Domestic Violence Press Release

AG Eric Holder Needs to Put an End to Domestic Violence Myths


Contact: Teri Stoddard, 301-801-0608,

WASHINGTON / February 22, 2011 – Attorney General Eric Holder is being called upon to correct a false statement he made about partner abuse, and to set up a task force empowered to review and correct all erroneous domestic violence claims that appear on the DoJ website. The request comes from Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
(SAVE), a victim rights group working for evidence-based solutions to domestic violence:

At a Domestic Violence Awareness Month event, Attorney General Eric Holder made this claim: “Intimate partner homicide is the leading cause of death for African-American women ages 15 to 45.”
But a February 4 USA Today article by Christina Hoff Sommers reveals Holder’s claim is wrong. The leading causes of death for these persons are heart disease, cancer, and accidents, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control:

“It’s hard to understand why Attorney General Holder is condoning false information on the Department of Justice website,” according to SAVE spokesperson Dr. Claudia Cornell. “Misleading claims give rise to policies that leave abuse-reduction programs ineffective, and in the case of mandatory arrest policies, place victims’ lives at risk.”

Hoff Sommers will headline a press conference to be held in Washington, DC on Thursday, February 24. The event will analyze Attorney General Holder’s claim, as well as other domestic violence myths that have been repeated so often that the American
public has come to accept them as true. Panelists at the press conference will include Philip Cook, author of Abused Men, and
Carl Starling, a victim of domestic violence who was falsely accused by his wife. SAVE recently released a report that shows how often programs fail to provide a truthful depiction of the problem of partner abuse. The analysis concludes that nine out of 10
training, education, and public awareness programs fail to meet minimum standards of objectivity:

Each year the federal government spends $76 million for domestic violence training, education, and public awareness programs. Few of these programs are required to meet quality assurance standards.

The press conference will be held 12:00 – 1:30pm at the Heritage Foundation, 214 Massachusetts Ave, NE, Washington, DC. Media representatives who wish to attend the conference, or to interview Christina Hoff Sommers or other panelists, can register here: .

False Allegations Press Release

Maine Prosecutor Coddles Known Child Abuser In Pursuit of False Rape Claim

Teri Stoddard: 301-801-0608

WASHINGTON, March 30 / P.R. Newswire / Victim advocacy group Stop Abusive
and Violent Environments (SAVE) has filed a Grievance Complaint with the
Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar, requesting the disbarment of assistant
district attorney Mary Kellett. The Complaint can be seen here:
“Thanks to prosecutor Kellett, proven child abusers in Maine know they can
get a free pass by making a claim of rape,” explains Philip W. Cook, SAVE
spokesman. “Mary Kellett has prosecuted many innocent citizens on
allegations of domestic violence and rape. The Board of Overseers of the Bar
needs to disbar prosecutor Kellett immediately.”
The case arose from the accusations of Ligia Filler, a proven child abuser
with a previous criminal charge history. “The children were victims of
violence from their mother,” including hitting her oldest daughter with
spatulas and spoons, according to a December 3, 2009 Ellsworth (Maine)
District Court ruling. One son said that his mother “would hit everyone in
the house. She was a terror to everybody.”
After Ligia’s husband Vladek indicated his plan to leave the marital home
for the safety of the children, Ms. Filler had an apparent mental
break-down, running through the streets partially clothed, screaming death
threats at police officers on the scene.
Ligia made an allegation of marital rape, and within few days prosecutor
Mary Kellett filed charges. No forensic, medical, or other physical evidence
of sexual assault was presented during the trial. Assistant district
attorney Kellett repeatedly sought to bar the introduction of key evidence
that would serve to exonerate the defendant.
Court-appointed attorney Neil Fishman later commented the proceeding was so
flawed that it resembled a “Salem Witch Trial.” On September 9, 2010 the
Maine Supreme Court issued a ruling that found Kellett had “improperly
encouraged the jury to use the absence of evidence regarding the marriage
ending and a child custody dispute…as a reason to reject Filler’s
defense.” The case was remanded for a retrial in May.
More information on the case can be seen at

Press Release

Rape Accusation a ‘Fabrication, ’ Says Former Natalee Holloway Investigator

Contact: Teri Stoddard, 301-801-0608,

WASHINGTON / April 5, 2011 – The former lead investigator of the high-profile Natalee Holloway case is now calling for Maine prosecutors to drop their 4-year-old case against Vladek Filler. TJ Ward, a lead investigator in the Natalee Holloway case in Aruba, has concluded the original allegation was a “fabrication” and believes continued prosecution of the innocent man would be “malicious.”
In a recent radio interview, Ward ticked off a long list of irregularities in the case involving an allegation of rape that was made in the course of a marital break-up. The accuser had a well-known psychiatric condition. She refused the rape kit that the doctor offered to use. During the trial, the prosecutor provided no medical or forensic evidence. Worse, the prosecutor wrongfully blocked the introduction of evidence that would have served to prove Mr. Filler’s innocence. The exculpatory evidence included evidence that the accuser was a known child abuser, that she had a record of prior criminal charges, and that the defendant had requested a restraining order to protect him and his children from her abusive behavior. Ward also highlighted that the state Department of Health and Human Services had sided
with Mr. Filler by recommending he continue to have custody of the children. But Kellett sought to bar that fact, as well.
“It’s just a shame that this gentlemen…has come here to the United States, the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave, and is experiencing this type of behavior, when he’s been exonerated, when he’s not guilty with what he’s charged with, and they’re
continuing to hound this man and run him into the ground.”
The State of Maine’s prosecution of Vladek Filler has attracted international media attention. In December, the state Supreme Court criticized assistant district attorney Mary Kellett for prosecutorial misconduct and ordered a retrial. The case is scheduled to be
heard May 23-26 in Ellsworth Superior Court, Maine.
The interview of TJ Ward can be heard here:

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is now calling for the immediate dismissal of all charges against Mr. Filler:

False Allegations Press Release

SAVE Offers Condolences Following the Tragic Death of Reginald Daye, Victim of Duke

Lacrosse Accuser
Teri Stoddard, 301-801-0608

WASHINGTON / April 18, 2011 – Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE) is offering its condolences to the family and friends of Reginald Daye. “Reggie” Daye, 46, succumbed April
13 after girlfriend Crystal Mangum stabbed him in the chest with a kitchen knife. Mangum is the woman who falsely accused three Duke University lacrosse players of rape in 2006. Daye’s nephew said the couple had been arguing over rent money. The argument got so heated
that someone called police who made a visit to the apartment, but left before the stabbing incident occurred. Mangum is being held on a $300,000 bond. “Reggie” Daye was born on November 3, 1964 in Durham, North Carolina. He was employed by Scotts Painting and Decorating Company. His hobbies included painting, fishing, and cheering on the Dallas Cowboys. Last December Mangum was convicted on most of the charges related to a February, 2010
domestic dispute in which police said she threatened to stab her then boyfriend Milton Walker. Mangum smashed a car windshield, slashed car tires and allegedly set Walker’s clothes on fire while her children were in the home. Mangum spent 88 days in jail for the offenses,
which also included three counts of child abuse. In 2006 Mangum falsely claimed Duke lacrosse players Dave Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann trapped her in a bathroom during a party, then raped and sexually assaulted her. Prosecutor Mike Nifong indicted the three on charges of rape, sexual assault and kidnapping. The case fell apart, but not before the university ended the lacrosse team’s season and forced the coach to resign.
Funeral Services will be held Tuesday, April 19, at 1:00 pm at Union Baptist Church in Durham,
NC. Persons can sign the Guest Book or send a Sympathy Card here:

Press Release Victims Violence Violence Against Women Act

Press Release: Anti-Violence Bill Loses Focus on Victims, Many Claim


Contact: Teri Stoddard

Anti-Violence Bill Loses Focus on Victims, Many Claim

WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 — A growing number of groups, including Stop Abusive and Violent Environments, are criticizing the proposed reauthorization bill of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) for losing sight of the law’s original intended purpose: to help victims of domestic violence. These concerns were highlighted during the recent February 2 meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Concerned Women for America, the largest women’s organization in the country, noted in a February 1 group letter that the Leahy-Crapo bill will “actually squander the resources for victims of actual violence by failing to properly prioritize and assess victims.”

Victim-advocacy group Survivors in Action decries what it calls the “DV run-around” in which victims are shunted from hotlines to shelters to social service agencies, never receiving the services they need.

Sen. Charles Grassley, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, deplored the fact that VAWA bill S. 1925 “creates so many new programs for underserved populations that it risks losing the focus on helping victims.” (1)

Even Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy acknowledged criticism that the VAWA bill is “trying to protect too many victims.” Following debate, Sen. Leahy’s proposed bill was approved by a slim 10-8 margin and was forwarded to the full Senate for consideration.

Vague and over-broad definitions of abuse found in the current law undermine key Constitutional protections for the accused, as well:

“If we want to stop the cycle of violence and help real victims, the Violence Against Women Act must rein in sweeping definitions, improve accountability, and recognize that women are as likely as men to be physically abusive with their partners,” explains SAVE spokesman Philip W. Cook.

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is proposing consideration of the Partner Violence Reduction Act (2), which accords priority to persons with evidence of physical violence.

Congressman Ted Poe, co-chair of the Victim’s Rights Caucus, has suggested changing the name of VAWA to the Domestic Violence Act, in order to recognize that partner abuse affects members of both sexes (3).

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is a victim-advocacy organization working for evidence-based solutions to partner abuse:


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.