Accountability Campus Civil Rights Department of Education Discrimination Investigations Law & Justice Legal Office for Civil Rights

Sex discrimination in Oklahoma higher education

by: Adam Kissel, October 22, 2020

The world record for filing U.S. Department of Education complaints is probably held by an advocate for special education. She has filed thousands of complaints about equal access to education for people with disabilities.

Her newest challenger is economist Mark J. Perry, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, who has filed hundreds of Title IX civil rights complaints about equal access on the basis of sex. He is winning, which often means ending unlawful discrimination against male students. Mr. Perry recently preserved civil rights at the University of Central Oklahoma, which had advertised that “the 2020 Computer Forensics Summer Academy is for high school female students. The application will be unavailable for male students.”

But sex discrimination need not be so blatant to be unlawful. In Teamsters v. United States in 1977, the U.S. Supreme Court noted that discrimination is not limited to direct signs that people will see (like “no boys allowed”) but can include “actual practices” such as how the opportunity is publicized and “recruitment techniques.”

It appears that many programs at Oklahoma colleges and universities are discriminatory and violate Title IX.

Not only might these programs violate federal law, but most of them might also violate the state constitutional provision against preferential treatment or discrimination in public education on the basis of sex.

At the University of Oklahoma (OU), for example, the Halliburton Women’s Welcome program explicitly excludes male students. This educational program provides “an opportunity to get a jumpstart on forming unique connections that will facilitate your success as an engineering or science student” and provides the benefit of “the opportunity to move into the residence halls early.” Under “WHO?” it specifies: “All WOMEN who: have been accepted to OU and will be starting classes in Summer or Fall 2020.” To be clear, OU put the word “WOMEN” in all caps and underlined it.

The restriction in that program is blatant. OU also holds a ONEOK Working Woman Workshop, which claims to be just for women: the mission of the workshop is to provide OU women engineering students “with professional and personal development opportunities that contribute to the preparation of students for career paths in industry and academia.” The name of the program and its mission both make it clear who is wanted and who is not.

OU also appears to discriminate against younger male students. Its Girls Learning and Applying Math and Science (GLAMS) program, to be held online on November 13, states that “Girls in their 6th, 7th or 8th grade year in the spring of this academic year should apply.” The program adds, “African American, Hispanic/Latino, American Indian/Alaskan Native and or First Generation students are strongly encouraged to apply; however, the program considers all applicants.” But boys are clearly unwanted. Photos of the program show 100% girls.

Additionally, OU holds an annual High School Girls Day sponsored by Shell, which similarly limits older boys from participating: “Current high school girls in the 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th grade in the spring of this academic year should apply.”

These four examples are just the beginning at OU and elsewhere.

At Oklahoma State University (OSU), in contrast to OU, the Society of Women Engineers (SWE) explicitly claims to “assist men and women in leadership and professional skills.” SWE holds SWE Day, a hands-on educational program to introduce “high school females” to the college of engineering, only for girls. SWE is primarily a club and does not necessarily represent OSU officially, so SWE Day may be more likely to fall afoul of campus nondiscrimination rules than become a Title IX case.

The University of Tulsa (TU) Department of Mathematics explicitly limits its Tulsa Girls’ Math Circle program “to girls from the Tulsa-area who are in 6th, 7th and 8th grades.” The program’s FAQ specifies that the program is for “Any intellectually curious and highly capable girl who is in grade 6 or above from any school in the Tulsa area.” Although TU is a private institution, it is bound by Title IX and equally in danger of losing federal funds if found to discriminate on the basis of sex.

TU also says it hosts girls (only) on campus for Tech Trek Tulsa, a weeklong program “for girls entering 8th grade.” This program appears, however, no longer to exist at TU. But TU also says it holds Sonia Kovalevsky Day, an annual “all day, all girls, all math” event that has continued into 2020. The partner organization, the Tulsa Regional STEM Alliance, might no longer partner with TU, since its website now says that the Alliance partners with Tulsa Community College (TCC) for this program.

TCC also runs the Mothers on a Mission program for students who are single mothers. This program provides “resources to empower single mothers through powerful speakers, peer collaboration, individual coaching, study help, and leadership training.” It appears that single fathers are not invited, although one line in the description refers to student-parents instead of mothers in particular.

Northeastern State University (NSU) offers a Girl Powered S.T.E.A.M. Workshop that is “centered around girls” ages 6–14. NSU says that “this is an initiative to educate girls in more S.T.E.A.M. areas.” Although the webpage says that “all are welcome,” the initiative is evidently only for girls of those ages, not boys.

Rogers State University (RSU) runs a Girls STEM Camp. Information online is thin, but it appears to be for girls only.

Not only might these programs violate federal law, but most of them might also violate the state constitutional provision against preferential treatment or discrimination in public education on the basis of sex. They also might violate the institutions’ own rules and policies against discrimination. Taking them together, one might see not just an unlawful bias in individual programs, but institutional bias at entire universities and in the public postsecondary system altogether. While Mr. Perry appears to have more Oklahoma work to do at the federal level, the civil rights staff in the state Attorney General’s office may also have some work to do.

The best solution, though, is for the colleges to remedy all discrimination before anyone files a complaint. Individual colleges, the state regents, and the Oklahoma State Department of Education may want to investigate sooner rather than later. Mr. Perry knows what he is doing and is effective in rooting out discrimination.

Adam Kissel is a former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Higher Education Programs in the Office of Postsecondary Education at the U.S. Department of Education. He previously served as vice president of programs for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, directing the program that defended the fundamental rights of students and faculty members across the country. He holds degrees from Harvard University and the University of Chicago.

Department of Education Department of Justice Law & Justice Legal Office for Civil Rights

Judge Barrett a reformer for higher education

Opinion – Op-Ed

by Chandler Thornton, 10/25/2020

Conservatives greeted the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court with enthusiasm for her originalist interpretation of the law, but all students who care about civil liberties, regardless of political persuasion, should welcome her nomination for the decidedly positive effect it will have in restoring sanity on America’s college campuses.

Over the last several decades, liberals on college campuses have enacted racial preferences in admissions, clamped down on the free speech rights of campus conservatives, imposed strict ideological tests on students, and eliminated any pretense of due process for students unfairly accused of sexual assault.

In particular, under President Obama, universities were provided guidance in 2011 and 2014 that led to the creation of “kangaroo courts,” where students facing sexual misconduct charges were punished without being afforded a hearing or the right to cross-examine their accuser. This led to a wave of cases that were invalidated by courts nationwide.

Last year, Judge Barrett authored a unanimous opinion for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit that restored the rights of a student, named “John Doe,” who alleged his university violated both the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title IX when investigating and adjudicating an allegation of sexual misconduct brought forward by another student, referred to as “Jane Doe.”

In her ruling in Doe v. Purdue University, Judge Barrett said Purdue’s procedures fell far short of fair, just and impartial treatment.

“John received notice of Jane’s allegations and denied them, but Purdue did not disclose its evidence to John. Withholding the evidence on which it relied in adjudicating his guilt was sufficient to render the process fundamentally unfair,” Barrett wrote.

Judge Barrett went on to cite some of the problems with Purdue’s grossly unfair rush to judgment.

“At John’s meeting with the Advisory Committee, two of the three panel members candidly admitted that they had not read the investigative report, which suggests that they decided that John was guilty based on the accusation rather than the evidence. And in a case that boiled down to a ‘he said/she said,’ it is particularly concerning that … the committee concluded that Jane was the more credible witness — in fact, that she was credible at all — without ever speaking to her in person. Indeed, they did not even receive a statement written by Jane herself, much less a sworn statement,” Barrett noted.

A shift to a more originalist-minded Supreme Court is coming at a time when the spotlight is on higher education, as race-based admissions and the stifling of campus free speech have become controversial flash points.

While Judge Barrett’s views on campus free speech and racial preferences are less documented, she drew clear lines between herself and the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who consistently voted against race-conscious admissions and was an outspoken defender of free speech.

At the Rose Garden ceremony where President Trump announced her nomination, Barrett said, “I clerked for Justice Scalia more than 20 years ago, but the lessons I learned still resonate. His judicial philosophy is mine, too.”

Understanding the importance of applying the law as written, guided by the original intent of the authors, and careful not to inject one’s own personal views or subjective policy opinions, was a hallmark of Scalia’s judicial philosophy.

That Judge Barrett will take the same approach is a relief for those of us looking forward to the day when common sense and fair play return to college campuses.

Chandler Thornton is the national chairman of the College Republican National Committee.

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

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

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Law & Justice Legal Title IX

Federal judge rejects ACLU-backed lawsuit against Title IX rule

by Jeremy Bauer-Wolf, @jbeowulf

October 21, 2020

Dive Brief:

  • A federal judge Tuesday dismissed an American Civil Liberties Union-backed lawsuit that sought to void the U.S. Department of Education’s contentious new rule governing campus sexual violence.
  • The ACLU filed it on behalf of four activist groups in May, arguing certain provisions of the Title IX regulation, such as no longer looking into certain off-campus cases, were unlawful.
  • This is the latest defeat in a string of legal challenges against the rule, suggesting it will likely remain in effect for some time.

Dive Insight:

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’ new rule directing how colleges should investigate and potentially punish campus sexual assault went into effect in August.

The changes represent a significant shift from the Obama administration’s position on Title IX, the federal law barring sex discrimination in education. Its guidance is credited with bolstering survivor protections.

DeVos’ rule narrows the definition of sexual harassment, and it reduces the number of cases colleges would need to investigate. It also creates a quasi-judicial system for reviewing allegations, in which both parties, through a surrogate, can cross-examine the other.

Survivor advocacy groups, as well as Democratic attorneys general, sued shortly after DeVos issued the final rule in May. None have succeeded in blocking the regulation so far.

U.S. District Court Judge Richard Bennett, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, threw out the ACLU-led case Tuesday, writing that the organizations lacked standing to sue. One of them, Know Your IX, can file an amended complaint, however.

The groups argued the rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the process by which government agencies issue regulation. And they said it undermined the intent of Title IX and created burdens for colleges to comply.

Bennett wrote that Know Your IX, specifically, didn’t prove the rule was reducing student reports of sexual violence. In a previous court case against the department’s Title IX policies, Bennett wrote, the plaintiff was able to show a decrease in student complaints.

Know Your IX also didn’t demonstrate the rule resulted in more work for the organization, as it alleged. The group said in court filings it received a “spike in training requests” for spring 2020 and believed it would see more, but Bennett wrote this was speculative.

Know Your IX tweeted Wednesday it was disappointed with the decision and would discuss next steps with its counsel.

Campus Department of Education Discrimination Due Process Executive Order Office for Civil Rights Race Sex Stereotyping Sexual Assault Title IX Title IX Equity Project

PR: Noting the ‘Seriousness of Penalties,’ College Administrators Suspend Trainings that Promote Sex Stereotypes

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335


Noting the ‘Seriousness of Penalties,’ College Administrators Suspend Trainings that Promote Sex Stereotypes

WASHINGTON / October 19, 2020 – In response to new federal requirements, college administrators have begun to stop school trainings and curricular offerings that promote stereotypes based on sex or race. For example, the University of Iowa recently announced a decision to suspend all such trainings, workshops, and programs. Noting “the seriousness of penalties for non-compliance with the order,” the pause applies to all harassment and discrimination trainings offered by the institution (1). Other institutions of higher education reportedly have made similar decisions (2).

Two federal policies are driving the re-evaluation. First, the new Department of Education sexual harassment regulation states that Title IX training activities “must not rely on sex stereotypes.” (3) Second, Executive Order 13950 directs federal agencies to suspend funding for any institution that promotes concepts that “an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive.” (4)

SAVE is urging administrators at colleges and universities across the country to take immediate steps to end trainings and other activities that may promote sex stereotypes. Title IX and other training programs are known to be promoting sex stereotypes in at least seven ways:

  1. Domestic violence: Each year there are 4.2 million male victims of physical domestic violence, and 3.5 female victims, according to the Centers for Disease Control (5). University training programs need to clearly and accurately state these numbers.
  2. Sexual assault: Nearly identical numbers of men and women are victims of sexual assault, according to the federal National Intimate Partner and Violence Survey. Each year, 1.267 million men report they were “made to sexually penetrate,” compared to 1.270 million women who report they were raped (6). But many university training programs utilize data from surveys relying on methodologies that undercount the number of male victims who were made to penetrate.
  3. Annual vs. lifetime incidence: Due to well-known problems with recall and memory retrieval, lifetime incidence numbers significantly undercount domestic violence and sexual harassment incidents, especially less serious incidents that occurred in previous years. University trainings should use annual, “in the past 12 months” numbers, not “lifetime” numbers.
  4. Sex-specific pronouns: In referring to domestic violence or sexual assault perpetrators and victims, many training materials misleadingly refer to the perpetrator as “he” and the victim as “she.”
  5. Examples: Training materials often provide hypothetical examples to illustrate key concepts. Such examples need to highlight approximately equal number of male and female victims.
  6. Imagery: Some university websites feature domestic violence incidents that portray a threatening male standing over a fearful, often cowering female. Such one-sided portrayals are misleading.
  7. Negative stereotyping of men as a group: Some universities offer campus-wide programs that seek to redefine, reform, and/or stigmatize masculinity. University-sponsored courses that promote theories of “toxic masculinity,” “rape culture,” and “patriarchal privilege” are likely to be in violation of the federal ban on sex stereotyping. Such stereotypes serve to undermine principles of fairness and equity for male students.

For example, the University of Texas offers a program titled “MasculinUT.” The program’s website states that concerns about sexual assault and interpersonal violence justify the “need to engage men in discussions about masculinity as one tool to prevent violence.” (7) The university does not offer a similar program directed at females, thereby creating an unlawful stereotype of male perpetrators and female victims.

Some universities teach courses that feature the American Psychological Association report, “Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Boys and Men.”  (8) The accompanying APA article made the stereotyping claim that “traditional masculinity — marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression — is, on the whole, harmful.”

To date, the SAVE Title IX Equity Project has submitted 20 complaints to the federal Office for Civil Rights for non-compliance with regulatory requirements for Title IX training materials (10).


  3. 45(b)(1)(iii)
  5. Tables 9 and 11.
  6. Lara Stemple and Ilan Meyer. The Sexual Victimization of Men in America: New Data Challenge Old Assumptions.
Domestic Violence

Moment of Truth


Moment of Truth

WCASA and End Abuse uphold the ‘Moment of Truth’ letter of acknowledgement and intention, created and affirmed by several coalitions across the country. This statement has been released on behalf of the signatories to several national partners.

As coalitions, we will use the letter as a catalyst for discussions within our membership; guidance for our policy initiatives and community building actions; and a blueprint for how we conceive of our work.

We will continue to have challenging discussions on white supremacy, our role in upholding it, our responsibility to dismantle it, while centering the survivors we serve and, most importantly, acting on what this necessitates.

The letter includes explicit support of reframing the idea of “public safety”, removing police from schools, decriminalizing survival, providing safe housing for everyone, and investing in care and not the police.

Many of us feel confused, unsure of the next steps, or are looking to develop a deeper understanding. We hope to move through these challenging discussions by thinking critically, together, so that we can work to affect real change.

As the letter states:

“The Coronavirus pandemic, unchecked and increased police violence, political and economic upheaval, and stay-at-home isolation have produced the “perfect storm.” We have a choice to make: run from the storm or into it. We choose to run into it and through it. We choose to come out the other side better, whole, loving, just, and more human. We have spent decades building our movement’s voice and power. How we use them now will define us in the years ahead. Let our actions show that we did not stand idly by. Let them show that we learned, changed, and will continue to demonstrate that Black Lives Matter is a centering practice for our work.”

Let’s keep moving forward, together, learning and in community.

This is a moment of reckoning.

The murder of George Floyd broke the collective heart of this country, and now, finally, millions of people are saying their names: George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Tony McDade, Ahmaud Arbery – an endless list of Black Lives stolen at the hands and knees of police. The legacies of slavery and unfulfilled civil rights, colonialism and erasure, hatred and violence, have always been in full view. Turning away is no longer an option. Superficial reform is not enough.

We, the undersigned sexual assault and domestic violence state coalitions, call ourselves to account for the ways in which this movement, and particularly the white leadership within this movement, has repeatedly failed Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) survivors, leaders, organizations, and movements:

● We have failed to listen to Black feminist liberationists and other colleagues of color in the
movement who cautioned us against the consequences of choosing increased policing, prosecution, and imprisonment as the primary solution to gender-based violence.

● We have promoted false solutions of reforming systems that are designed to control people,
rather than real community-based solutions that support healing and liberation.

● We have invested significantly in the criminal legal system, despite knowing that the vast
majority of survivors choose not to engage with it and that those who do are often re-traumatized by it.

● We have held up calls for “victim safety” to justify imprisonment and ignored the fact that prisons hold some of the densest per-capita populations of trauma survivors in the world.

● We have ignored and dismissed transformative justice approaches to healing, accountability,
and repair, approaches created by BIPOC leaders and used successfully in BIPOC communities.

We acknowledge BIPOC’s historical trauma and lived experiences of violence and center those traumas
and experiences in our commitments to move forward. We affirm that BIPOC communities are not
homogeneous and that opinions on what is necessary now vary in both substance and degree.

This moment has long been coming.

We must be responsible for the ways in which our movement work directly contradicts our values. We espouse nonviolence, self-determination, freedom for all people and the right to bodily autonomy as we simultaneously contribute to a pro-arrest and oppressive system that is designed to isolate, control, and punish. We promote the idea of equity and freedom as we ignore and minimize the real risks faced by BIPOC survivors who interact with a policing system that threatens the safety of their families and their very existence. We seek to uproot the core drivers of gender-based violence that treat colonialism, white supremacy, racism, and transphobia as impossibly complex other forms of harm.

A better world is within reach.

It is being remembered and imagined in BIPOC communities around the world, and it is calling us to be a part of it. In this world:

● all human beings have inherent value, even when they cause harm;
● people have what they need – adequate and nutritious food, housing, quality education and
healthcare, meaningful work, and time with family and friends; and
● all sentient beings are connected, including Mother Earth.

It is time to transform not only “the state,” but ourselves.

Divestment and reallocation must be accompanied by rigorous commitment to and participation in the community solutions and supports that are being recommended by multiple organizations and platforms.

We are listening to and centering BIPOC-led groups, organizations, and communities. We join their vision of liberation and support the following:

● Reframe the idea of “public safety” – to promote and utilize emerging community-based practices that resist abuse and oppression and encourage safety, support, and accountability

● Remove police from schools – and support educational environments that are safe, equitable, and productive for all students

● Decriminalize survival – and address mandatory arrest, failure to protect, bail (fines and fees), and the criminalization of homelessness and street economies (sex work, drug trades, etc.)

● Provide safe housing for everyone – to increase affordable, quality housing, particularly for adult and youth survivors of violence, and in disenfranchised communities

● Invest in care, not cops – to shift the work, resourcing, and responsibility of care into local

The undersigned coalitions agree that the above actions are both aspirational and essential. While timing and strategy may differ across communities, states, and sovereign nations, we commit to supporting and partnering with BIPOC leaders and organizations. We commit to standing in solidarity with sovereignty, land and water protection, and human rights. And we say resoundingly and unequivocally: BLACK LIVES MATTER!

The Coronavirus pandemic, unchecked and increased police violence, political and economic upheaval, and stay-at-home isolation have produced the “perfect storm.” We have a choice to make: run from the storm or into it. We choose to run into it and through it. We choose to come out the other side better, whole, loving, just, and more human.

We have spent decades building our movement’s voice and power. How we use them now will define us in the years ahead. Let the record show that we did not stand idly by. Let it show that we learned, changed, and did all that we could to help make Black Lives Matter.

Affirmed by:

Alabama Coalition Against Rape

Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault

Arkansas Coalition Against Sexual Assault

California Coalition Against Sexual Assault

California Partnership to End Domestic Violence

CAWS North Dakota

Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault

End Domestic Abuse Wisconsin

Florida Council Against Sexual Violence

Georgia Coalition Against Domestic Violence

Georgia Network to End Sexual Assault

Idaho Coalition Against Sexual & Domestic Violence

Illinois Coalition Against Domestic Violence

Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence

Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence

Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault

Jane Doe Inc. (Massachusetts Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence)

Kentucky Association of Sexual Assault Programs, Inc.

Kentucky Coalition Against Domestic Violence

Maine Coalition Against Sexual Assault

Maine Coalition to End Domestic Violence

Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence

Mississippi Coalition Against Sexual Assault

Montana Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence

Nebraska Coalition to End Sexual and Domestic Violence

Nevada Coalition to End Domestic and Sexual Violence

New Jersey Coalition Against Sexual Assault

New Jersey Coalition to End Domestic Violence

New Mexico Coalition of Sexual Assault Programs, Inc.

New York State Coalition Against Domestic Violence

New York State Coalition Against Sexual Assault

North Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence

North Carolina Coalition Against Sexual Assault

Ohio Alliance to End Sexual Violence

Ohio Domestic Violence Network

Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence

Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape

Tennessee Coalition to End Domestic and Sexual Violence

Utah Coalition Against Sexual Assault

Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence

Violence Free Colorado

Virginia Sexual & Domestic Violence Action Alliance

Washington Coalition of Sexual Assault Programs

Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence

West Virginia Coalition Against Domestic Violence

Wisconsin Coalition Against Sexual Assault


Discrimination Title IX Title IX Equity Project

Yale SOM under DOE investigation for alleged sex discrimination

Yale University is being investigated by the Office for Civil Rights within the United States Department of Education for allegedly violating Title IX by running women-only programs at the Yale School of Management.

According to a complaint filed by Mark J. Perry, an economics professor at University of Michigan, Flint, the Yale SOM discriminates against men on the basis of sex by excluding them from applying for several executive education programs created solely for women. In an Oct. 13 letter from the DOE obtained by the News, the department’s Boston office for civil rights notified Perry that they would open an investigation into his complaint. University officials said that the University recently received the complaint and declined to comment.

Officials from the DOE confirmed to the News that the OCR opened an investigation into the University on Tuesday for possible discrimination but declined to provide additional information about the case, citing its ongoing status.

“OCR is opening the following legal issues for investigation: Whether the University discriminates against men by excluding them from applying for the (1) ‘Women’s Leadership Program,’ (2) ‘Women’s Leadership Program Live Online,’ (3) ‘Women’s Leadership Program Online’ and (4) ‘Women on Boards’ executive education programs within the University’s School of Management, which are only available to women, in violation of Title IX,” the letter stated.

The letter said since Yale receives federal financial assistance from the Department, the OCR can investigate it pursuant to Title IX, which establishes that “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

SOM spokespeople declined to comment on the school’s use of federal funding.

This is not the first time Yale has come under investigation from the DOE. In February, the department opened an investigation into the University’s alleged failure to report foreign funding.

Perry told the News that he has filed 237 complaints alleging Title IX violations in higher education. He stated that around 100 of his complaints have resulted in civil rights investigations, and, out of those, 30 had resolutions in his favor.

“My goal is to advance civil rights and Title IX for all (and not just some) in higher education expose the systemic sexism that is tolerated and promoted at hundreds of colleges and universities in the US,” Perry wrote in an email to the News.

Perry said that most “sex-specific, single-sex, female-only” programs violate Title IX unless a university offers equivalent male-only programs. He alleges that since Yale SOM excludes men and denies them from these program and their benefits, Yale is discriminating against men based on their sex as they deny men the same educational opportunities offered to women.

There are three ways to resolve Title IX violations for sex-specific programs, Perry told the News. If the OCR finds that SOM’s programs do violate Title IX regulations, SOM will have to discontinue its single-sex programs, open the programs up to all genders or create equivalent male-only programs.

After spending more than 25 years in higher education as a professor, Perry said, he became increasingly aware of what he calls systemic sexism in higher education. Starting around 2016, he claims to have started “a one-man mission to expose what are not just illegal violations of civil rights laws, but are what [he thinks] are violations of basic principles of social justice, fairness and equity.”

“Title IX enforcement has been applied selectively for decades,” Perry wrote, “and it is my goal to end the double-standard for enforcement and protect the civil rights of all students, faculty and staff in higher education, not just some students, faculty and staff.”

A total of 549 men and 399 women enrolled in SOM for the 2019-2020 academic year, according to the University’s Office of Institutional Research.

Julia Brown |

Julia Bialek |

Campus Scholarships Sex Stereotyping Sexual Harassment Title IX Title IX Equity Project

PR: Recent Central Oklahoma Resolution Agreement Highlights Problem of Widespread Title IX Non-Compliance

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335


Recent Central Oklahoma Resolution Agreement Highlights Problem of Widespread Title IX Non-Compliance

WASHINGTON / October 13, 2020 – A recent Resolution Agreement between the federal Office for Civil Rights and the University of Central Oklahoma reveals continuing problems with Title IX compliance on college campuses. In this case, the University offered a “Computer Forensics Summer Academy and STEM CareerBuilder for Girls” that stated the program was “unavailable for male students.” The Resolution Agreement was signed by UCO president Patti Neuhold-Ravikumar on September 30 (1).

The UCO Resolution Agreement highlights the problem of widespread sex bias at colleges across the country in the areas of sex-specific programs, female-only scholarships, Title IX regulatory compliance, and sex stereotyping:

Sex-Specific Programs: Professor Mark Perry has filed 231 complaints to date with the Office for Civil Rights alleging Title IX violations, among which the Office for Civil Rights has already opened 80 investigations. His complaints address a broad gamut of sex-specific programs, including female-only STEM academies, leadership development efforts, gym exercise hours, study lounges, and more (1).

Female-Only Scholarships: Over the past two years, the SAVE Title IX Equity Project has identified hundreds of scholarships that are reserved for female students. For example, the University of Missouri-Columbia offers 70 female-specific scholarships, and only one male-specific scholarship. To date, the Office for Civil Rights has opened 121 investigations into these sex-discriminatory scholarships (2). These biased offerings have attracted extensive media attention (3).

Title IX Regulatory Compliance: The new Title IX regulation, which became effective on August 14, was designed to end sex bias against students accused of sexual harassment. One recent review concluded that some colleges have sought to evade the new Title IX requirements, such as cross-examination by an advisor. But at the University of St. Thomas, for example, investigators are instructed to make credibility determinations before the accused student has a meaningful chance to defend himself (4). To date, SAVE has filed OCR complaints against 15 colleges alleging failure to post their Title IX training materials.

Sex Stereotyping: Title IX has long been understood to address the problem of sex-based stereotyping (5). For example, the new Department of Education regulation advises that any Title IX training materials “must not rely on sex stereotypes.” (6)

Many universities offer courses that examine topics such as “patriarchy,” which has been defined as an “unjust social system that subordinates, discriminates or is oppressive to women.” (7) According to one widely used college textbook, patriarchy causes “women everywhere [to] suffer restrictions, oppression and discrimination.” (8) The fashioners of such “unjust social systems” are purported to be males. Such depictions serve to stereotype male students.

Following are examples of such negative stereotypes:

  • Georgetown University professor Christine Fair recently published a guidebook titled “Wanted: Smash Patriarchy.” The front cover of the book depicts the silhouette of a man (9).
  • Five University of Massachusetts professors have blamed patriarchy for women’s mental “fragmentation.” (10)
  • Michael Olenick enrolled in a Women’s Studies course at the University of Minnesota, where he reportedly was lectured on “theories about world conspiracies dedicated to repressing and exploiting women.”

A recent Executive Order authorizes the Department of Education and other federal agencies to suspend funding to any institution that promotes concepts that “an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive.” (11)

College presidents and other administrators need to assure Title IX compliance and to assure curricular offerings avoid sex stereotypes.


  6. 45(b)(1)(iii)
  8. Feminist Frontiers IV , page 1.
Campus Civil Rights Due Process Law & Justice Legal Sexual Assault Title IX

Attacking due process on campus might be Joe Biden’s most glaring hypocrisy

The hypocrisy of Joe Biden’s 2020 platform is sometimes even more infuriating than its substance.

He’s chosen to run as an anti-police, empty-the-jails “social justice” warrior despite boasting for decades about how he wanted to “lock the SOBs up” and how he’s been integral to “every major crime bill since 1976.” He’s also running as a “Made in America” nationalist despite having led the charge to flood America with cheap Chinese goods and admit the People’s Republic into the World Trade Organization.

There are numerous other examples, but none is so galling as Biden promising to deny college students accused of sexual misconduct even the most basic due process rights. The kangaroo courts that he wants to mandate by law on college campuses would already have heard enough from his own sexual assault accuser, former staffer Tara Reade, to destroy his life. It’s a good thing for Joe Biden that he’s a 77-year-old politician — and therefore entitled to face his accusers and question their credibility — instead of a 19-year-old college student.

Earlier this year, Biden promised a “quick end” to a Title IX rule implemented by education secretary Betsy DeVos, claiming that it “gives colleges a green light to ignore sexual violence and strip survivors of their rights.” In reality, it does no such thing. It does not provide college students accused of sexual harassment anywhere near the rights guaranteed to criminal defendants in the U.S. Constitution. It does not require alleged victims to come face-to-face with the people they accuse. It didn’t even reach the standard that Democrats demanded for Biden when he himself was accused of sexual assault. It merely requires schools to set consistent standards, inform the accused of the evidence against them, and allow the accused to cross-examine the witnesses — through a third party if necessary — who are providing evidence against them.

In fact, the only reason Secretary DeVos had to issue those regulations affirming the barest minimum standard of due process rights — rights that still fall well short of what would be required in any criminal proceeding — is that the Obama-Biden administration wrote a letter in 2011 threatening colleges and universities with a total withdrawal of federal funding unless they deprived the accused of virtually all rights in sexual assault and harassment complaints.

Contrary to the pablum the Biden campaign has served up to appease campus feminists, Secretary DeVos was hardly the only person to notice that the Obama-Biden threat letter was outrageous and likely unconstitutional. Almost as soon as it went into effect, young men who had their reputations and academic careers destroyed in proceedings that wouldn’t pass muster in traffic court started to sue.

In case after case, the federal courts tore so deeply into the policies the Obama-Biden administration demanded of colleges that they almost certainly could never be implemented legally in any public university, let alone serve as a prerequisite for funding by the Department of Education. In fact, one of the many decisions specifically citing the 2011 letter as possible evidence of unlawful discrimination was penned for a unanimous, all-woman panel by Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump’s latest nominee to serve on the Supreme Court.

Joe Biden himself should be glad about that. While he’s no longer in college, he should be eager to see a woman on the Supreme Court who understands that, in America, everyone is entitled to know who is accusing him of what and to confront the evidence against him. Despite his intense need to pander to those who believe that a mere accusation should be enough to kick men out of colleges, take their scholarships, and make them unemployable, Joe Biden deserves the same due process as the rest of us.

Jenna Ellis (@JennaEllisEsq) is a constitutional law attorney and the senior legal adviser for the Trump 2020 campaign. She is the author of The Legal Basis for a Moral Constitution.

#MeToo Civil Rights Department of Education Discrimination Due Process Legal Office for Civil Rights Scholarships Sex Stereotyping Title IX Title IX Equity Project Training

Public University Stops Banning Males From Federally Funded Program to Resolve Federal Investigation

Allowed to avoid admitting guilt for violating Title IX


The University of Central Oklahoma received nearly $831,000 in federal taxpayer dollars to run a computer and STEM camp for high schoolers that violated Title IX.

Following a complaint by University of Michigan-Flint economist Mark Perry, whose side gig is challenging educational programs that exclude disfavored groups (usually males and whites), the program is nominally accepting all students, not just girls.

Also a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, Perry wrote on his blog Monday that the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights informed him of the resolution at UCO.

By his count, 27 of his 231 complaints have been resolved “in my favor,” with more than 80 still under investigation by OCR. He expects all of them to end in his favor too, “given the clarity” of Title IX “and the clear violations” by colleges.

Originally described as a “Computer Forensics Program & an Education-Career Pathway for Girls,” according to its National Science Foundation grant page, the program repeatedly emphasized that it was only for girls. Perry said the university’s website for the program just recently removed application language that explicitly said the program is “unavailable for male students.”

An image of the original page with the word “Girls” in the title and description is still available from its website, though the application page that explicitly excludes male students does not appear to be cached anywhere The College Fix could find. The illegal program was funded by corporate sponsors and partners including Apple, IBM, Inciter, CGI and Stelar.

Perry said he learned about the program through the parents of a high school boy who wanted to apply but saw the no-males language on the application page. The economist filed the complaint under his own name – as he always does – to protect their anonymity.

The taxpayer-funded university has removed all sex-specific language from the content of the website, though it still only shows girls and its domain is still Perry said OCR told him the federal office is “still in the monitoring stage” for the university to comply with the “Voluntary Resolution Agreement,” which requires UCO to “eliminate any suggestion” that the program is “for a single sex.”

Perry noted that UCO President Patti Neuhold-Ravikumar herself signed the agreement, which “seems to be an indication of the seriousness of violating federal civil rights laws.” (He posted images of the two-page print agreement, dated Sept. 30.)

As with other OCR resolutions, however, UCO was allowed to avoid admitting guilt and it won’t face any financial penalties, he continued:

Perhaps that’s why so many universities knowingly violate Title IX — the worst-case scenario is that they get caught like UCO, make the necessary corrections to their Title IX violations so that they don’t jeopardize their federal funding, but without any serious consequences and without actually even having to admit to the violation!??

The economist also denounced the National Science Foundation for funding “hundreds” of programs that exclude males at colleges, including the College of William and Mary and University of Wisconsin System:

And most of the time, hundreds of violations of Title IX like UCO’s go undetected and unreported, often because those who are aware of the violations are unwilling to complain or report the violation, out of fear of retaliation, to the university’s Title IX office or the Office for Civil Rights.

Perry said OCR has notified him of five more investigations opened into his complaints in the past month, against the University of Virginia, Florida Gulf Coast University, University of South Alabama, Youngstown State University and University of Maryland. All are offering programs reserved for females.

UVA’s program is one of “several dozen” programs for “female leadership/entrepreneurship/negotiation” that illegally exclude men, he said, naming 20 other colleges with such programs against which he has filed complaints.