Author: Edward Bartlett

SAFER Act Seeks Sweeping Changes to Redefine ‘Sex’ and ‘Sexual Harassment’

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date December 12, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

SAFER Act Seeks to Make Sweeping Changes to Redefine ‘Sex’ and ‘Sexual Harassment’

WASHINGTON / December 12, 2022 – Lawmakers recently introduced the Students’ Access to Freedom and Educational Rights (SAFER) Act in both the Senate and House (1). The bill proposes to codify sweeping changes to the definitions of “sex” and “sexual harassment.”

Definition of Sex

The existing Title IX law, enacted in 1972, was designed to eliminate discrimination based on a student’s “sex.” But the SAFER bill seeks to expand this fundamental term to include sex stereotypes, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Gender identity is defined as “a person’s internal sense of gender, which could be female, male, or another gender.” (Section 101)

To date, two circuit courts have ruled against changing the Title IX definition of sex:

On July 15, 2022 a Tennessee District Court issued a Preliminary Injunction overturning the Department of Education’s Interpretation of Title IX to include “discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.” (2)
In a November 11, 2022 decision, a Texas District Court ruled in Neese v. Becerra that Title IX does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. (3)

Over 200 organizations have gone on record in opposition (4) to proposed changes to Title IX that would expand the definition of “sex,” which would impose devastating consequences on women’s sports (5), promote life-altering sex changes on underage children (6), and have long-term effects on parental rights (7).

Definition of Sexual Harassment

In Davis v. Monroe, the U.S. Supreme Court defined sexual harassment as harassment that is ‘‘so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it can be said to deprive the victims of access to the educational opportunities or benefits provided by the school.’’ (8)

But the SAFER bill proposes a broader definition of sexual harassment that would encompass virtually all sex-related conduct that is perceived as “unwelcome:”

“any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature, regardless of whether it is direct or indirect, or verbal or nonverbal (including conduct that is undertaken in whole or in part, through the use of electronic messaging services, commercial mobile services, electronic communications, or other technology), that unreasonably alters an individual’s terms, benefits, or privileges of an education program or activity, including by creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment.” (Section 203(i))

Such changes would exact harmful consequences on free speech (9) and open the door for a wave of false allegations of sexual misconduct and domestic violence (10). A former Washington State prosecutor explains the false allegations problem this way (11):

“The Department of Education has put immense pressure on higher education institutions to handle cases to their liking….As a result of this unfair treatment, innocent accused students, staff, and faculty find themselves expelled, fired or facing criminal charges.”

In Orwellian fashion, the bill sponsors make the remarkable claim that the SAFER Act will protect “all” students from discrimination (12).

SAVE urges lawmakers to strongly oppose the SAFER Act.

Links:

Domestic Violence Due Process False Allegations Law & Justice Legal

Families in Bermuda Are Being Harmed by the UN’s Domestic Violence Policies

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date December 6, 2022

Families in Bermuda Are Being Harmed by the UN’s Domestic Violence Policies

Edward M. Tavares

Co-founder, ChildWatch Bermuda

Bermuda is part of United Kingdom’s commonwealth as an overseas dependent territory. We are sharing our concerns about the status of shared parenting and domestic violence policies.

Shared Parenting

According to Bermuda’s last statistical family type release in May 31, 2006, 85% of custody of children post-divorce and separation was held by women. How can 85% of fathers be relegated to visitor status by the courts because their marriage failed? Most studies show these divorce decisions are made unilaterally by women.

Continuous violation exists with respect to the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child, which states in Article 9:

Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, and that
Such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately, and a decision must be made as to the child’s place of residence.
Parties shall respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child’s best interests.

However, fathers have been relegated to visitor status for decades in regard to custody of their children after divorce or separation by the courts, most times without any investigations or due process. This can cause violations of the European Human Rights, Article 8 of the Convention– Right to respect for private and family life:

“Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.”

One father went to court for 28 years trying to obtain custody and to defend his parental rights. Meanwhile, he lost his house, bank accounts, etc., while having to obtain 14 lawyers and achieving little remedy in the court. This abuse of the law constitutes as legal administrative abuse and coercive control, requiring that the father must conform and comply with their demands.

The biases of the Courts and family Counsellors, Department of Child and Family Services, apparently see only mothers as viable caregivers. These injustices are usually compounded by many local organizations with the power of the Bermuda Police Services, while threatening and harassing letters are sent out without any investigations to many fathers to order them to conform to the demands which often are contrary to Court orders in place. We believe that these letters are just to gain higher status and finances, within society, and garner sympathy from politicians/legislators.

Prior to 2002 we had six men paying support for a child that was not theirs. We at ChildWatch advocated for legal changes as unwed fathers were not able to take proceedings against mothers, nor were allowed DNA testing for paternity fraud, according to “The Affiliation Act, 1976.” One father found out that he wasn’t the father 17 years later, and a few others learned the truth 14 years later.

In 2006, one accused father was denied DNA testing even after it was implemented into law in 2002. The Judge refused DNA testing on the false claim of the mother that he was the father. After three years having gone to prison as ordered by the court, we lobbied to have him tested. Eventually this father was granted permission, and the results revealed that he was not the biological father. This ruined his life, having lost his job, and was considered unemployable, and unacceptable to society.

Many fathers suffer from not only losing their children, but also losing their homes and finances in the struggle for their children’s benefit. Following a divorce, a parent may engage in behaviors that serve to alienate the child from the other parent. In an attempt to cover up the alienating behavior, the alienating parent may then falsely accuse the target parent of child abuse.

Bermuda’s prison inmates come largely from fatherless homes. Poor education attainment, and dropping out, teen pregnancy, drug abuse, alcohol, behavioral problems, gang culture, and deaths by murder are more customary to male victims who come mostly from fatherless homes.

Policies of the United Nations

The World Health Organization reports that men are far more likely to die of violence-related causes than women, for the following age groups (death rates 100,00 population):

• 5-14 years: Male: 1.7; Female: 1.0

• 15-24 years: Male: 57.7; Female: 8.1

• 25-34 years: Male: 92.3; Female: 10.3

• 35-54 years: Male: 70.6; Female: 6.5

• 55-74 years: Male: 29.5; Female: 3.3

Overall, the WHO reveals that men are eight times more likely than women to die of violence-related causes.

The UN report, “A Gendered Analysis of Violent Deaths”, similarly concluded, “Globally, men and boys accounted for 84 per cent of the people who died violently in 2010–15.” Clearly, violence against men represents a greater problem than violence against women.

Regarding domestic violence, a compilation of 343 scholarly investigations concluded that “women are as physically aggressive as men (or more) in their relationships with their spouses or opposite-sex partners.” These studies were conducted on a broad range of racial, ethnic, and socio-economic groups in 40 different countries.

ChildWatch Bermuda has great concerns regarding the UN Women’s position paper to “Eliminate Domestic Violence Against Women and Girls.” Our concern is that there is no mention of the “Elimination of Domestic Violence Against Men and Boys” included. Studies show that men suffer equally as women from domestic violence.

An analysis of Resolution A/77/302: Intensification of Efforts to Eliminate All Forms of Violence Against Women and Girls by the Domestic Abuse and Violence International Alliance on October 17, 2022 reveals substantial bias against male victims.

Domestic Violence During the COVID Pandemic

On March 23, 2020 the U.S.-based National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence issued an alert with this startling claim: “Survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault are facing extreme danger and risk.” Likewise, UN Women declared a “shadow pandemic of violence against women and girls” which would result from lockdowns across the world.

These alerts did not provide any evidence to support their claims. Subsequently, a wave of media accounts predicted an imminent “spike” and “spurt” of abuse, often featuring heart-rending — but unsubstantiated — anecdotes.

But the predicted catastrophe never happened. Numerous independent analyses of hotline calls, police calls for service, and crime statistics, both in the United States and abroad, concluded that overall, there was no increase in domestic violence or sexual assault, and some locales saw a decrease.

The U.S. National Domestic Violence Hotline reports on the number of answered calls, chats, and texts received each year since 1996. The graph from the most recent report reveals the number of answered inquiries in 2020 was 363,000, which is the same number as in 2018. Clearly, there was no “spike” or “surge” in the number of abuse calls during the COVID pandemic.

Imposed Separation Communication breakdowns are inherent in human relationships. In years past, police officers encouraged the parties to temporarily separate and make amends. But now, any marital tiff can be considered to be domestic “abuse.” Today, we have instituted mandatory-arrest laws, even when short-term separation and counseling for the parties would be the more appropriate measure.

Conclusion

These are just a few examples of the many injustices seen in Bermuda. We would like to thank you for taking the time to review and consider our concerns. Hopefully, we can reach a viable solution against domestic abuse for men and women, including boys and girls.

In addition, I will be happy to set up a telephone call to answer any questions you may have. Thank you for your attention to this matter of importance.

Domestic Violence

Human Rights, Sex Bias, and Family Court

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date November 30, 2022

Human Rights, Sex Bias, and Family Court

Carl Roberts

November 30, 2022

On December 10, persons around the world will be observing Human Rights Day, a day that is devoted to celebrating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 7 of the Declaration states,

“All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.”

So how well are family courts upholding this principle?

Extensive experience reveals a fundamental problem with the family court, child support, child welfare, and domestic violence systems is an unsupported bias and belief that men are less safe than women. Even though these biases are contrary to the data and wealth of available social science⁽¹⁾, policy and system practices persist to unjustly deny children healthy relationships with their fathers.

Fatherlessness is a public health crisis disproportionately impacting communities of color⁽²⁾. When fathers are absent, children are at greater risk of all other societal ills⁽²⁾. From gun & criminal violence, suicide & mental health issues, child poverty and homelessness, to everything in between and beyond, children without a father in their life have life’s odds stacked against them. Still, fathers are treated as second class citizens and pushed out of their children’s lives. Often, simply at the whim of the mother.

Unfortunately, well-meaning policymakers are similarly misled and uninformed of the data and social science regarding domestic violence (DV)⁽³⁾, intimate partner violence (IPV)⁽⁴⁾, and child abuse⁽⁵⁾. Their instinct is to protect women and children from what they perceive as more dangerous men. So all it takes is a single allegation of abuse to invoke the implicit or explicit bias of the judge, or person in position of authority, who wants to err on the side of caution to protect the child.

Stated another way, men are presumed guilty until proven innocent. In many cases, the allegation is not adjudicated, but the seed of a false claim has its intended effect. To harm, impair, or sever a child’s relationship with their father.

Criminal law is based on the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Family law has no presumption that a parent is fit until shown otherwise. Without a presumption that can be overcome with a preponderance of evidence, parents can allege whatever they want, without accountability, to invoke the favor of a judge. Unscrupulous family law attorneys advise their clients on this strategy because it works, there is no downside, and it increases revenue.

Many feminists seek to deny their children a relationship with their father. Gender biased domestic violence advocates argue that they shouldn’t have to prove abuse. They argue they should just be believed because only men are perpetrators, never women.

Mothers AND fathers are equally as important. Children have a right to being raised, loved, and cared for by their moms AND their dads. A child’s right to having healthy relationships with both parents must be protected by presuming that each parent is good unless proven that either parent is unsafe or unfit.

Family courts and related systems diminish child health, safety, and family resilience because they operate on the basis of gender bias to presume fathers are less safe and push them away.

This widespread form of child abuse and parental alienation must stop!

Citations:

References Examining Assaults by Women on Their Spouses or Male Partners: An Updated Annotated Bibliography. Martin S. Fiebert – A compilation of 343 scholarly investigations (270 empirical studies and 73 reviews) demonstrating that women are as physically aggressive as men (or more) in their relationships with their spouses or opposite-sex partners. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261543769_References_Examining_Assaults_by_Women_on_Their_Spouses_or_Male_Partners_An_Updated_Annotated_Bibliography
Father Facts 8 (8^th Edition – 2019) – National Fatherhood Initiative – Fatherhood.org
Seven Key Facts About Domestic Violence Prepared by: Coalition to End Domestic Violence (EndtoDV.org) Fact #1: Each year, men are more likely than women to be victims of domestic violence and other forms of partner abuse, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. http://endtodv.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Seven-Key-Facts-About-DV-9.11.2021.pdf
Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project Findings At-a-Glance summarizes the results of the Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project, a comprehensive, 2,300- page review of the domestic violence research literature. https://domesticviolenceresearch.org/pdf/FindingsAt-a-Glance.Nov.23.pdf
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2018), National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2015 Data Brief – Updated Release, Atlanta, Georgia. Tables 9 and 11. https:www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/2015data-brief508.pdf

Domestic Violence

Opinion by a Peruvian Citizen Regarding the Domestic Abuse of Men (Spanish)

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date November 16, 2022

Opinion de Una Ciudadana Peruana Acerca del Abuso Doméstico Hacia el Hombre

Laura Leon

16 noviembre 2022

Soy hispana y estoy completamente en contra del abuso doméstico como psicológico tanto a mujeres, hombres o niños. No digo nombres, pero he sido testigo de casos de mujeres que solas se golpean contra objetos para dejar marcas o hematomas en sus cuerpos, con el fin de probar que fué abusada — pero quien lo vió? Nadie, y quien lo vió no se atreve a decirlo para no tener problemas futuros.

Desgraciadamente, la policía o cualquier otra persona que la vé lo creerá aunque la parte que esta siendo acusada diga que no es cierto. Se abusa mucho del famoso dicho “sexo débil.”

Si el hombre no denuncia es por verguenza, y si se atreve a denunciar nadie le cree (empezando por la misma policía), y es motivo de burlas que a la larga, muchas veces trae trágicas consecuencias.

Conozco casos cercanos tanto de amistades como familiares de abuso corporal como psicológico en el cual los únicos perdedores son los hijos. Principales testigos de dichos maltratos pero que no hablan por temor a que el agresor, sea el padre o la madre agresora, pueda reaccionar hacia ellos. Estas escenas son clases para un futuro abusador o abusadora.

Estos abusos domesticos no solo se dan entre parejas de esposos, convivientes o parejas del mismo sexo. El abuso, sea doméstico o psicológico, no tiene sexo, ni tamaño del agresor.

Ya es hora que todo esto termine y se dé mas credibilidad a la palabra masculina, que el hombre que acusa de haber sido abusado, sea escuchado. Todas las voces deben ser escuchadas, porque entonces caemos en la famosa palabra muchas veces mencionada, pero también muchas veces no aplicada, sobretodo en el caso del hombre, y es “discriminación!“

Title IX

Parental Rights Groups See Wave of School Board Victories Across the Country

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date November 14, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Parental Rights Groups See Wave of School Board Victories Across the Country

WASHINGTON / November 14, 2022 – Parental rights groups scored dozens of victories across the nation on November 8 as a part of a burgeoning national movement to make schools more responsive to parents and to the community.

Parental concerns about school policies began to surface over a year ago:

Virginia candidate Glenn Younkin highlighted concerns about COVID-related school closures and the teaching of “critical race theory” (1), paving the way to an upset victory over former governor Terry McAuliffe in November 2021.
As a result of plans of the United School District to rename 44 buildings, San Francisco voters recalled three Board members in February 2022. (2)

This trend intensified last week as proponents of parental rights flipped at least nine school boards in six states: Florida, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, and South Carolina (3):

In Florida, Moms for Liberty endorsed 67 candidates for school board elections, of whom 41 won the contest (4).
In Carroll County, Maryland, three school board candidates won the election, reversing the majority of the school board (5).
In Brandywine, Michigan, four parental rights candidates were victorious, which turned the school board majority (6).

Victories for parental rights were seen at the state-wide level, as well. In Texas (7) and Kansas (8), parental rights proponents now hold 10-5 and 7-3 majorities in these two states, respectively.

Another parental rights advocacy group, the 1776 Project PAC, reports that since November 2021, the group has succeeded in flipping 100 school boards (9).

Concerns about public education cross party lines. A 2022 Gallup poll found that the public tilts more dissatisfied (55%) than satisfied (42%) with the quality of K-12 education in the United States. The leading reason for voter dissatisfaction is a “poor/outdated curriculum.” (10)

The Title IX Network (11) urges school boards across the country to heed the concerns of parents and study the results of national opinion polls (12).

Citations:

Due Process Legal

An Important Message to Members from Brett A. Sokolow

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date October 31, 2022

An Important Message to Members from Brett A. Sokolow

Brett Sokolow, JD

October 25, 2022

Dear Members,

I am writing to you about an important matter and our desire to be transparent about it to all of you. You have shown great trust in us as an association and I want to reflect that same trust with each of you.

I know that some of you pay attention to ATIXA governance, and others of you don’t or are unfamiliar with our structure. ATIXA is managed by the firm TNG Consulting, LLC

Three years ago, I stepped out of the CEO role at TNG to focus almost all of my time and energy on ATIXA. TNG hired Marti Kopacz as CEO, because of her background in accounting and finance. We were very pleased to be led by a strong, capable woman who had led other consulting ventures successfully. In September, we had to part ways with Marti, and I have stepped back in to serve as Chair the newly-created TNG Management Committee, in addition to my role Chairing the ATIXA Advisory Board, a position I have held since our founding in 2011.

These shifts helped motivate the staff changes at ATIXA that were announced last month. These are seen as positive changes internal to TNG, but all change like this is disruptive for any organization. Now Marti has enhanced that disruption by filing a lawsuit against TNG and me in federal court. She alleges that she was a whistleblower to various forms of misconduct within TNG. We strongly dispute her allegations, so I suppose she is attempting to leverage a settlement by trying to embarrass us. Every organization has personnel challenges, and now ours are being made public.

In response to Marti’s allegations, I will simply share with you that TNG is subject to a rigorous external audit every single year, by BakerTilly. TNG has been given clear audits every single year, which should shed considerable light on the validity of Marti’s claims.

While I will not discuss the reasons for Marti’s separation here, they will become clear once we file our defense to the suit.

TNG and ATIXA are honorable organizations that operate with integrity. Her claims relate only to TNG, and do not pertain to ATIXA in any way.

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

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

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date October 22, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@endtodv.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citations:

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

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

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date October 10, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citations:

Title IX

Resolution to Reject Harmful, Coercive, and Burdensome Gender Identity Policies and Protect School Lunch Programs and Federal Funding Subject to Title IX

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date September 29, 2022

Resolution to Support Parents, Schools, and Districts in Rejecting Harmful, Coercive, and Burdensome Gender Identity Policies and Protect School Lunch Programs and Federal Funding Subject to Title IX

By Christin Bentley, SD1 Committeewoman

WHEREAS, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 was enacted into law to ensure 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”; and

WHEREAS, original and existing Title IX regulations acknowledge “physiological differences between the male and female sexes”; and

WHEREAS, on June 23, 2022, the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) released proposed changes to Title IX regulations that would contradict the plain language of the law; and

WHEREAS, the proposed regulations would prohibit schools that receive federal funds, including public, charter, private, and parochial schools, from “adopting a policy or engaging in a practice that prevents a person from participating in an education program or activity consistent with their gender identity,” thereby compelling schools to deny biological reality; and

WHEREAS, under the proposed rules, actions such as a student or staff member using a child’s legal name and biological pronouns rather than the child-selected preferred name and pronouns could be deemed a form of “sex-based harassment,” subjecting schools and staff to civil litigation and loss of federal funds; and

WHEREAS, the proposed regulations would require that K-12 schools socially transition minor children to a different gender without requiring parental notification or involvement; and

WHEREAS, Texas law and the United State’s Constitution and legal precedent recognize the right of parents to direct the education, upbringing, and physical and mental health of their children; and

WHEREAS, under the proposed rules, schools would be required to grant access to sex-separate restroom and locker room facilities based on gender identity rather than on biological sex, which would place girls and women at increased risk for harassment and sexual assault by males who claim a female identity; and

WHEREAS, the USDOE proposed regulations pertaining to athletics would require sports teams to be based on gender identity rather than biological sex, forcing women and girls to compete on an unfair basis against males for athletic opportunities and scholarships; and

WHEREAS, Governor Greg Abbott signed into law the Save Women’s Sport’s Bill (H.B. 25) that says the athlete’s sex assigned at birth determines if a student plays in girls’ or boys’ sports in high school; and

WHEREAS, in guidance issued May 5, 2022 and in a rule promulgated on June 14, 2022, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced that it will interpret the prohibition on sex discrimination found in Title IX and the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to include discrimination based on gender identity; and

WHEREAS, Texas public schools, nonprofit private schools, and residential childcare institutions could now be forced to choose between adopting gender identity policies or foregoing federal funding to provide subsidized free or reduced-price; now

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Republican Party of Texas declares its unequivocal opposition to the proposed regulatory changes released by the U.S. Department of Education on June 23, 2022; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Republican Party of Texas supports the lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and 21 other state Attorneys General seeking to invalidate the newly enacted Department of Agriculture rules that tie continued receipt of federal nutritional assistance and other funding subject to Title IX to the adoption of gender identity policies; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Executive Committee of the Republican Party of Texas directs the Chairman to issue a press release notifying the public, media and Texas Congressional members of this resolution upon its passage.

NOTE: This Resolution was unanimously approved by the Texas State Republican Executive Committee on Saturday, Sept. 24, 2022.

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

Attorneys General School the DOE on Meaning of ‘Free Speech,’ ‘Due Process,’ and ‘Constitutional Rights’

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date September 19, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Attorneys General School the DOE on Meaning of ‘Free Speech,’ ‘Due Process,’ and ‘Constitutional Rights’

WASHINGTON / September 19, 2022 – The Attorneys General from 18 states have submitted comments to the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), in response to a proposed Title IX regulation that has stimulated widespread debate and opposition (1). The Attorneys’ General comments represent a tutorial on the meaning and application of First and Fourteenth Amendment guarantees in the higher education setting.

The first letter, signed by the Attorneys General of MT, AL, AR, GA, IN, KS, KY, LA, MS, NE, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, and VA, first analyzes the DOE proposal to vastly expand the definition of sexual harassment. This change would “chill the free exchange of ideas,” which would “intimidate students and faculty into keeping quiet on controversial issues.” (2)

The letter then deplores the rule’s plan to remove or modify important due process safeguards, including advance disclosure of evidence, impartial investigations, key written notice provisions, and live hearings. Cumulatively, these changes are “reminiscent of Star Chambers” that “stacked the deck against accused students.” The 37-page letter concludes, “In many instances, moreover, the Department’s Proposed Rule conflicts with the text, purpose, and longstanding interpretation of Title IX.”

The second letter charges the draft regulation lacks a clear statement of authority from Congress, and highlights the proposed rule’s unlawful attempt to preempt state laws that protect the rights of females. Signed by the Attorneys General of IN, AL, AZ, AR, GA, KS, KY, LA, MS, MT, NE, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, and WV, the letter concludes simply, “The Proposed Rule threatens to destroy Title IX.” (3)
Attorney General Ken Paxton of Texas flatly charges the Biden proposal will “destroy constitutional rights.” (4) AG Paxton’s letter to the DOE concludes tartly, “the Proposed Rule promises to repeat the mistakes of the Department’s ill-advised 2011 Dear Colleague Letter.” (5)

All three letters sharply criticize the DOE plan to expand the definition of “sex” to include “gender identity.” Noting that the draft policy lacks definitions of “sex” or “gender identity,” the first letter notes that the Department of Education “simply waves its hand and—by regulatory fiat—alters a fundamental term, as if its novel definition was axiomatic.” (2)

The first letter also highlights the role of Catherine Lhamon, who served as the DOE Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights from 2013 to 2017, and was re-appointed to the same position in 2021. During the earlier period, the letter notes that Lhamon played the lead role in creating a “constitutional and regulatory mess.”

Citations: