connecticut: SB 468 (8)
Hawaii: HB 508/SB 1429 (9)
Kansas: HB 2238 (10)
Maryland: HB 359 (11)
Minnesota: HF 551 (12)
Missouri: SB 48 (13)
New Jersey: SB 589 (14)
North Dakota: HB 1249 (15) and HB 1489 (16)
Texas: HB 23 (17)
Virginia: HB 1387 (18)

Eighteen states previously enacted laws designed to ban biological males from competing in female sports: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia (19).

A SAVE opinion poll found that 71% of Americans oppose allowing transgender athletes to participate in women’s sports (20). SAVE urges lawmakers to discourage attempts the redefine “sex” and work to assure fairness in women’s sports (21).

Links:

Civil Rights Department of Education Domestic Violence Due Process Free Speech Office for Civil Rights Press Release Sex Education Sexual Harassment Title IX

63 Organizations Urge Congress to Halt the Weaponization of Title IX

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date January 25, 2023

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

63 Organizations Urge Congress to Halt the Weaponization of Title IX

WASHINGTON / January 26, 2023 – Sixty-three leading organizations today are calling on Congress to take strong measures to stop the proposed overhaul of Title IX, the law that was designed to curb sex discrimination in schools. On June 23, 2022 the Department of Education proposed a new Title IX regulation that would redefine the meaning of “sex,” limit free speech, and hobble due process protections (1).

The letter notes that Title IX activists also are seeking to “marginalize the role of parents, promote gender transitioning among minors, make a mockery of fairness in women’s sports, and curtail free speech and due process.”

The letter urges Congress to therefore undertake the following actions:

Pursuant to H. Res 12, SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, investigate how the U.S. Department of Education has collaborated with private sector and non-profit entities to alter the regulatory definitions of “sex” and “sexual harassment,” with the aim of changing the foundational legal definition of “sex” and infringing on First Amendment free speech rights.
Reduce the appropriations to the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) by $25 million.
Conduct hearings on experimental medical practices involving gender transition of under-age children, e.g., puberty blocking drugs, opposite-sex hormones, breast removal, and castration.
Vigorously oppose passage of the Students’ Access to Freedom and Educational Rights (SAFER) Act, introduced in December 2022.
Oppose legislation that seeks to expand definitions of “sexual harassment,” promote “trauma-informed” investigations, or seek to weaken free speech, due process, or the presumption of innocence.
Work for the passage of the following legislation:
1. Parents Bill of Rights Act
2. Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act
3. Campus Free Speech Restoration Act
4. Campus Equality, Fairness, and Transparency Act

A SAVE public opinion poll reveals strong public support for these actions (2).

The 63 organizations are members of the Title IX Network (3). The letter to Congress can be viewed online (4).

Links:

Campus Civil Rights Department of Education Due Process False Allegations Office for Civil Rights Press Release Sexual Assault Title IX

Lawsuit Against USF Moves Forward, Sending a Message that Schools Must Not Take Short-Cuts on Due Process Protections

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date October 22, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@endtodv.org

Lawsuit Against USF Moves Forward, Sending a Message that Schools Must Not Take Short-Cuts on Due Process Protections

WASHINGTON / October 24, 2022 – Last week U.S. District Judge Scriven issued a ruling in a sexual assault case, denying the University of South Florida its Motion to Dismiss. The decision in favor of former USF student Kevaughn Dingle will allow the case to proceed to discovery and trial, if the university does not opt to settle the case (1).

The complaint arose from a sexual encounter in which the female student was the initiator (2). She entered the dormitory room of Dingle, a Black man, removed his shirt, expressed her sexual excitement, asked the man to text someone for a condom, and performed fellatio on him.

An hour later, she told some friends she “might have been sexually assaulted,” and filed a Title IX complaint.

During the Title IX proceeding, USF restricted Dingle’s review of the file, denied him the right to cross-examine the accuser, and even revoked his right to appeal.

In addition, USF misinterpreted its definition of consent. Specifically, USF’s Title IX Office defined consent as “words and/or actions that clearly indicate a willingness to engage in a specific sexual activity… at some point during the interaction or thereafter.” In contrast, USF’s determination letter faulted the man based on what the school referred to as a lack of “ongoing affirmative consent.” [emphasis added]

As a consequence, USF found Dingle responsible of sexual assault, expelled him, and stripped him of his football scholarship.

In addition, Dingle was arrested by local police on sexual assault charges, which were eventually dropped (3).

Dingle’s experience is not uncommon. Since the Department of Education issued its “Dear Colleague Letter” in 2011, 814 similar lawsuits have been filed (4). As a consequence, 44 judicial decisions have been issued against colleges finding sex bias against the male student (5).

While Black men make up only about six percent of college undergraduates, they are substantially overrepresented in the Title IX proceedings (6). Among the 30% of cases in which the race of the accused student was known, black students are four times as likely as white students to file lawsuits alleging due process violations (7).

Citations:

Bills Campus Civil Rights Department of Education Due Process False Allegations Office for Civil Rights Press Release Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX

Ignoring Wave of Attacks on Campus Due Process, Lawmakers Introduce Bill to Help ‘Survivors.’

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date October 10, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Ignoring Wave of Attacks on Campus Due Process, Lawmakers Introduce Bill to Help ‘Survivors,’ For the Fifth Time

WASHINGTON / October 10, 2022 – Basic principles of “due process” on campus are being challenged by a growing number of frivolous and false Title IX complaints. Despite these developments, Congressional lawmakers introduced last week the Campus Accountability and Safety Act, a bill that does nothing to shore up due process protections.

Due process, enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, serves to protect innocent citizens from false accusations. But a review of recent Title IX complaints reveals that female students increasingly are resorting to Title IX as a weapon to settle old scores.

For example, Clemson University student Erin Wingo initiated a sexual encounter with a male acquaintance. But worried that her boyfriend might learn of the tryst, Wingo fabricated an allegation of sexual assault. A South Carolina jury later awarded the male student $5.3 million for defamation (1).

In another case, the male student was taking a medication that precluded his ability to have intercourse— but that did not deter an accusation of “rape” from being filed by the female student. In other recent complaints, there is no allegation of intimate sexual contact. Rather, the complaint centers around vague and unverifiable claims of “harassment.”

In addition, recent developments reveal that certain groups are seeking to roll back fundamental due process protections:

The Department of Education released a draft Title IX regulation in June that was widely criticized for its removal of key due process protections. One letter from 19 state Attorneys General charged, “The Proposed Rule threatens to destroy Title IX.” (2)
The presumption of innocence has long been seen as the bedrock to due process (3). Nonetheless, 12 Democratic Senators submitted a letter calling on the Department of Education to remove any ”presumption that the respondent is not responsible for sex discrimination until a determination is made.” (4) This extreme position provoked the ire of leading liberal commentators (5).

Ignoring these worrisome threats to due process, last week federal lawmakers introduced the Campus Accountability and Safety Act (6). The bill had been introduced, unsuccessfully, in four previous sessions of Congress (7).

The House bill was co-sponsored by Representatives Carolyn Maloney and John Katko, neither of whom will be serving in Congress next year. Announced five weeks before the highly contested November 8 elections, the bill has little chance of being passed into law in the current session of Congress.

“The truth is that there is no crisis in sexual assault on campus,” notes a leading Title IX attorney. “Title IX teaches women to blame the guy instead of accepting her share of responsibility for the failed relationship.”

Citations: