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

‘Naked attempt to strong-arm our schools:’ Five Lawsuits Seek to Block Sweeping Title IX Rule

 PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

‘Naked attempt to strong-arm our schools:’ Five Lawsuits Seek to Block Sweeping Title IX Rule

WASHINGTON / May 6, 2024 – It’s not often that a new federal regulation triggers such revulsion that five lawsuits are filed within days of its release. On April 19 the Department of Education issued its long-awaited Title IX regulation, which redefines sex to include “gender identity” (1). Within 11 days, five complaints against the new policy had been filed in federal courts by the following groups:

  1. States of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina, and the Independent Women’s Law Center, Independent Women’s Network, Parents Defending Education, and Speech First (2)
  2. States of Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, and West Virginia (3)
  3. States of Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, and Idaho (4)
  4. State of Texas (5)
  5. Rapides Parish (Louisiana) School Board (6)

All of the lawsuits contend the new regulation exceeds the Department of Education’s legal authority, and violates the Administrative Procedure Act because its provisions are arbitrary and capricious.

The lawsuit from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina, the most comprehensive of the five, charges the new regulation not only promotes harmful gender transitioning among underage students, but also impairs free speech, parental rights, bathroom privacy, women’s sports, and due process for the falsely accused.

The lawsuit from the Attorneys General of Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, and Idaho charges the Title IX rule is a “naked attempt to strong-arm our schools into molding our children … in the government’s preferred image of how a child should think, act, and speak” (3) — an accusation that recalls the Communist Party’s earlier crusade to mold an obedient “New Soviet Man” (7).

The lawsuit from the Rapides Parish School Board documents the myriad policy changes that schools would be required to make. The complaint states defiantly, “The school board does not have and does not intend to adopt a policy mandating that staff or students use pronouns that reflect students’ perceived gender identity when doing so is inconsistent with a student’s sex.”

Indeed, Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill commented, “This is all for a political agenda, ignoring significant safety concerns for young women students in preschools, elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, colleges and universities across Louisiana and the entire country” (8).

The new – some would say, revolutionary – Title IX policy accords with the Marxist vision to bring about a “sexless” society. In the words of Shulamith Firestone, the end goal of feminist revolution must be the elimination of the “sex distinction itself: genital differences between human beings would no longer matter culturally…The tyranny of the biological family would be broken” (9).

In addition, the governors of Arkansas (10) and Nebraska (11) ordered their schools to ignore the new Title IX policy. The previous week, similar directives had been issued in Florida, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and South Carolina (12).

The new regulation will impose sweeping changes on our nation’s schools. Brett Sokolow, head of the Association for Title IX Administrators, predicts that “60-70% of what we have in place now will need to change in some way to comply with the new Rule” (13).

Which means dramatically increased budgets and institutional clout for the highly politicized Title IX offices across the nation.

Links:

  1. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/29/2024-07915/nondiscrimination-on-the-basis-of-sex-in-education-programs-or-activities-receiving-federal
  2. https://defendinged.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/TitleIxLawsuit.pdf
  3. https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/INAG/2024/04/30/file_attachments/2863214/Complaint%20-%20FINAL,1.42.pdf
  4. https://htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/files/file-stamped-louisiana-v-u-s-dep-t-of-education-title-ix-662fda6716ff7.pdf
  5. https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/press/Title%20IX%20Complaint%20FIled.pdf
  6. https://adfmedialegalfiles.blob.core.windows.net/files/RapidesParishSchoolBoardComplaint.pdf
  7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Soviet_man#:~:text=From%20its%20roots%20in%20the,post%2Dscarcity%20and%20unprecedented%20scientific
  8. https://dfipolicy.org/press-release-the-defense-of-freedom-institute-and-the-states-of-louisiana-mississippi-montana-and-idaho-first-to-file-lawsuit-against-biden-administration-over-new-title-ix-rules/
  9. https://www.marxists.org/subject/women/authors/firestone-shulamith/dialectic-sex.htm
  10. https://governor.arkansas.gov/news_post/sanders-signs-an-executive-order-to-protect-arkansas-students-women-and-girls/
  11. https://www.centralnebraskatoday.com/2024/05/03/gov-pillen-nebraska-will-not-comply-with-the-biden-administrations-rewrite-of-title-ix/
  12. https://www.saveservices.org/2024/04/do-not-comply-fight-americans-revolt-against-new-title-ix-rule/
  13. https://www.atixa.org/blog/title-ix-youve-never-had-a-regs-implementation-like-this-before/
Categories
Campus Civil Rights Department of Education Due Process Gender Agenda Office for Civil Rights Press Release Title IX

‘See you in court, @POTUS:’ Conservatives and Liberals Livid Over New Title IX Rule

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

‘See you in court, @POTUS:’ Conservatives and Liberals Livid Over New Title IX Rule

WASHINGTON / April 23, 2024 – The U.S. Department of Education released on April 19 its long-awaited Title IX regulation (1). If allowed to stand, the effects of the controversial rule will be numerous, long-lasting, and severe.

Most profoundly, the policy changes the definition of sex to include “gender identity,” allowing biological males to freely participate in women’s sports (2). And Reason fumed over the rule’s harmful effects on campus due process: “the new rules allow students to be found guilty of assaulting a classmate without ever seeing the full evidence against them” (3).

In short order, conservative-leaning organizations issued statements condemning the new policy, including the Heritage Foundation (4), Defense of Freedom Institute (5), and the National Association of Scholars (6).

Less anticipated were statements by liberal organizations that also were critical of the regulation:

Gays Against Groomers: The liberal-leaning Gays Against Groomers thundered, “By replacing sex with gender identity, all prior protections put in place will be wiped away. It is a dystopian nightmare, masqueraded as progress” (7).

ACLU: Four years ago, the ACLU filed a lawsuit opposing the 2020 Title IX regulation that was designed to curb campus Kangaroo Courts (8). But last week the ACLU did an apparent about-face, criticizing several due process provisions of the new regulation, such as its acceptance of the single-investigator, “judge, jury, and executioner” model, and its removal of the requirement for a live hearing (9).

Twitter readers expressed their anger and disappointment, as well (10):

  • Wendy and Lucy: “The destruction of female sports. Horrifying!”
  • KLee: “So you’re now representing men instead of women? Are you going to be officially changing the name of your organization as well?”
  • Don’tBeAJagooff: “I cannot believe you think this is a good thing. This is awful for females.”
  • Diogenes Sarcastica: “Thanks for f*cking up women’s sports!”

Release of the new regulation does not signal an end to the Title IX controversy. The Independent Women’s Forum promptly announced that it is “preparing to sue the Biden administration to enjoin this unlawful action” (11). And the Alliance Defending Freedom issued this blunt challenge: “See you in court, @POTUS.” (12)

Links:

  1. https://titleixforall.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Unofficial-version-of-the-final-regulations.pdf
  2. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/network/womens-sports/
  3. https://reason.com/2024/04/19/new-title-ix-rules-erase-campus-due-process-protections/
  4. https://www.heritage.org/press/heritage-expert-illegal-title-ix-rule-erases-women-ignores-the-constitution
  5. https://dfipolicy.org/statement-dfi-releases-statement-on-biden-administrations-final-title-ix-rule/
  6. https://www.nas.org/blogs/press_release/press-release-the-national-association-of-scholars-denounces-new-biden-title-ix-rule#:~:text=%E2%80%9CThe%20National%20Association%20of%20Scholars,now%20taken%20two%20steps%20back.
  7. https://twitter.com/againstgrmrs/status/1781711340156997718
  8. https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/know-your-ix-v-devos?redirect=know-your-ix-v-devos
  9. https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/155090
  10. https://twitter.com/nwlc/status/1781308768795394347
  11. https://www.iwf.org/2024/04/19/bidens-title-ix-rewrite-strips-away-protections-for-women-denies-women-equal-opportunity/
  12. https://twitter.com/KWaggonerADF/status/1781327179936108975
Categories
Campus Civil Rights DED Sexual Assault Directive Department of Education Legal Office for Civil Rights Press Release Scholarships Sex Stereotyping Sexual Assault Title IX

DEI Programs Must be Eliminated to Reverse Declining Numbers of College Men

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

DEI Programs Must be Eliminated to Reverse Declining Numbers of College Men

WASHINGTON / March 11, 2024 – A shocking new report was issued last week that documents 12 areas in which globally, men and boys are lagging behind women (1). These areas include education, health, homelessness, unfair treatment by the legal system, and more. In American colleges, for example, men now comprise only 42% of all undergraduate students (2).

Observers implicate a climate of anti-male hostility at college campuses (3), which can be traced to several developments in recent decades:

  1. In 1979, the Department of Education issued a new Title IX policy on women’s sports that served to eliminate many male sports teams (4).
  2. In 2011, the Obama Administration’s Dear Colleague Letter served to stereotype men as sexual predators (5). (Ironically, the Centers for Disease Control reports that men are victims of sexual assault by females nearly as often as women who are victims of rape (6)).
  3. A growing number of women’s studies programs that promote Marxist-inspired theories of “patriarchal oppression” (7).
  4. Hundreds of universities sponsor female-only scholarships and leadership programs (8).

Adding to the onslaught, colleges began to develop “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” (DEI) programs in the latter part of the 2010s that granted preferences to Blacks and women. Among the 10 most highly paid DEI administrators at Ohio State University, for example, nine were female (9).

Viewing DEI programs as a “mortal threat to the American way of life” (10), nine states already have enacted laws to rein in DEI programs: Florida, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah (11). These laws seek to prohibit colleges from having DEI offices or staff, ban mandatory diversity training, forbid the use of diversity statements in hiring and promotions, and bar colleges from considering race, sex, or national origin in admissions or employment (12).

These efforts were given a boost last June by the Supreme Court decision against Harvard College and the University of North Carolina, in which the SCOTUS ruled that considering a student’s race violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (13).

In theory, DEI programs and Title IX have opposite goals. While DEI seeks to afford preferences to women, Title IX seeks to end sex discrimination against men.

But in practice, the DEI mindset has infiltrated many Title IX offices. For example, the Association of Title IX Administrators, known as ATIXA, sponsored a conference on “True Equity at the Intersection of Title IX and DEI” (14). In its list of groups affected by “Inequitable Practices,” the program lists Students of Color, LGBTQIA+, and Women. But the fact that beleaguered men are facing an increasingly hostile environment somehow escaped the notice of ATIXA.

As a result, we are seeing cases like the Title IX investigator at the University of Maryland who endorsed a sexist Facebook quote by William Golding that said, “I think women are foolish to pretend they are equal to men, they are far superior and always have been” (15).

If lawmakers want to assure the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not relegated to the dustbin of history, they need to move swiftly to ban Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs at colleges in their state.

Citations:

  1. https://endtodv.org/camp/council-on-men-and-boys/
  2. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98#:~:text=See%20Digest%20of%20Education%20Statistics%202022%2C%20table%20303.80.,percent%20(1.2%20million%20students).
  3. https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2023/11/13/the-collegiate-war-on-men/
  4. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/title9guidanceFinal.html
  5. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.html
  6. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4062022/
  7. https://www.rutgers.edu/news/birth-gender-studies-program
  8. https://www.saveservices.org/equity/scholarships/
  9. https://www.thecollegefix.com/ohio-state-university-doubled-dei-staff-in-five-years-payroll-costs-almost-tripled/
  10. https://americanmind.org/salvo/why-americas-anti-discrimination-regime-needs-to-be-dismantled/
  11. https://www.axios.com/2024/01/31/anti-dei-bills-target-colleges-surge-antiracism
  12. https://www.chronicle.com/article/here-are-the-states-where-lawmakers-are-seeking-to-ban-colleges-dei-efforts
  13. https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-08/post-sffa_resource_faq_final_508.pdf
  14. https://idhr.mit.edu/sites/default/files/documents/true%20equity%20presentation%20-%20ATIXA.pdf
  15. https://titleixforall.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Doe-v.-University-of-Maryland-Complaint-Cover-Sheet-12-27-2023.pdf
Categories
Campus Civil Rights Department of Education Due Process Legal Office for Civil Rights Sexual Assault Title IX

The Due Process Provisions of the 2020 Title IX Regulations Were Successful. We Should Fight to Keep Them.

The Due Process Provisions of the 2020 Title IX Regulations Were Successful. We Should Fight to Keep Them.

Jonathan Taylor, Founder, Title IX for All

March 1, 2024

The Title IX regulations that went into effect in August of 2020 were critically necessary. Before their implementation, schools too often punished and expelled students accused of misconduct (sexual harassment, assault, stalking, and so forth) in what were little more than sham proceedings. Wrongly punished students found their education prospects shattered, their careers derailed, and their reputations destroyed. Some students were punished despite not being found responsible for any misconduct. Some even committed suicide.

Among other provisions, the 2020 regulations required schools to provide accused students with meaningful notice of the accusation, meaningful access to evidence, and a meaningful opportunity to respond to the evidence. Those critical protections are now threatened by a regulatory rewrite spearheaded by the Biden administration.

The U.S. Office of Management and Budget is currently accepting meetings from the public regarding this rewrite. Advocates and concerned citizens should consider this an opportunity to make their voices heard and to push back on attempts by the Biden administration to roll back due process. To do this, it may help to draw attention to indicators that the regulations have been successful. Below are several arguments that the due process protections have been successful and should remain.

1. Trends in Lawsuits by Accused Students Reflect the Need for Due Process

The graph above shows the trend in annual filings of lawsuits by students accused of Title IX violations in state and federal courts since 2011.[1] This trend is highly consistent with changes to Title IX guidance and regulation. Simply put, the fewer the rights afforded accused students and the weaker the emphasis on due process by the current presidential administration, the more lawsuits by accused students we see. The reverse is also true.

In 2011, the Department of Education issued guidance (the “Dear Colleague” letter) for schools to investigate Title IX complaints more rigorously. The Department also threatened to revoke funding from schools that failed to comply and initiated highly visible investigations that named and shamed many of them. Afraid of lawsuits, federal investigations, and bad press, schools rushed to comply – and soon overcorrected. As you can see in the graph, that overcorrection was the genesis of the litigation movement for accused students. Lawsuits trickled in at first, gained a foothold in 2014 and 2015, and then spiked, reaching their peak in 2017 and 2018.

In September 2017, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos rescinded the Department of Education’s 2011 guidance letter and announced an imminent rulemaking process to further flesh out schools’ liabilities and the balance of rights between complainants and respondents in school grievance procedures. The Department issued a draft of the new regulations in November 2018 and published the final rule in May 2020. The rule went into effect on August 14, 2020.

DeVos’ rescinding the Dear Colleague letter and announcing a new rulemaking procedure made it clear that the era of federal complicity (if not encouragement) for schools to systematically railroad accused students was over. Consistent with this new era of due process, annual filings of lawsuits have declined by twenty or more since 2018. By 2023, lawsuits had declined by sixty percent from their peak: from 126 in 2018 to around 50 in 2013. This indicates that the regulations are having the intended effect: despite troublesome hotspots remaining, schools have, in many cases, made efforts to comply.

The decline stopped in 2022, however. That is no accident; it occurred a year after the Biden administration announced a plan to undo much of the due process protections afforded by the 2020 regulations. While 2024 has just begun, at least seven lawsuits have been filed by accused students as of mid-February. If recent trends continue, we will likely see at least as many lawsuits in 2024 as we did in 2023 – and likely more.

2. The 2020 Regulations Have Consistently Withstood Legal Challenges

Five legal challenges have been made against the regulations in federal court. All have failed to overturn them. While two failed simply because the plaintiffs lacked standing, others failed on the merits of their claims. The five lawsuits are:

  1. Victim Rights Law Center v. DeVos

This lawsuit failed to overturn the 2020 regulations by arguing it was in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act and discriminates against women. It was, however, successful in overturning a narrow provision[2] that required schools to not rely on statements that were not subject to cross-examination when making their determinations.

2. The Women’s Student Union v. U.S. Department of Education

This case was initially dismissed for lack of standing. WSU – a feminist student association – argued the 2020 regulations would “frustrate its mission” to assist complainants. The court held otherwise: that such a group “may not establish injury by engaging in activities that it would normally pursue as part of its organizational mission. WSU appealed the dismissal to the Ninth Circuit which then stayed the case pending the completion of the Biden administration’s rulemaking process.

3. State of New York v. U.S. Department of Education

Brought by the New York Attorney General’s office, this lawsuit sought an injunction to prevent the rule from going into effect. It failed on every factor upon which injunctive relief is decided: the likelihood they would succeed on the merits of their claims, whether they or students would suffer irreparable harm, the balance of equities (“harms”) between the parties if the injunction did or did not go into effect, and the public interest. The State of New York then withdrew the lawsuit.

4. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. DeVos

A coalition of state Attorneys General brought this lawsuit to postpone the effective date of the rule, declare it unlawful, vacate it, or enjoin the Department of Education from applying and enforcing it. The motion to postpone the rule failed. The rest of the proceedings have been stayed.

5. Know Your IX et al v. DeVos

Similar to the WSU case, Know Your IX and similar organizations argued that the 2020 rule “frustrates its mission” to assist and advocate for complainants in Title IX proceedings. Judge Bennett disagreed and dismissed the case.

3. Schools Have Continuously Exhibited a Desire to Deny Due Process

The due process protections provided by the 2020 Title IX rule had one “clever workaround” for schools: they did not apply to allegations of misconduct occurring off-campus and outside an educational program or activity.[3] Schools could, however, still investigate and punish students under a “non-Title IX” policy that lacked those protections.

Advocates for complainants believed that schools would use this as an excuse to forgo investigating such alleged misconduct at all since there was now no federal requirement to do so. The reality, however, is that Title IX bureaucracy tends to be staffed by what some have called the “sex police”: bureaucrats who regard it as their mission to root out any kind of potentially offensive behavior and continuously seek reasons to expand their reach rather than retract it. Lawsuits by accused students have shown this is the case. Starting in 2021, they brought a new batch of lawsuits arguing schools were erroneously applying “non-Title IX” policies[4] as an excuse to railroad them out of campus.

The Biden administration seeks to expand the requirements of Title IX so that schools must investigate off-campus activity but without the due process protections that would curb some of the worst impulses of the sex police.

4. The 2020 Regulations Have Forced Their Opponents to Inadvertently Defend Them

Opponents of due process often argue that such protections would make school grievance procedures “too quasi-judicial” or “too court-like.” This argument is not sincere, as such groups have demanded that courts and schools recognize and treat grievance procedures as quasi-judicial and court-like when it benefits accusers.

While many examples of this exist, perhaps the most blatant recent example comes from the lawsuit Khan v. Yale in which an accused student also sued his accuser Jane Doe for defamation. Jane Doe argued that even if her statements against Khan were deliberately false and malicious, she was nonetheless entitled to immunity from a defamation lawsuit because her statements were made in the context of a quasi-judicial proceeding. In 2022, fifteen powerful advocacy groups filed an amicus brief supporting Doe’s argument – including those who opposed the 2020 regulations for being too quasi-judicial.

But as Connecticut Supreme Court held, Yale’s investigation and punishment of Khan occurred before the 2020 regulations went into effect and hence lacked virtually all the key safeguards that would establish the proceedings as quasi-judicial and entitle Jane Doe to immunity.

Other Arguments and Conclusion

Although there are numerous indicators that the 2020 regulations have been successful, these are four particularly noteworthy ones. Other potential supporting arguments could be that:

  1. Litigation costs for universities will skyrocket if accused students are again routinely railroaded off campus, and that
  2. The due process protections of the 2020 regulations have disincentivized false reporting and sham proceedings, which in turn bolsters the integrity of Title IX grievance procedures and allows school resources to be distributed more effectively.

Advocacy opportunities are often time sensitive; once they are gone, they are gone. This advocacy window is still open. Please go to the Office for Management and Budget website and register a meeting to make your voice heard.

Links:

[1] See the Title IX Lawsuits Database for a full listing of these lawsuits.

[2] Section 106.45(b)(6)(i)

[3] Section 106.45(b)(3)(i)

[4] Examples include Doe v. Rutgers and Doe I v. SUNY-Buffalo.

Categories
Campus Civil Rights Department of Education Due Process Free Speech Legal Press Release Title IX

Tampon Dispenser Incident Highlights Growing Rejection of ‘Gender Agenda’

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Tampon Dispenser Incident Highlights Growing Rejection of ‘Gender Agenda’

WASHINGTON / February 5, 2024 – School officials at Brookfield High School in Connecticut recently installed a tampon dispenser in the boys’ bathroom. Within minutes, male students at the school took action. Principal Marc Balanda dryly reported, “The installation was completed at 9:30 (a.m.). By 9:52, tampons were on the floor, the newly installed distribution box was ripped off the wall along with the masonry anchors, and the distribution box itself was destroyed.” (1)

A few days later on January 25, the Maine Judiciary Committee voted to kill the LD 1735, a bill that was designed to allow children from other states to travel to Maine, without parental consent, and become a ward of the state to receive cross-gender treatments (2).

The following day, the Utah legislature passed HB 257, which prohibits men who identify as women from accessing women’s bathrooms (3).

These events in Connecticut, Maine, and Utah reveal how the so-called “Gender Agenda,” which seeks to reshape society by defining the meaning of sex to include “gender identity,” is facing setbacks in both Democratic and Republican-led states.

Five judicial decisions, all handed down during the month of January, further underscore how the Gender Agenda is in retreat across the nation:

California: On January 10, federal judge Roger Benitez ordered the Escondido Union School District to reinstate two teachers who were placed on administrative leave for refusing to keep students’ gender transitions a secret from their parents (4).

Alabama: In 2022, the Alabama legislature passed the Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection (VCAP) Act that banned the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for underage children. But the US Department of Justice challenged the law. On January 12, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals lifted the injunction against the VCAP law, allowing its protections for children to go into effect (5).

Illinois: Disturbed by a long list of due process violations by the college, federal judge Colleen Lawless issued a restraining order on January 19 against the University of Illinois, allowing student Terrence Shannon to return to school (6).

Ohio: In late December, Gov. Mike DeWine vetoed House Bill 68, which sought to protect minors from transgender medical interventions and block males from competing against girls and women in sports. On January 24, the Ohio Senate voted to override the governor’s veto, allowing House Bill 68 to go into effect (7).

Florida: A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit on January 31 that had been filed by the Disney Corporation over the state legislature’s decision to alter the governing structure of Disney’s Reedy Creek Improvement District. Disney had argued in the lawsuit that the change to the district was made in retaliation for the organization’s criticism of the Parental Rights in Education Act (8).

In 2023, dozens of laws were enacted around the country to ban gender transitioning among underage students (9), uphold parental rights (10), stop pronoun mandates (11) and protect women’s sports (12).

A strong majority of Americans opposes the Gender Agenda (13). SAVE encourages lawmakers to work to block the Gender Agenda.

Citations:

  1. https://www.ctinsider.com/news/article/brookfield-high-tampon-dispenser-vandalized-18637010.php?src=ctipdensecp
  2. https://www.wabi.tv/2024/01/26/legislative-committee-kills-controversial-bill-regarding-gender-affirming-care/
  3. https://www.ntd.com/utah-passes-bills-banning-dei-and-men-using-womens-bathrooms_969319.html
  4. https://freebeacon.com/california/judge-orders-california-district-to-reinstate-teachers-who-refused-to-hide-students-gender-transitions/
  5. https://eagleforum.org/publications/press-releases/alabama-to-protect-vulnerable-children.html
  6. https://www.wcia.com/sports/your-illini-nation/judge-rules-in-favor-of-shannon-jr-in-temporary-restraining-order-case/
  7. https://lumennews14.substack.com/p/ohio-legislature-overrides-governors
  8. https://abcnews.go.com/Business/judge-dismisses-disney-lawsuit-gov-ron-desantis/story?id=106840357
  9. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/network/gender-transitioning/
  10. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/network/parental-rights/
  11. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/pronouns-for-trans-nonbinary-students-the-states-with-laws-that-restrict-them-in-schools/2023/06
  12. https://concernedwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/womens-sports-2023-August-States-Act-to-Protect-Female-Athletes-from-Discrimination.pdf
  13. https://www.saveservices.org/2022/06/63-of-americans-oppose-expanding-definition-of-sex-to-include-gender-identity/
Categories
Civil Rights Department of Education Due Process Free Speech Gender Agenda Office for Civil Rights Press Release Sexual Harassment Title IX

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

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citations:

  1. https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-releases-proposed-changes-title-ix-regulations-invites-public-comment
  2. https://www.heritage.org/education/report/gender-identity-policies-schools-what-congress-the-courts-and-the-trump
  3. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/526/629/
  4. https://casetext.com/case/speech-first-inc-v-cartwright
  5. https://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Analysis-of-Title-IX-Regulation-3.24.2022.pdf
  6. https://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/9.21.2023-Resignation-of-Catherine-Lhamon.pdf
Categories
Campus Civil Rights Department of Education Due Process Free Speech Gender Agenda Office for Civil Rights Press Release Sexual Harassment Title IX

In the Face of Overwhelming Opposition, DOE Backs Away from Controversial Title IX Plan

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

In the Face of Overwhelming Opposition, DOE Backs Away from Controversial Title IX Plan

WASHINGTON / August 31, 2023 – Responding to growing criticisms from many sectors of society, the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) reportedly is delaying the release of its controversial Title IX regulation until 2024 or later. A Higher Ed Dive article confirmed that the DOE “hasn’t even sent its regulatory plans to the Office of Management and Budget, which can take up to 120 days to review them.” (1)

The Title IX regulation would have had far-reaching effects on campus due process, free speech, women’s sports, parental rights, and gender transitioning among underage students.

Opposition to the policy has come from many directions:

Public Opinion Polls: Public opinion polls have consistently shown that most Americans oppose the proposed changes to Title IX, the law that was enacted to curb sex discrimination in schools (2). A recent NPR/Ipsos poll reports that 63% of Americans oppose allowing biological males to compete on women’s and girls’ sports teams (3).

Lawsuits Against the DOE: On June 14, 2023 the Texas Attorney General filed a lawsuit challenging the Department of Education’s Title IX guidance as an illegal effort to force schools to adopt transgender ideology (4). The Texas lawsuit was the fifth such lawsuit filed against the Biden Administration for its Title IX-related proposals (5).

Calls for Abolition: Republican presidential candidates Ron DeSantis, Mike Pence, Vivek Ramaswany, and Tim Scott have issued calls for the abolition of the DOE (6). Forty-seven state lawmakers have made similar calls (6).

Criticism from Liberals: The liberal Gays Against Groomers has been one of the most vocal critics of the transgender movement. On August 22, Gays Against Groomers posted a tweet saying, “Norway, Finland, Sweden, Holland and the UK have now BANNED gender transition surgeries and drugs for minors. WHEN WILL THE UNITED STATES CATCH UP?!” (7)

Legislation: Numerous bills were introduced and laws enacted to counter the effects of the proposed Title IX regulation:

  • Thus far, 134 bills designed to restrict transgender treatments for underage children have been introduced in states around the country (8).
  • Laws designed to protect women’s sports were enacted in Alabama, Kansas, North Carolina, North Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming (9).
  • On June 16, Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signed a bill to codify parental rights as fundamental, making Alabama the 18th state in the nation to formalize this protection (10).

Due Process Victories: Falsely accused male students continue to win due process lawsuits against their former universities (11). On August 22, an Oregon jury awarded the largest jury verdict ever — nearly $4 million — to a man wrongfully accused of a Title IX offense (12).

The proposed Title IX regulation re-defined the meaning of the Constitution, especially the First and Fourteenth Amendments; usurped Congressional responsibility by seeking to change the definition of sex to include “gender identity;” and negated the Supreme Court’s Davis v. Monroe definition of sexual harassment (13).

Currently, 217 national, state, and local groups belong to the Title IX Network, which stands in principled opposition to the DOE’s proposed changes to the Title IX law (14). Organizations wishing to join the Title IX Network should contact Robert Thompson at rthompson@saveservices.org

Links:

  1. https://www.highereddive.com/news/final-title-ix-rules-likely-to-be-pushed-beyond-october/692378/
  2. https://www.saveservices.org/2022/06/63-of-americans-oppose-expanding-definition-of-sex-to-include-gender-identity/
  3. https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/npr-transgender-issues-2022
  4. https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/press/2023/docs/filed%20Title%20IX%20complaint.pdf
  5. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/network/
  6. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/attorneys-general-and-lawmakers/
  7. https://twitter.com/againstgrmrs/status/1694074990121951321
  8. https://www.equalityfederation.org/tracker/anti-transgender-medical-care-bans
  9. Email from Doreen Denny, Concerned Women for America, August 31, 2023.
  10. https://parentalrightsfoundation.org/parental-rights-fundamental-in-18-states/
  11. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CsFhy86oxh26SgTkTq9GV_BBrv5NAA5z9cv178Fjk3o/edit#gid=0
  12. https://www.opb.org/article/2023/08/21/pacific-university-forest-grove-oregon-education-lawsuit-sexual-physical-assault/
  13. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-843.ZS.html
  14. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-Policy/
Categories
Civil Rights Domestic Violence Due Process False Allegations Feminism Innocence Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment

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

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citations:

  1. https://reason.com/volokh/2023/08/22/court-reduces-1-4m-verdict-to-71-5k-in-theylied-renaissance-faire-libel-case/#more-8246241
  2. http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/pr/survey-over-20-million-have-been-falsely-accused-of-abuse/
  3. https://endtodv.org/survey-false-allegations-of-abuse-are-a-global-problem-women-most-often-the-accusers/
  4. Gertz v. Robert Welch, 418 U.S. 323, 341 (1974).
  5. https://www.legalmomentum.org/amicus-briefs/khan-v-yale-univ-et-al 
  6. https://www.thefire.org/news/connecticut-supreme-court-issues-blistering-critique-yales-unfair-title-ix-proceedings
  7. https://evawintl.org/wp-content/uploads/2019-5_TB_Raped-Then-Jailed-1.pdf 
  8. https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/ExonerationsContribFactorsByCrime.aspx
  9. https://falselyaccusedday.org/#:~:text=Falsely%20Accused%20Day%20is%20intended,in%20the%20name%20of%20justice.&text=Falsely%20Accused%20Day%20will%20take%20place%20on%20the%209th%20September%20every%20year.
Categories
Civil Rights Department of Education Due Process False Allegations Free Speech Gender Agenda Office for Civil Rights Title IX

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

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Links:

  1. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/
  2. https://appropriations.house.gov/subcommittees/labor-health-and-human-services-education-118th-congress
  3. https://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/7.25.23-Coalition-letter-Appropriations.pdf
Categories
California Civil Rights Department of Education Due Process False Allegations Feminism Office for Civil Rights Press Release Title IX Training

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

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citations:

  1. https://www.chronicle.com/article/a-crusade-to-end-reverse-discrimination?cid=gen_sign_in
  2. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CsFhy86oxh26SgTkTq9GV_BBrv5NAA5z9cv178Fjk3o/edit#gid=0
  3. https://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Analysis-of-Title-IX-Regulation-3.24.2022.pdf
  4. https://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR347/347CR30.pdf
  5. https://www.calstate.edu/titleix/documents/cozen-presentation-bot-52423.pdf
  6. https://cdn.atixa.org/site-media/atixa/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/16135903/2021-Survey-Summary.pdf
  7. https://www.nas.org/storage/app/media/Reports/Dear%20Colleague/Dear%20Colleague.pdf
  8. https://www.saveservices.org/more-resources/
  9. https://www.dailywire.com/news/prominent-title-ix-consultant-accused-of-financial-fraud-in-lawsuit-filed-by-former-employee
  10. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2022/06/30/new-title-ix-rules-raise-concerns-accused