Category: Due Process

Department of Education Must Renounce Its Reckless Title IX Plan

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date December 6, 2023

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Department of Education Must Renounce Its Reckless Title IX Plan

WASHINGTON / December 7, 2023 – On March 8, 2021 President Joe Biden issued an Executive Order directing the Department of Education (DOE) to draft a new regulation redefining the meaning of sex to include “gender identity.” (1) The DOE issued a draft regulation on June 23, 2022 (2), but without explanation, missed two self-imposed deadlines to release the final version in May and October of 2023. (3)

In the meantime, attorneys general filed several lawsuits, and dozens of federal and state lawmakers voiced strong opposition to the Biden proposal (4).

The new regulation is feared to have far-reaching and harmful effects on due process for the falsely accused, free speech, gender transitioning of children, and parental rights (5).

In particular, the policy’s impact on women’s sports has sparked considerable debate. Over the past two years, public opinion has shifted away from support for transgender participation in women’s sports. The most recent Gallup poll found that 69% of Americans say that persons should only be allowed to play on sports teams that match their birth sex. These numbers include pluralities of Republicans (93%), Independents (67%), and Democrats (48%). (6)

Opposition to the Title IX regulation has further accelerated in recent months.

First, presidential candidates Ron DeSantis, Vivek Ramaswamy, and Donald Trump issued calls for the abolition of the Department of Education (7).

In September, 59 organizations signed a letter calling for the resignation of Office for Civil Rights director Catherine Lhamon for repeated and willful violations of the U.S. Constitution: Article 1 regarding the legislative powers of Congress, the First Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment (8).

In November, Rep. Lisa McClain, chairwoman of the Oversight Committee’s Subcommittee on Health Care, along with House Education and Workforce Committee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx, sent a letter of concern to DOE Secretary Miguel Cardona. They wrote,

“The Committees are concerned that your efforts to gut due process protections for accused and accusing students, redefine ‘sex discrimination’ to include ‘gender identity,’ and otherwise abandon established regulations protecting women and girls are improperly motivated and destructive to American students.” (9)

On December 5, the House Oversight Committee convened a hearing on “The Importance of Protecting Female Athletics and Title IX.” The hearing highlighted cases in which female athletes had been injured by their male-bodied competitors (10).

“Reckless” can be defined as actions taken without thinking or caring about the consequences. Accordingly, the Biden Administration’s proposal to revamp the Title IX law must be seen as reckless in the eyes of political candidates, federal and state lawmakers, and the American public.

Links:

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

Judicial Bias Rewarded?

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date November 4, 2023

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 (7^th 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).

Department of Education Due Process False Allegations Free Speech Gender Identity Office for Civil Rights Press Release Title IX

Candidates Are Invited to Sign ‘Pledge to Protect Schools, Children, and Families from Federal Title IX Plan’

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date October 5, 2023

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Candidates Are Invited to Sign ‘Pledge to Protect Schools, Children, and Families from Federal Title IX Plan’

WASHINGTON / October 5, 2023 – The U.S. Department of Education is proposing to redefine the meaning of sex to include “gender identity” as part of the Title IX law (1). This change would have transformative effects on schools, children, families, and American society at large (2).

In response, SAVE is inviting candidates for federal, state, or local office to sign a “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:

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

The Candidate Pledge can be viewed online (3). Candidates can indicate their support for the Pledge by sending a confirmatory email to: rthompson@saveservices.org

Even though the Pledge was not publicly announced until October 5, lawmakers in Alabama, Idaho, Iowa, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia already have signed on to the statement (4).

The Biden Title IX proposal has faced stiff criticism from numerous federal and state lawmakers and attorneys general (5). In addition, five Republican presidential candidates are now calling for the abolition of the Department of Education (6).

Candidates for school boards also are invited to sign the Pledge. At last count, 1,045 school districts around the country have implemented policies stating that school personnel can or should keep a student’s transgender status hidden from parents (7).

Candidates are welcome to display the signed Pledge on their campaign websites and at campaign events.

Citations:

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

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

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date September 25, 2023

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:

Civil Rights Department of Education Due Process Free Speech Gender Agenda Office for Civil Rights Press Release Sexual Harassment Title IX

59 Groups Call for Assistant Education Secretary Catherine Lhamon to Resign for Violating Oath of Office

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date September 20, 2023

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

59 Groups Call for Assistant Education Secretary Catherine Lhamon to Resign for Violating Oath of Office

WASHINGTON / September 21, 2023 – Fifty-nine organizations today are calling for the resignation of Assistant Education Secretary Catherine Lhamon for repeated violations of her Oath of Office. The Statement was released at a press conference held today in Washington, DC.

When Lhamon became a federal employee, she took this Oath of Office: “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.”

Unfortunately, in the process of developing a new Title IX regulation (1), Lhamon has broken three key provisions of the U.S. Constitution:

Article 1, Section 1: Authorization of Congress to exercise “All legislative Powers.”

Congress passed Title IX in 1972 with the understanding that Title IX was designed to apply to the male and female sexes (2). Title IX was not intended to include protections on the basis of gender identity. Lhamon’s proposed Title IX regulation would change the definition of “sex,” representing a dramatic usurpation of Congressional authority.

First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.”

In Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, the Supreme Court defined sexual harassment as conduct that is “severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive.” (3)

But the Department of Education’s proposed regulation rejects the Supreme Court’s definition of sexual harassment, proposing that speech would only need to be “pervasive” or “severe” to violate Title IX. One federal court has ruled such a definition to be “staggeringly broad.” (4)

Fourteenth Amendment: No State shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

Dozens of federal courts have affirmed a series of due process rights for college students, including the rights to an impartial investigation, elimination of pro-complainant bias, notice to the accused, cross examination, access to evidence, and evaluation of evidence (5).

But Lhamon’s proposed regulation would severely weaken or eliminate the following due process protections for students accused of a Title IX infraction:

Independent and impartial investigations
Unrestricted access to evidence
Right to a live hearing and cross-examination

For these reasons, 59 organizations have endorsed a Statement calling for Lhamon’s immediate resignation from office (6).

Citations:

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

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date August 31, 2023

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:

Civil Rights Domestic Violence Due Process False Allegations Feminism Innocence Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment

As False Allegations Spiral Out of Control, Feminist Groups Work to Give False Accusers a Free Pass

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date August 23, 2023

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

As False Allegations Spiral Out of Control, Feminist Groups Work to Give False Accusers a Free Pass

WASHINGTON / August 23, 2023 – Courtney Conover of Pennsylvania made a series of false accusations against Dr. James Amor and another person, claiming they had mishandled the complaints of victims of rape and sexual assault. Using her blog and social media account, Conover accused them of being “the devil,” a “human monster,” had been “aiding and abetting a pedophile for two decades,” and other outlandish claims.

The jury was so disturbed by the accusations that it found in favor of Dr. Amor and awarded $1.4 million in damages. This past Friday, U.S. District Court Judge John Gallagher upheld the jury finding, although he did reduce the damages (1).

False allegations represent a growing threat across the country. A 2020 YouGov survey found that 8% of Americans had been falsely accused of sexual assault, domestic violence, or child abuse (2). Three years later, that number had increased to 10% (3).

Unfortunately, feminist groups are working to give a free pass to false accusers, focusing on both the civil and criminal settings:

Civil: Feminists are seeking to confer absolute legal immunity on women who make accusations that are knowingly false. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that lawsuits for damages from defamatory claims reflect “our basic concept of the essential dignity and worth of every human being.” (4)

But that didn’t stop Legal Momentum (formerly, the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund) from filing an amicus brief in Khan v. Yale University seeking absolute immunity for the false accuser (5). In June, the Connecticut Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of Khan, rejecting the Legal Momentum arguments (6).

Criminal: Feminist organizations are pressuring prosecutors to not file criminal charges against false accusers, even though every state has laws that ban persons from making false reports. Last week a group known as End Violence Against Women International (EVAWI) released an email message titled, “Is Prosecution for False Reporting Ever Appropriate?”

The message links to a longer document with the provocative title, “Raped, Then Jailed: The Risks of Prosecution for Falsely Reporting Sexual Assault” (7). The report fails to clarify the key distinction between an allegation that is “unfounded” — not meeting the legal standard of proof — versus “false,” that is, made in bad faith.

The crux of the EVAWI argument is that prosecuting an accuser is contrary to the “public interest.” Predictably, the feminist organization’s concept of “public interest” excludes any consideration of the effects of a bogus accusation on the falsely accused, including its devastating effects on the person’s reputation, mental and physical health, social standing, and career opportunities.

Worse, EVAWI never mentions the fact that false allegations and perjury are now the number one cause of wrongful convictions, according to the National Registry of Exonerations (8).

September 9 is International Falsely Accused Day (9). The global event is intended to raise awareness of how easy it is to fall victim to a false accusation, to point out how the presumption of innocence has been eroded, and how the law continues to be upended in the name of “social justice.”

Citations:

Civil Rights Department of Education Due Process False Allegations Free Speech Gender Agenda Office for Civil Rights Title IX

68 Groups Endorse Appropriations Plan to Trim Controversial Title IX Provisions from Department of Education

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date July 25, 2023

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

68 Groups Endorse Appropriations Plan to Trim Controversial Title IX Provisions from Department of Education

WASHINGTON / July 25, 2023 – A coalition of 68 organizations is sending a letter today to House Speaker Kevin McCarthy that endorses important provisions related to the federal Department of Education, as enumerated in the FY2024 Appropriations Bill for Labor-HHS-Education.

The 68 organizations are all members of the Title IX Network, which was formed in July 2022 in opposition to the Biden administration’s proposed Title IX regulations (1).

The Department of Education’s proposed Title IX regulations, which are scheduled to be released in October, would change the definition of “sex” to include “gender Identity.” The proposed regulations also would harm women’s sports, promote gender transitioning among young children without parental consent, infringe on free speech, and remove due process protections for men who have been falsely accused.

As explained in the letter, the 68 organizations support key provisions that were approved by the House Appropriations sub-committee in its FY2024 Appropriations bill (2):

Section 244: Prohibits the implementation of Biden’s Executive Order on “Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation.”
Section 311: Prohibits the Department of Education from implementing the proposed Title IX regulations that were issued in July of 2022 and in April of 2023.
Section 312: Protects religious liberty in schools.
Section 534: Prohibits the use of federal funds for hormone therapy or surgical treatment for “gender affirming care.”
Section 535: Prohibits the implementation of any other “diversity, equity, inclusion office, program, or training.”

We urge the House of Representatives to retain all five of these Sections, keep the strong language used in these Sections, and bring the FY2024 Appropriations Bill for Labor-HHS-Education for a prompt floor vote.

The entire coalition letter can be viewed online (3).

Links:

California Civil Rights Department of Education Due Process False Allegations Feminism Office for Civil Rights Press Release Title IX Training

Broken on Campus: High-Profile Failures Reveal Title IX Offices are in Desperate Need of Reform

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date July 22, 2023

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Broken on Campus: High-Profile Failures Reveal Title IX Offices are in Desperate Need of Reform

WASHINGTON / July 24, 2023 – Three recent reports reveal widespread oversights and failures at university offices that were established to assure compliance with Title IX, the federal law enacted to stop sex discrimination in schools. The problems with Title IX are being seen throughout the country at institutions large and small, private and public, in three areas:

Discrimination against Male Students: A recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education reveals the existence of a broad array of scholarships, leadership development programs, awards, and summer camps that illegally exclude male students. The article notes that economist Mark Perry has filed hundreds of anti-discrimination complaints with the federal Office for Civil Rights, alleging more than 2,000 violations of federal antidiscrimination law by more than 750 colleges in virtually every state around the country (1).
Due Process: To date, 265 judicial decisions have been handed down (2) against colleges for sex discrimination (3), lack of due process, and other similar violations. One of the most notable decisions was rendered on June 27 when the Connecticut Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of student Saif Khan, who had been falsely accused of sexual assault. The Court singled out numerous due process deficiencies in the school’s Title IX procedures, including the fact that Yale “failed to establish an adequate record of the proceedings.” (4)
Handling of Sexual Harassment Complaints: A new report reveals a constellation of failures at California State University, the nation’s largest four-year public university. The report documents the lack of a coordinated approach across the 23-campus system, resulting in sexual misconduct complaints being ignored, mishandled, or falling through the cracks. The report deplores the lack of a “consistent formal process for reporting, resolving, documenting, or tracking” of complaints, and makes numerous recommendations for improvement (5).

Part of the problem can be traced to a lack of legal expertise among Title IX coordinators. According to the Association of Title IX Administrators, the leading trade organization for Title IX coordinators, fewer than one in four coordinators have a Juris Doctor degree (6). Another analysis revealed a pro-feminist, anti-male bias among many Title IX coordinators (7).

In addition, the Association of Title IX Administrators has a well-documented history of seeking to roll back on Fourteenth Amendment-based due process protections for the accused (8). Last year, a lawsuit was filed against ATIXA president Brett Sokolow for allegedly using company funds for personal purposes and defrauding clients (9).

All of these facts point to a pervasive lack of impartiality, professionalism, and legal expertise in the Title IX field. One might reasonably conclude that these problems need to be addressed before any efforts are make to widen the scope of the Title IX law or increase the duties of Title IX coordinators.

And that’s exactly what the Department of Education’s proposed Title IX regulation seeks to do (10).

Citations:

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

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date July 18, 2023

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):

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.” (Pompeo subsequently announced his decision to not run as a presidential candidate).
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.”

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

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.”
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).
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.”
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: