Category: Campus

Unlawful: SAVE Calls on Lawmakers to Reject Biden Title IX Proposal

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date June 27, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Unlawful: SAVE Calls on Lawmakers to Reject Biden Title IX Proposal

WASHINGTON / June 27, 2022 – A robust body of American case law undergirds due process and free speech at colleges and universities. Unfortunately, the Title IX policy recently proposed by the Biden Department of Education (1) ignores and effectively overturns much of this case law, ignoring key protections enumerated in the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

The body of Title IX case law includes 145 decisions by trial courts, 29 holdings by appellate courts, and one Supreme Court decision (2). The case law has continued to expand in recent months, with appellate findings against the University of Denver, Cornell University, and Harvard University for violations of fair procedure (3).

Following are examples how the Biden proposal sidesteps these judicial decisions:

The Biden plan would allow the same official to serve as both the investigator and decision-maker, what is known as the “single-investigator” approach. Conflating these two roles constitutes a conflict of interest and leads to biased investigations. Indeed, 47 judicial decisions specifically highlighted the problem of investigative bias.
Under the proposed rule, respondents would be allowed access only to a “description of the relevant evidence,” which could be provided either “orally or in writing.” But 27 judicial decisions called out schools for restricting student’s access to relevant evidence.
The Biden approach would dispense with cross-examination and hearings. Instead, adjudicators would be permitted to ask their questions “during individual meetings with the parties.” But 38 judicial decisions highlighted schools’ lack of adequate cross-examination procedures, and 24 decisions specifically called out the failure of schools to assure adequate credibility assessment of the parties.

The over-reach of the Department of Education policy is most apparent in its proposed definition of sexual harassment. In Davis v. Monroe, the Supreme Court defined sexual harassment as “harassment 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.” (4)

In contrast, the Department of Education is proposing to dramatically expand the definition of sexual harassment to be “conduct that is sufficiently severe or pervasive, that, based on the totality of the circumstances and evaluated subjectively and objectively, denies or limits a person’s ability to participate” in their education. This broad definition means that any comment or gesture that is “subjectively” offensive could trigger a Title IX complaint, and is certain to curtail campus free speech.

The proposed Biden plan also violates many provisions found in state-level campus due process laws, which are enumerated on the SAVE website (5).

A recent Wall Street Journal editorial decries, “By proposing to jettison fair proceedings, the Education Department is setting colleges and universities on a collision course with the courts.” (6)

The Department of Education’s Title IX proposal is flawed in its over-arching disregard for due process and fairness, and is antithetical to democratic ideals of free speech. SAVE calls on lawmakers to reject the Biden Title IX proposal.

A listing of media outlets, lawmakers, organizations, and commentators who have already expressed opposition to the Title IX proposal is available online (7).

Citations:

Campus Due Process Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX

Louisiana Governor Edwards Signs Due Process Bill into Law

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date June 23, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Louisiana Governor Edwards Signs Due Process Bill into Law, Setting the Stage for the 50^th Anniversary of Title IX

WASHINGTON / June 23, 2022 – On Tuesday, Louisiana Governor John Edwards signed the “Student Due Process and Protection Act” into law (1). Louisiana joins with nine other states with campus due process laws: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, and North Dakota (2). The law sets the stage for a renewed focus of Title IX programs to end all forms of sex discrimination.

The new law provides the following due process protections for students attending public colleges and universities in Louisiana:

Right to be informed of their rights.
Right to receive notice of the alleged violation.
Right to be informed of the evidence the institution used to make the charge.
Presumption of innocence.
Access to an administrative file that contains all non-privileged documents pertaining to the allegation.
Elimination of conflicts of interest among counselors, investigators, institutional prosecutor, and adjudicators.
Right to appeal.
Right to legal counsel.
Right to examine and cross-examine witnesses.
Private right of action against the institution to recover actual damages.

Exemplifying strong bipartisanship, House Bill 364 passed both the Louisiana House and the Senate without a single opposing vote in either chamber (3). The due process law, which takes effect on August 1, is generally consistent with the Title IX regulation that was promulgated by the Department of Education in 2020.

The Title IX law, originally enacted in 1972, now faces criticism that it has lost its focus on ending sex discrimination. SAVE’s Analysis of Judicial Decisions Affirming the 2020 Title IX Regulation identifies 43 judicial decisions against universities in which institutional sex bias against male students was highlighted (4).

In his recent concurrence against Cornell University, Appellate Judge Jose Cabranes issued a stern warning about the current state of due process on college campuses:

“I pause briefly to comment, in my own name, that, as alleged, this case describes deeply troubling aspects of contemporary university procedures to adjudicate complaints under Title IX and other closely related statutes. In many instances, these procedures signal a retreat from the foundational principle of due process, the erosion of which has been accompanied—to no one’s surprise—by a decline in modern universities’ protection of the open inquiry and academic freedom that has accounted for the vitality and success of American higher education.” (5)

As we enter the second 50 years of Title IX’s existence, institutional officials are encouraged to read and reflect upon Judge Cabranes’ prescient concurrence.

Links:

Campus False Allegations Office for Civil Rights Title IX

Judge Jose Cabranes on Title IX

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date June 14, 2022

Judge Jose Cabranes on Title IX

‘The day is surely coming . . . when the Supreme Court will be able to assess the various university procedures that undermine the freedom and fairness of the academy in favor of the politics of grievance.’

Link: https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/ce4cef90-9788-4406-9a1e-09c8f499fb77/2/doc/20-1514_complete_opn.pdf

Judge Jose Cabranes of the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals writing in Vengalattore v. Cornell, June 2:

I concur in the judgment of the Court and in Judge [Amalya] Kearse’s comprehensive opinion. I pause briefly to comment, in my own name, that, as alleged, this case describes deeply troubling aspects of contemporary university procedures to adjudicate complaints under Title IX and other closely related statutes. In many instances, these procedures signal a retreat from the foundational principle of due process, the erosion of which has been accompanied—to no one’s surprise—by a decline in modern universities’ protection of the open inquiry and academic freedom that has accounted for the vitality and success of American higher education.

This growing “law” of university disciplinary procedures, often promulgated in response to the regulatory diktats of government, is controversial and thus far largely beyond the reach of the courts because of, among other things, the presumed absence of “state action” by so-called private universities. Thus insulated from review, it is no wonder that, in some cases, these procedures have been compared unfavorably to those of the infamous English Star Chamber.

[Prof. Mukund] Vengalattore’s allegations, if supported by evidence, provide one such example of the brutish overreach of university administrators at the expense of due process and simple fairness. His allegations, if corroborated, would reveal a grotesque miscarriage of justice at Cornell University. As alleged, Cornell’s investigation of Vengalattore denied him access to counsel; failed to provide him with a statement of the nature of the accusations against him; denied him the ability to question witnesses; drew adverse inferences from the absence of evidence; and failed to employ an appropriate burden of proof or standard of evidence. In other cases and other universities, the catalogue of offenses can include continuing surveillance and the imposition of double jeopardy for long-ago grievances.

There is no doubt that allegations of misconduct on university campuses—sexual or otherwise—must, of course, be taken seriously; but any actions taken by university officials in response to such allegations must also comport with basic principles of fairness and due process. The day is surely coming—and none too soon—when the Supreme Court will be able to assess the various university procedures that undermine the freedom and fairness of the academy in favor of the politics of grievance.

In sum: these threats to due process and academic freedom are matters of life and death for our great universities. It is incumbent upon their leaders to reverse the disturbing trend of indifference to these threats, or simple immobilization due to fear of internal constituencies of the “virtuous” determined to lunge for influence or settle scores against outspoken colleagues.

Campus Free Speech Office for Civil Rights Press Release Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX

Title IX Reform Emerging as High-Profile Issue for November Elections

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date June 13, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Title IX Reform Emerging as High-Profile Issue for November Elections

WASHINGTON / June 13, 2022 – Title IX is the federal law that bans sex discrimination in schools. As a result of a series of controversial policy changes, Title IX has now become one of the most hotly debated topics in America, and is poised to influence the outcome of numerous elections on Tuesday, November 8.

In 2021, Loudon County, VA approved a policy on Rights of Transgender and Gender-Expansive Students that states, “All students are entitled to have access to restrooms and locker rooms that are sanitary, safe, and adequate…Students shall be allowed to use the facility that corresponds to their consistently asserted gender identity.” (1)

Shortly afterwards, a male student entered the school girl’s bathroom and committed a sexual assault. The incident soon became a flashpoint in the Virginia governor’s race (2), leading to the upset victory on November 3 of Republican Glenn Youngkin over Democrat Terry McAuliffe.

Since then, Title IX controversies have spread to schools across the country. The following Title IX-related events occurred within the past several days:

June 2: In a milestone Title IX decision against Cornell University, appellate Judge Jose Cabranes compared campus disciplinary committees to the infamous English Star Chambers and warned, “[T]hese threats to due process and academic freedom are matters of life and death for our great universities.” (3)
June 8: A Washington Post editorial deplored the Title IX complaints against three eighth-grade boys in Wisconsin for referring to a classmate using the biologically correct pronoun “her,” instead of the classmate’s preferred “them.” (4)
June 8: Female long-distance runner Madison DeBos published a widely circulated editorial in which she shared the “disheartening and even heartbreaking” feeling of competing against biological males (5).
June 12: Democrat Tulsi Gabbard made a statement strongly critical of the new gender pronoun policy at the State University of New York, deriding the policy as an example of “forced conformity” (6).

A recent SAVE survey reveals that 63% of Americans oppose the Department of Education’s plan to expand its long-standing definition of sex to include “gender identity.” The national survey also shows that strong majorities of Americans reject other proposed changes to Title IX (7).

All candidates for political office are urged to outline their views on the need for Title IX reform. Concerned persons should urge the Department of Education to cancel its plans to issue a new Title IX regulation. Contact Secretary Miguel Cardona, telephone (202) 401-3000; fax (202) 260-7867; email ocr@ed.gov.

Links:

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

63% of Americans Oppose Expanding Definition of Sex to Include ‘Gender Identity’

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date June 6, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

63% of Americans Oppose Expanding Definition of Sex to Include ‘Gender Identity’

WASHINGTON / June 6, 2022 – A new survey reveals that nearly two-thirds of Americans oppose the Department of Education’s plan to expand its long-standing definition of sex to include “gender identity” (1). The national survey, conducted for SAVE by YouGov, also shows that strong majorities of Americans reject other proposed changes to Title IX, the federal law that bans sex discrimination in schools.

Following are respondents’ responses to the six survey questions, among those who offered an opinion:

Definition of Sex:

Keep traditional biological definition: 63%
Expand the definition to include “sex stereotypes, sex-related characteristics (including intersex traits), pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity:” 37%

Transgender Participation in Women’s Sports:

Allow: 29%
Not allow: 71%

Parental Consent Prior to School Counseling about Gender Dysphoria:

Require parental consent prior to counseling: 61%
Not require parental consent: 39%

Parental Opt-out for Children’s Participation in Sex Education Classes:

Allow parental opt-out: 69%
Not allow parental opt-out: 31%

Presumption of Innocence or Guilt for College Disciplinary Hearings:

Presumption of innocence: 87%
Presumption of guilt: 13%

Definition of Sexual Harassment:

Retain current definition to protect free speech: Conduct that is “so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, and that so undermines and detracts from the victims’ educational experience that the victim-students are effectively denied equal access to an institution’s resources and opportunities:” 57%
Expand the current definition to discourage persons from saying things that may be unwelcome or upsetting: 43%

Overall, males and females gave similar responses, with the exception of Question 6. While 66% of males preferred to retain the current definition of sexual harassment, 53% of females indicated a preference to expand the definition of sexual harassment to discourage statements that may be unwelcome or upsetting.

For all six questions, 17-24% of all persons responded, “No opinion/Don’t know.” The “No opinion/Don’t know” responses were excluded from the results presented above. The full survey results and cross-tabulations can be viewed online (2).

All data are from YouGov Plc. Total sample size was 2,566 adults. Fieldwork was undertaken between May 31 to June 2, 2022. The survey was conducted online. The data have been weighted and are representative of all U.S. adults (ages 18+). Response options were randomly switched to minimize primacy-recency effects.

Nearly 90 groups have expressed opposition to the draft Title IX regulation (3), which is expected to be issued later in June. SAVE urges concerned persons to speak out to assure the upcoming Title IX regulation conforms to the opinions of a majority of Americans.

Contact Department of Education Secretary Miguel Cardona, telephone (202) 401-3000; fax (202) 260-7867; email ocr@ed.gov.

Links:

Campus Free Speech Office for Civil Rights Sexual Harassment Title IX

Free Speech May Be Imperiled by Upcoming Title IX Policy; Lawmakers Urged to Speak Out

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date May 31, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Free Speech May Be Imperiled by Upcoming Title IX Policy; Lawmakers Urged to Speak Out

WASHINGTON / May 31, 2022 – First Amendment free speech protections currently hang in the balance, affected by a variety of social cross-currents and political agendas. SAVE urges Republican and Democratic lawmakers to speak out forcefully to restore free speech in colleges and universities across the nation.

National leaders such as Bill Maher and Elon Musk have called for an end to restrictive speech codes (1). Netflix recently instructed its employees to be tolerant of viewpoint diversity, or seek employment elsewhere (2). And 84% of college students say free speech rights are extremely or very important, according to a Knight/Ipsos poll (3).

Several recent developments proffer hope to proponents of campus free speech:

Earlier this month, Georgia enacted a law to strengthen campus free speech, including a provision designed to thwart the establishment of so-called “free speech zones.” (4)
Last week a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction against the University of Houston, saying the school’s definition of harassment was unduly broad and served to constrict free speech (5).
Positive developments in Ohio, Oklahoma, and Florida have been reported (6).

But two worrisome trends foretell growing restrictions on free speech:

School Title IX policies often include a requirement that transgenders be referred to by their preferred pronouns. In a recent Wisconsin case, a boy was charged with Title IX sexual harassment for not referring to a female classmate as “they” or “them” (7). Forced speech is a violation of free speech.
At the University of Washington, new Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) standards for faculty tenure decisions are causing faculty members to be “afraid to speak out, say what they really think.” (8)

Recently a coalition of 88 groups announced its opposition to the plan of the U.S. Department of Education to release a new Title IX regulation (9). One of the concerns of coalition members focused on how the new Title IX policy would be used to stultify free speech.

SAVE urges lawmakers to speak out to assure the upcoming Title IX regulation protects and enhances constitutional free speech guarantees. Contact Department of Education Secretary Miguel Cardona, telephone (202) 401-3000; fax (202) 260-7867; email ocr@ed.gov.

Links:

Campus Department of Education Office for Civil Rights Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX

State Lawmakers to Dept. of Education: ‘Do Not Experiment with the Definition of Sex’

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date May 23, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

State Lawmakers to Dept. of Education: ‘Do Not Experiment with the Definition of Sex’

WASHINGTON / May 23, 2022 – Lawmakers in Congress introduced bills this past Thursday with the purpose of clarifying the definition of “male” and “female.” (1) The Resolutions are being proposed to counter the controversial plan to the Department of Education to redefine sex to include: “sex stereotypes, sex-related characteristics (including intersex traits), pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity.” (2)

Senate Resolution 644 was introduced by Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi. House Resolution 1136 was spearheaded by Rep. Debbie Lesko of Arizona.

The Resolutions state, “for purposes of Federal law, a person’s ‘sex’ means his or her biological sex (either male or female) at birth.” The bills emphasize, “for purposes of Federal law addressing sex, the terms ‘woman’ and ‘girl’ refer to human females, and the terms ‘man’ and ‘boy’ refer to human males.” (3)

The Resolutions go on to explain, “there are important reasons to distinguish between the sexes with respect to athletics, prisons, domestic violence shelters, restrooms, and other areas.”

Recently, a coalition of 88 groups announced its opposition to the proposal of the U.S. Department of Education to release a new Title IX regulation (4). One of the concerns of coalition members centers on Title IX’s proposed redefinition of sex.

For example, the letter from 15 Attorneys General warned, “Adding gender identity to the definition of “sex” in Title IX would have a detrimental effect on the great strides made over the last 50 years to create equal athletic opportunity [for women].” (5)

The Title IX Coalition noted, “we are alarmed by the administration’s extremist position that ED should extend Title IX, by regulatory fiat, to prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity.” (6)

A third letter from 27 parental rights organization emphasized unequivocally, “we vehemently disagree with the Department’s purported incorporation of “gender identity” into Title IX regulations.” (7)

SAVE urges state lawmakers to tell the Department of Education to leave the Title IX’s definition of sex the same as it has remained over the past 50 years. Contact Secretary Miguel Cardona:

Telephone: (202) 401-3000
Fax: (202) 260-7867
Email: ocr@ed.gov
Street address: Department of Education; 400 Maryland Ave, SW; Washington, DC 20202

Links:

Campus Office for Civil Rights Sex Education Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX

88 Groups Call on Dept. of Education to Cancel Plans for New Title IX Regulation

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date May 17, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

88 Groups Call on Dept. of Education to Cancel Plans for New Title IX Regulation

WASHINGTON / May 17, 2022 – Today, a diverse coalition of 88 groups is announcing its opposition to the proposal of the U.S. Department of Education to release a new Title IX regulation. The concerns of coalition members revolve around four issues: campus due process, free speech, parental rights, and women’s sports.

The 88 groups represent a broad diversity in terms of mission, geographic location, and ideological leaning. The groups include Attorneys General offices, Title IX law firms, national policy organizations, grass-roots parental rights groups, and others.

The following groups have expressed their opposition to the upcoming regulation:

15 Attorneys General Offices (1):

Attorneys General in Montana, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Texas.

9 Leading Title IX Law Firms (2):

Nesenoff & Miltenberg LLP; Rosenberg & Ball Co., LPA; Binnall Law Group; Friedman & Nemecek, LLC; Rupp Baase Pfalzgraf Cunningham LLC; Law Offices of Scott J. Limmer; Agee, Owens & Cooper, LLC; Sammons Law; and Tin Fulton Walker & Owen.

26 Organizations in the Title IX Coalition (3):

Defense of Freedom Institute for Policy Studies, America First Legal Foundation, America First Policy Institute, American Civil Rights Project, Center for Equal Opportunity, Child and Parental Rights Campaign, Christian Legal Society, Eagle Forum, Ethics and Public Policy Center, Family Research Council, First Liberty, Heritage Foundation, Heritage Action for America, Independent Women’s Forum, Independent Women’s Law Center, Independent Women’s Voice, Keystone Policy, Moms for Liberty, Mountain States Legal Foundation, No Left Turn in Education, Parents Defending Education, Parents Unite, Southeastern Legal Foundation, Speech First, and Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty.

27 Parental Rights Groups (4):

Parents Defending Education, American Education Advocates, Army of Parents, Inc., Awake Illinois, Chinese American Citizen Alliance of Greater New York, California Foundation for Equal Rights, Child Protection League, Citizens for Brandywine School District, Concerned Parents of Round Rock (Texas) ISD, Fight for Schools, Fishers One, Louisiana Save Our Schools, Mequon-Thiensville Restore (Wisconsin), Moms for Liberty, New Trier Neighbors (Illinois), No Left Turn in Education, Ohio Values Voters, Oregonians for Liberty in Education, Parents Unite, Parents Union, Protect Ohio Children, Protect Our Kids Now, Push Back Idaho, Save Oregon Schools, Truth in Education, Utah Parents United, and West Valley (Arizona) Parents Uniting.

11 Other Organizations (5):

SAVE, Families Advocating for Campus Equality, National Association of Scholars; FAIR Energy Foundation, Center for Military Readiness, American Principles Project, National Coalition for Men Carolinas, Family Policy Alliance, Family Research Council, LifeSite, and Women’s Liberation Front.

In addition, 82 leading professors, attorneys, and others have endorsed a petition that calls on the Department of Education to “immediately suspend all plans to issue a new Title IX regulation due to the Department’s inability to provide a sound explanation why the 2020 regulation requires revision.” (6)

Persons are invited to contact Secretary Miguel Cardona and urge that the Department of Education immediately cancel plans to issue a new Title IX regulation. Telephone (202) 401-3000; fax (202) 260-7867; email ocr@ed.gov.

Links:

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

MSU Lawsuit Reveals Why New Title IX Regulation Must Seek to End Widespread Discrimination Against Men

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date May 9, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

MSU Lawsuit Reveals Why New Title IX Regulation Must Seek to End Widespread Discrimination Against Men

WASHINGTON / May 9, 2022 – Following a judicial ruling against the institution, Michigan State University recently agreed to a settlement payment for the unjust suspension of a wrongfully accused male student. The agreement highlights the widespread problem of sex bias by campus Title IX officials, as well as the need for the upcoming Title IX regulation to institute measures to stop discrimination against male students and faculty members.

The lawsuit against MSU arose from a sexual encounter between two undergraduate students in which the female student was the sexual aggressor. During a dormitory encounter, she took the initiative to remove the man’s clothing, perform oral sex on him, and engage in other sexual actions. The woman did not seek the man’s permission or consent to engage in the sexual activities (1).

But inexplicably, the female student decided to file a Title IX complaint, claiming to be the victim of sexual misconduct. The college provided inadequate notice to the accused man and conducted a “victim-centered,” guilt-presuming investigation. MSU also failed to conduct a live hearing and provided no opportunity for cross-examination, ignoring a Sixth Circuit Court decision against the University of Cincinnati ruling that colleges are required to allow for cross-examination (2).

As a result, the male student was suspended for a two-year period. He then filed a lawsuit against Michigan State.

Given the numerous and egregious due process violations by the school, Judge Janet Neff ruled in favor of the male student (1). Last week, Michigan State agreed to a confidential settlement (3) that likely involved a payment in the high six figures.

The MSU saga is not unique. To date, 44 judicial decisions have been issued against colleges, large and small, finding sex bias against the male student (4). These institutions include the University of Denver, University of Minnesota, University of Arizona, UCLA, and many others.

Numerous organizations and individuals have spoken out in recent weeks to emphasize the importance of due process in campus sexual assault proceedings. These include the Attorneys General from 15 states (5), the National Association of Scholars (6), 26 other leading organizations (7), and 82 leading professors and attorneys (8).

Persons are invited to contact Secretary Miguel Cardona and urge that the new Title IX regulation afford full due process protections to accused students and faculty members. Telephone (202) 401-3000; fax (202) 260-7867; email ocr@ed.gov.

Links:

https://api.knack.com/v1/applications/56f5e6b2c3ffa97c68039523/download/asset/5f5e740deb3cf00017f58485/314opinionordermtdordertofiledoc77.pdf
Doe v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 872 F.3d 393, 401–02 (6th Cir. 2017)
https://api.knack.com/v1/applications/56f5e6b2c3ffa97c68039523/download/asset/626713d2a570460021af5d5f/314ordermtdstipdoc115.pdf
https://www.saveservices.org/2022/04/44-judicial-decisions/
https://media.dojmt.gov/wp-content/uploads/Title-IX-Coalition-Letter-4.5.22.pdf
https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/comment-promulgating-lower-due-process-protections
https://dfipolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Title-IX-Coalition-Letter-to-OCR-04.04.2022.pdf
saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Stop-the-Weaponization-of-Title-IX-Resolution-5-2-22.pdf

Campus Due Process Legal Office for Civil Rights Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment

SAVE, FACE, and Attorney Group File Amicus Briefs to Protect Students’ Privacy in Lawsuits Against Universities

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date May 7, 2022

SAVE, FACE, and Attorney Group File Amicus Briefs to Protect Students’ Privacy in Lawsuits Against Universities

Eric Rosenberg

May 7, 2022

Last month, two non-profits and a group of attorneys spoke up for the countless and voiceless students involved in university investigations of allegations of sexual misconduct. They did so by filing amicus briefs in Doe v. MIT – a case pending in the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals. These briefs sought to protect the anonymity of students involved in litigation that exposes universities’ violations of due process and Title IX.

For example, an amicus filed by Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE) powerfully highlighted the magnitude of universities’ violations of Title IX. It did so in part by outlining the research of Brooklyn College Professor KC Johnson who identified at least 225 court decisions that were issued since 2011 that favor plaintiffs filing Title IX type lawsuits against their universities. SAVE also persuasively detailed how the district court in MIT ran afoul of countless court decisions allowing pseudonyms when it prohibited the plaintiff from using a pseudonym.

Likewise, attorney Joshua Engel filed an amicus on behalf of dozens of Title IX attorneys who represent both Title IX complainants and students accused of Title IX violations. Engel’s amicus outlined why pseudonyms are essential to allowing students to expose universities’ violations of Title IX.

Engel also detailed the harm students suffer when pseudonym status is denied by outlining numerous court decisions that acknowledged the educational and professional harm inflicted on students who are publicly identified as being involved in university sexual misconduct disciplinary proceedings. And, Engel’s amicus highlighted how this harm is magnified by Internet search engines, social media, and today’s political climate.

Real life evidence of this harm is presented in stark detail in the amicus filed by Families Advocating For Campus Equality (FACE). FACE is a non-profit that has interacted with nearly 2,000 accused students, professors, and families who have been adversely affected by inequitable Title IX disciplinary processes.

The tragedies of 17 of these individuals was chronicled in FACE’s amicus which detailed how public disclosure of information related to university investigations of allegations of sexual misconduct caused severe trauma and reputation damage. For instance, FACE discussed how 8 of these 17 individuals considered suicide; 3 attempted suicides; and how FACE is aware of students who committed suicides as a result of university investigations into allegations of sexual misconduct.

These types of harms will only increase if students cannot use pseudonyms in lawsuits filed to remedy the discrimination they face on college campuses. Accordingly, we hope the First Circuit reverses the district court in MIT.