Categories
Department of Education Due Process Gender Identity Office for Civil Rights Sexual Harassment Title IX

Arbitrary and Capricious: Federal Judge Rejects and Ridicules Dept. of Education’s Title IX Rule

Arbitrary and Capricious: Federal Judge Rejects and Ridicules Dept. of Education’s Title IX Rule

SAVE

June 19, 2024

In April, the Department of Education issued its long-awaited Title IX Rule. In response, nine separate lawsuits were filed, seeking to block the new regulation.

On June 17, Judge Danny Reeves issued a preliminary injunction for the states of Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, and West Virginia. Concluding that “the Department of Education seeks to derail deeply rooted law with a Final Rule,” the judge ordered:

  1. The motions for a preliminary injunction/stay filed by Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, and West Virginia [Record No. 19] and Christian Educators Association International and A.C. [Record No. 63] are GRANTED.
  2. The United States Department of Education and Miguel Cardona, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education, along with their secretaries, directors, administrators, and employees, are ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from implementing, enacting, enforcing, or taking any action in any manner to enforce the Final Rule, Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance, 89 Fed. Reg. 33474 (Apr. 29, 2024), which is scheduled to take effect on August 1, 2024.

Using the words “arbitrary and capricious” eight times, Judge Reeves did not mince words in his 93-page decision, which addressed the subjective definitions of “gender identity,” women’s sports, student privacy and safety, free speech, parental rights, and more.

These are highlights from his strongly worded opinion:

“This case concerns an attempt by the executive branch to dramatically alter the purpose and meaning of Title IX through rulemaking… the new rule contravenes the plain text of Title IX by redefining ‘sex’ to include gender identity, violates government employees’ First Amendment rights, and is the result of arbitrary and capricious rulemaking. If the new rule is allowed to take effect on August 1, 2024, all plaintiffs will suffer immediate and irreparable harm.” – Page 1

“But then came the administrative state, lacking any real power to rewrite a law that Congress duly passed, with its bureaucratic cudgel.” – Page 8

“The Department declined to provide a specific definition of “gender identity,” but understands the term to “describe an individual’s sense of their gender, which may or may not be different from their sex assigned at birth.” – Page 10

Judge Reeves’ decision highlights the plight of a 15-year-old West Virginia girl, A.C., who reportedly “feels uncomfortable dressing and undressing in the presence of biological males.” Referring to transgender athlete Becky Pepper-Jackson, a biological male, the judge wrote, “A.C. asserts that it is apparent that B.P.J.’s status as a biological male gives B.P.J. an advantage over A.C. and other female athletes.” – Page 14

“an agency has no authority to promulgate a regulation that ‘undoes the unambiguous language of the statute.’” – Page 16

“The Department’s new definition of “discrimination on the basis of sex” wreaks havoc on Title IX and produces results that Congress could not have intended….For example, the new rules provide that recipients may separate students for purposes of fraternities and sororities, but not for purposes of utilizing bathrooms.” – Page 25

“The likely consequences of the Final Rule are virtually limitless…. the Final Rule creates myriad inconsistencies with Title IX’s text and its longstanding regulations.” – Page 27

“The First Amendment to the United States Constitution stands as a sentry over one of the Nation’s most indispensable freedoms through a proclamation clear and uncompromising: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, . . . .”  – Page 32

“It is unclear how the Government’s articulated position can be seen as anything less than a tacit endorsement of a content-based heckler’s veto.” – Page 46

“The Department understands gender identity to describe an individual’s sense of their gender, which may or may not be different from their sex assigned at birth.” Id. But the Department’s response offers no guidance whatsoever. Arguably worse, it suggests that this term of vital importance can be subjectively defined by each and every individual based entirely upon his or her own internal sense of self.” – Page 50

“Further, the Final Rule authorizes, if not encourages, arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement pursuant to definitions of harassment that are almost entirely fact-dependent.” – Page 55

“the Final Rule’s text is vague and overbroad in a way that impermissibly chills protected speech” – Page 56

“The plaintiff-States claim that the Department has also failed to account for the impact its Final Rule will have on the constitutional right of parents to influence their children’s education. A longstanding right recognized by the Supreme Court is the right for parents to raise their own children as they see fit.” – Page 63

“But the Final Rule then specifies that schools may no longer apply the regulations’ allowance for sex-separation against males who identify as females or females who identify as males. Id. It seems obvious that the Department simply failed to consider these contradictory aspects when promulgating the Final Rule.” – Page 63

“Indeed, the Final Rule’s provisions seemingly bind administrators to treat such children “consistent with [their] gender ident[ies]” on school grounds, even if that conflicts with parental preferences. Id. at 41571. Therefore, school personnel would be forced to improperly insert themselves into constitutionally protected family affairs not only to act when gender discrimination is claimed but to “prevent its recurrence and remedy its effects.” – Page 64

“it implies that Title IX could supersede parental preferences about a child’s treatment depending on the case.” – Page 65

“The Department asserts that there is not ‘a ‘long-standing construction’ of the term ‘sex’ in Title IX to mean ‘biological sex.’  See 87 Fed. Reg. at 41537. But this argument is severely undermined by the series of congressional amendments and agency regulations since the statute’s enactment that consistently have construed ‘sex’ as a male-female binary. Indeed, past regulations from the Department are direct evidence that a definition has been in place.” – Page 67

“Nonetheless, despite society’s enduring recognition of biological differences between the sexes, as well as an individual’s basic right to bodily privacy, the Final Rule mandates that schools permit biological men into women’s intimate spaces, and women into men’s, within the educational environment based entirely on a person’s subjective gender identity. This result is not only impossible to square with Title IX but with the broader guarantee of education protection for all students.” – Page 75

“Ultimately, the Department’s failure to provide any concrete, contradictory data to the concerns raised by the States, parents, and educators renders it is difficult to fathom how it determined that “the benefits” of the new regulations ‘far outweigh [their] estimated costs.’… This miscalculation is underscored by the fact that officials seemingly failed to seriously account for the possibility that abolishing sex-separated facilities would likely increase the incidence of crime and deter large swaths of the public from using public accommodations altogether.” – Page 75

“It is an inescapable conclusion based on the foregoing discussion that the Department has effectively ignored the concerns of parents, teachers, and students who believe that the Final Rule endangers basic privacy and safety interests…. Rather than address the evidence provided by the plaintiff-States and others during the commenting period, the Department throws its figurative hands in the air and says, ‘too bad.’” – Page 76

“The Department predicts that recipients of federal funds will see a ten percent increase in Title IX complaints and investigations under the Final Rule.” – Page 81

“the plaintiff-States contend that the Final Rule would cause their citizens to endure a variety of irremediable harms including violations of their bodily privacy by students of the opposite sex.” – Page 87

“This regulation is arbitrary in the truest sense of the word. As explained above, the Department has failed to demonstrate why recipients are allowed to inflict more than de minimis harm in some situations but not in others when there is no meaningful difference (e.g., living facilities versus showers).” – Page 90

“Each subsection in which these provisions appear contains a severability clause that provides: ‘If any provision of this subpart or its application to any person, act, or practice is held invalid, the remainder of the subpart or the application of its provisions to any person, act, or practice shall not be affected thereby.’ 34 C.F.R. §§ 106.9; 106.16; 106.48. The severability clause has little impact on the Court’s analysis because the impermissible definition of ‘discrimination on the basis of sex’ in 34 C.F.R. § 106.10 permeates the remaining regulations.” – Page 90

“the Department of Education seeks to derail deeply rooted law with a Final Rule that is set to go into effect on August 1, 2024. At bottom, the Department would turn Title IX on its head by redefining “sex” to include “gender identity.” But “sex” and “gender identity” do not mean the same thing. The Department’s interpretation conflicts with the plain language of Title IX and therefore exceeds its authority to promulgate regulations under that statute.” – Page 91

“A rule that compels speech and engages in such viewpoint discrimination is impermissible.” – Page 92

“Notably, the Department does not provide a sufficient explanation for leaving regulations in place that conflict with the new gender-identity mandate, nor does it meaningfully respond to commentors’ concerns regarding risks posed to student and faculty safety.” – Page 92

 

Categories
Department of Education Due Process Free Speech Gender Agenda Office for Civil Rights Press Release Title IX

Federal Judge Blocks Sweeping Title IX Regulation in Four States, Stunning LGBTQ Advocates

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Federal Judge Blocks Sweeping Title IX Regulation in Four States, Stunning LGBTQ Advocates

WASHINGTON / June 17, 2024 – This past Thursday federal Judge Terry Doughty handed down a temporary injunction against the new Title IX regulation (1). The sweeping federal regulation, issued on April 19, makes numerous changes to the original Title IX law, including expanding the definition of sex to include “gender identity” (2).

Noting that Title IX “was written and intended to protect biological women from discrimination,” Louisiana District Judge Doughty reasoned, “Such purpose makes it difficult to sincerely argue that, at the time of enactment, ‘discrimination on the basis of sex’ included gender identity, sex stereotypes, sexual orientation, or sex characteristics. Enacting the changes in the Final Rule would subvert the original purpose of Title IX: protecting biological females from discrimination.”

The judge also ruled the new regulation violates the free speech clause of the Constitution, the Spending Clause, and the Administrative Procedures Act. Doughty’s ruling applies to the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, and Idaho.

The transformative Title IX regulation is encountering strong opposition across the country (3). To date, a total of nine lawsuits have been filed to block the controversial Title IX policy (4):

  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 (5)
  2. States of Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, and West Virginia (6)
  3. States of Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Idaho, Louisiana Department of Education, Rapides Parish School Board, and 17 Louisiana School Districts (7)
  1. States of Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota (8)
  2. States of Kansas, Alaska, Utah, and Wyoming, Moms for Liberty, Young America’s Foundation, Female Athletes United, et al. (9)
  3. State of Texas and Two UT-Austin Professors (10)
  4. State of Oklahoma (11)
  5. Oklahoma Department of Education (12)
  6. Carroll Independent School District (Texas) (13)

Decisions on many of these complaints are expected during the upcoming month.

In addition, 68 members of the U.S. House of Representatives have co-sponsored H.J. Resolution 165 that seeks to block the controversial regulation (14).

Advocates for LGBTQ rights were furious over the judge’s decision. Human Rights Campaign president Kelley Robinson charged, “Today’s decision prioritizes anti-LGBTQ+ hate over the safety and well-being of students in the state. This is MAGA theatrics with the dangerous goal of weaving discrimination into law.” (15)

Earlier this month the Pew Research Center reported on the results of a national survey that shows 65% of registered voters believe whether a person is a man or woman is based on their biological sex at birth. In 2017, only 53% of voters believed that sex was biologically based (16).

Links:

  1. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.205659/gov.uscourts.lawd.205659.53.0.pdf
  2. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/29/2024-07915/nondiscrimination-on-the-basis-of-sex-in-education-programs-or-activities-receiving-federal
  3. https://www.saveservices.org/2024/04/do-not-comply-fight-americans-revolt-against-new-title-ix-rule/
  4. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/abolish-doe/
  5. https://defendinged.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/TitleIxLawsuit.pdf
  6. https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/INAG/2024/04/30/file_attachments/2863214/Complaint%20-%20FINAL,1.42.pdf
  7. https://htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/files/file-stamped-louisiana-v-u-s-dep-t-of-education-title-ix-662fda6716ff7.pdf
  8. https://arkansasag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024-05-07-Arkansas-v.-US-Dept-of-Education-Filemarked.pdf
  9. https://www.slfliberty.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2024/05/20240514-Complaint-Doc.-1.pdf
  10. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24705968-texas_bonevac_hatfield-v-deptofed-amended-complaint-224-cv-00086-z
  11. https://kfor.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2024/05/24-05-06_complaint.pdf
  12. https://oklahoma-council.files.svdcdn.com/production/assets/img/Final-OSDE-Title-IX-Rule-Complaint.pdf?dm=1715092438
  13. https://dm1l19z832j5m.cloudfront.net/2024-05/Carroll-Independent-School-District-v-US-Dept-Ed-2024-05-21-Complaint.pdf
  14. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-joint-resolution/165/text?s=2&r=1&q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22HJ+Res+165%22%7D
  15. https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/us-district-court-enjoins-new-title-ix-rule-in-louisiana-mississippi-montana-and-idaho-blocking-enforcement-of-federal-civil-rights-law-for-lgbtq-students
  16. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/06/06/gender-identity-sexual-orientation-and-the-2024-election/
Categories
Department of Education Discrimination Due Process Free Speech Gender Agenda Office for Civil Rights Press Release Title IX

SAVE Stands in Support of Resolution 165 That Seeks to Block the New Title IX Regulation

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

SAVE Stands in Support of Resolution 165 That Seeks to Block the New Title IX Regulation

WASHINGTON / June 12, 2024 – The Department of Education recently issued a new Title IX regulation that redefines sex to include “gender identity” (1). In response, 68 members of the U.S. House of Representatives are co-sponsoring a resolution that seeks to block the new regulation. H.J. Resolution 165 states simply:

“Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Department of Education relating to ‘Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance’ (89 Fed. Reg. 33474; published April 29, 2024), and such rule shall have no force or effect.” (2)

In support of the Resolution, Education and the Workforce Committee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx charged, “The Biden administration’s final rule hacks Title IX into pieces and expunges decades of progress for women and girls across the nation. This is a clear and present threat, and one that cannot go unaddressed.” (3)

To date, nine lawsuits have been filed to block the controversial Title IX policy (4):

  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 (5)
  2. States of Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, and West Virginia (6)
  3. States of Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Idaho, Louisiana Department of Education, Rapides Parish School Board, and 17 Louisiana School Districts (7)
  1. States of Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota (8)
  2. States of Kansas, Alaska, Utah, and Wyoming, Moms for Liberty, Young America’s Foundation, Female Athletes United, et al. (9)
  3. State of Texas and Two UT-Austin Professors (10)
  4. State of Oklahoma (11)
  5. Oklahoma Department of Education (12)
  6. Carroll Independent School District (Texas) (13)

The most comprehensive lawsuit, from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina (5), 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 new Title IX policy affirms 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” (14).

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments – SAVE – strongly supports H.J. Resolution 165.

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://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-joint-resolution/165/text?s=2&r=1&q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22HJ+Res+165%22%7D
  3. https://marymiller.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-mary-miller-introduces-legislation-reverse-bidens-title-ix-rule-which#:~:text=WASHINGTON%20%E2%80%93%20Today%2C%20Congresswoman%20Mary%20Miller,women%20and%20girls’%20private%20spaces.
  4. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/abolish-doe/
  5. https://defendinged.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/TitleIxLawsuit.pdf
  6. https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/INAG/2024/04/30/file_attachments/2863214/Complaint%20-%20FINAL,1.42.pdf
  7. https://htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/files/file-stamped-louisiana-v-u-s-dep-t-of-education-title-ix-662fda6716ff7.pdf
  8. https://arkansasag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024-05-07-Arkansas-v.-US-Dept-of-Education-Filemarked.pdf
  9. https://www.slfliberty.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2024/05/20240514-Complaint-Doc.-1.pdf
  10. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24705968-texas_bonevac_hatfield-v-deptofed-amended-complaint-224-cv-00086-z
  11. https://kfor.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2024/05/24-05-06_complaint.pdf
  12. https://oklahoma-council.files.svdcdn.com/production/assets/img/Final-OSDE-Title-IX-Rule-Complaint.pdf?dm=1715092438
  13. https://dm1l19z832j5m.cloudfront.net/2024-05/Carroll-Independent-School-District-v-US-Dept-Ed-2024-05-21-Complaint.pdf
  14. https://www.marxists.org/subject/women/authors/firestone-shulamith/dialectic-sex.htm
Categories
Campus Due Process False Allegations Free Speech Press Release Title IX

Blockbuster Lawsuit Filed Against 15 Women’s Rights Organizations for Defamation

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Lawrence DeMarco, LLM

Telephone: +1 215-901-1930

Email: ldemarco@boysandmen.net

Blockbuster Lawsuit Filed Against 15 Women’s Rights Organizations for Defamation

WASHINGTON / May 31, 2024 —   Saifullah Khan, a former Yale University student who was acquitted of rape charges in 2018, has filed a defamation lawsuit against 15 prominent women’s rights organizations. (1) The lawsuit alleges that despite Khan’s acquittal in a court of law, the defendants falsely labeled him a “rapist” in a legal filing, causing severe damage to his reputation. (2)

Khan, an Afghan refugee who came to the United States as a child, was a full scholarship student at Yale University. In 2015, he was accused of sexual assault by a female classmate following a Halloween party. Following a highly publicized trial in 2018, the jury found Khan not guilty on all charges. (3)

Despite the acquittal, Yale University launched an internal disciplinary proceeding, found him responsible for sexual misconduct, and expelled him. Khan then sued Yale in 2019 for $110 million, claiming the university had denied him due process. (4)

Normally, accusers are granted immunity by courts when they testify in a legal proceeding. But in this case, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled last June that Yale’s disciplinary procedures lacked adequate due process protections to provide the accuser immunity for her testimony, allowing Khan’s accuser to be potentially held liable for defamation (5).

Two weeks ago, Khan expanded his legal battle, filing a new defamation suit against 15 women’s rights organizations, including the National Women’s Law Center, Legal Momentum, Jewish Women International, and others. (6) The complaint alleges these groups falsely characterized Khan as a “rapist” and made other defamatory statements in a legal filing, which caused him substantial reputational harm.

“I was acquitted in a court of law, yet trusted and powerful organizations continued to defame me,” stated Khan.  He further explained that he doesn’t have a national agenda, but just wants to clear his name. (1)

The defendants, with combined assets exceeding $200 million, have not yet publicly responded to the suit. However, the case is likely to raise important questions about the boundaries of protected speech versus defamation in the context of sexual misconduct allegations during school hearings.

Links:

  1. https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-former-yale-student-acquitted-of-rape-charges-files-defamation-lawsuit-against-15-liberal-organizations#google_vignette
  2. https://appellateinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentDisplayer.aspx?AppId=2&DocId=qIg2wdaGkywLFsHjxUajVA%3d%3d
  3. https://www.thecut.com/2018/03/yale-student-saifullah-khan-not-guilty-rape-trial.html
  4. https://thepostmillennial.com/former-yale-student-cleared-to-sue-accuser-over-false-allegations
  5. https://freespeechproject.georgetown.edu/tracker-entries/connecticut-supreme-court-repeals-absolute-immunity-for-accuser-in-yale-sexual-assault-case/
  6. https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=27589553
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 Department of Education Due Process Office for Civil Rights Press Release Title IX

‘DO NOT COMPLY. FIGHT.’ Americans Revolt Against New Title IX Rule

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

‘DO NOT COMPLY. FIGHT.’ Americans Revolt Against New Title IX Rule

WASHINGTON / April 29, 2024 – Release of the final Title IX regulation on April 19 has triggered a wave of protests against the policy, which seeks to transform our schools, reshape the family, and redefine the Constitution (1). That same day, media personality Megyn Kelly captured the national mood with this social media post: “DO NOT COMPLY. FIGHT.” (2)

In response to the new rule, state superintendents of education around the country issued directives to their schools:

Florida: Noting that the “Biden Administration maims the [Title IX] statute beyond recognition in an attempt to gaslight the country,” Commissioner of Education Manny Diaz instructed Florida schools, “At Governor Ron DeSantis’ direction, no educational institution should begin implementing any changes.” [bolding in the original] (3)

Louisiana: Superintendent Cade Brumley wrote to all school boards in the state, “The Title IX rule changes recklessly endanger students and seek to dismantle equal opportunities for females….Further, it remains my position that schools should not alter policies or procedures at this time.” (4)

Oklahoma: Charging the new rule would turn “not using preferred pronouns into a Title IX violation,” instructed schools, Superintendent Ryan Walters advised Oklahoma schools, “Please do not make any district policy changes based on the new Title IX regulations. These federal rule changes are illegal.” (5)

South Carolina: Superintendent Ellen Weaver warned schools, “By redefining the class of people that Title IX intends to protect, the Biden administration’s rule seeks to change the meaning and purpose of the underlying law.” Weaver then advised, “Therefore, we recommend districts not implement the new rule at this time. It is possible—even likely—that a court will enjoin the rule prior to its effective date.” [underlining in the original] (6)

Wyoming: State Superintendent Megan Degenfelder promised, “I will fight back against this federal overreach… and work to partner with my counterparts across the country to stand up to the Biden administration’s harmful regulations.” (7)

Within days of the release of the new regulation, denunciations were issued by organizations such as the Heritage Foundation (8), Defense of Freedom Institute (9), and the National Association of Scholars (10). Attorney Justin Dillon catalogued 16 ways that the new policy will decimate fairness and due process for falsely accused male students (11).

And strongly worded articles were published by the American Spectator (12), Get Bright (13), Reason (14), New York Post (15), The Free Press (16), and elsewhere.

Two organizations announced their plans to challenge the regulation in court: Independent Women’s Forum (17) and Alliance Defending Freedom (18), with a raft of additional lawsuits currently being drafted.

Such developments recall the mood that preceded the Boston Tea Party in 1773.

Citations:

  1. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/
  2. https://twitter.com/megynkelly/status/1781347648575774988
  3. https://flvoicenews.com/florida-will-fight-u-s-dept-of-educations-title-ix-rules-calls-it-an-attempt-to-gaslight-the-country/
  4. https://htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/files/dr-cade-brumley-title-ix-memo-4-22-2024-6627db14b1f9c.pdf
  5. https://twitter.com/BreccanFThies/status/1783136137348808861
  6. https://www.counton2.com/news/south-carolina-news/ellen-weaver-tells-south-carolina-schools-to-ignore-bidens-revised-title-ix-rules-for-lbgtq-students/
  7. https://www.wyomingnewsnow.tv/2023/04/14/superintendent-degenfelder-speaks-out-against-bidens-title-ix-proposal/
  8. https://www.heritage.org/press/heritage-expert-illegal-title-ix-rule-erases-women-ignores-the-constitution
  9. https://dfipolicy.org/statement-dfi-releases-statement-on-biden-administrations-final-title-ix-rule/
  10. 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.)
  11. https://www.dillonpllc.com/guide-to-2024-title-ix-regulations
  12. https://spectator.org/bidens-title-ix-revisions-arent-good-news-for-women/
  13. https://getbright.substack.com/p/what-bidens-title-ix-change-means
  14. https://reason.com/2024/04/19/new-title-ix-rules-erase-campus-due-process-protections/
  15. https://nypost.com/2024/04/22/opinion/bidens-title-ix-revisions-are-a-repulsive-attempt-to-erase-truth/
  16. https://www.thefp.com/p/biden-title-ix-civil-rights-rollback
  17. https://www.iwf.org/2024/04/19/bidens-title-ix-rewrite-strips-away-protections-for-women-denies-women-equal-opportunity/
  18. https://twitter.com/KWaggonerADF/status/1781327179936108975
Categories
Department of Education Due Process Free Speech Office for Civil Rights Title IX

Release of Controversial Title IX Regulation Revives Calls to Abolish Dept. of Education

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Release of Controversial Title IX Regulation Revives Calls to Abolish Dept. of Education

WASHINGTON / April 24, 2024 – The Department of Education released its final Title IX regulation last Friday (1). Slated to go into effect on August 1, 2024, the controversial rule changes the definition of sex to include “gender identity.” The policy is expected to have far-reaching effects on campus due process, free speech, gender transitioning of youth, parental rights, and women’s sports (2).

Within hours of the federal announcement, persons voiced strong opposition:

House Education and the Workforce Committee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx commented, “This final rule dumps kerosene on the already raging fire that is Democrats’ contemptuous culture war that aims to radically redefine sex and gender. The rule also undermines existing due process rights, placing students and institutions in legal jeopardy and again undermining the protections Title IX is intended to provide” (3).

Former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos stated, “The Biden Administration’s radical rewrite of Title IX guts the half century of protections and opportunities for women and callously replaces them with radical gender theory, as Biden’s far-left political base demanded. This regulation is an assault on women and girls” (4).

Numerous individuals have called for the abolition of the Department of Education, including Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, and former candidates Ron DeSantis and Vivek Ramaswamy. H.R. 899, introduced by Rep. Thomas Massie, likewise calls for the abolition of the Department (5).

The Heritage Foundation has released a detailed plan for the elimination of the Department of Education (6).

In response to the release of the final rule, the following 43 members of the Title IX Network issued the following statements:

  1. AFA Action: “Force and fraud are necessary to convince a people to believe lies, and the Biden administration has doubled down on both with this Title IX rewrite that will hurt real women and undermine the basic and natural distinctions between the sexes.”
  2. Alexander Hamilton Institute for the Study of Western Civilization: “President Biden’s changes to Title IX is a road map to confusion and injustice. DOE, in its current incarnation, has outlived its usefulness and needs to be abolished.”
  3. Alliance Defending Freedom: “The Biden administration’s radical redefinition of sex turns back the clock on equal opportunity for women, threatens student safety and privacy, and undermines fairness in women’s sports.”
  4. AMAC Action: “Title IX’s protection of women and girls to participate in female athletic programs would in effect ‘be denied the benefits’ of such programs by allowing a person whose sex is male to participate in athletic programs or activities that are designated for women or girls.”
  5. American Association of Christian Schools: “We are disappointed but not surprised that the radical Biden administration ignored the legitimate concerns of millions of American citizens regarding the politically driven rewrite of Title IX and the dangerous reinterpretation of the natural distinctions between men and women.”
  6. American Association of Evangelicals: “The Biden Administration’s deceptive assault on truth and Title IX harms women, families, and our nation.”
  7. Americans for Limited Government: “The Department of Education’s newest regulation is a direct attack on Title IX which is directly responsible for the opportunity provided to Caitlin Clark, Angel Reese and Riley Gaines among hundreds of thousands of other women to get a college education with an athletic scholarship.”
  8. American Life & Liberty: “American Life & Liberty stands against the deliberate, abhorrent actions by both Biden and Department of Education’s Title IX decision that places the children they are obliged to protect into direct danger.”
  9. American Values: “With this extreme redefinition of Title IX, the Biden/Harris administration has just declared war on women, threatening their privacy and safety.”
  10. Awake Americans: “The Title IX amendments will nullify the protections of female students and athletes and it’s clear that our daughters aren’t safe in Biden’s America.”
  11. Awake Illinois: “As tragic as it is to battle against some of the most anti-child, anti-parent policies in Illinois, it’s even more devastating to see the war on female students and athletes being waged now at the federal level.”
  12. Center for Equal Opportunity: “The Center for Equal Opportunity opposes the inclusion of ‘gender identity’ as a prohibited category of sex discrimination under Title IX, one never intended by the legislation’s original meaning and outside the authority of the Department of Education to modify without action by Congress.”
  13. Center for Military Readiness: “Violations of personal privacy in environments involving forced intimacy are disruptive and demoralizing for women in any environment, but especially in the military.”
  14. Child Protection League: “State legislatures, Governors, and Attorneys General must refuse the federal dictates that assault children with false, dangerous, and radical gender ideology and that rob women and girls of their right to safety and privacy, completely gutting the congressional purpose of the Title IX law.”
  15. Citizens for Renewing America: “The Biden administration is weaponizing woke critical gender theory to erase women from existence and to compel speech from an increasingly larger segment of society, soon to include even our nation’s troops.”
  16. Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee: “Female students are being assaulted in school restrooms; female athletes are forced to surrender their privacy in the locker rooms and have their opportunities and achievements stolen in their own sports.”
  17. ConservativeHQ: “Biden’s latest assault on America’s women and girls will not stand unchallenged. We have no intention of being told by Democrats that we must indulge the fantasies of mentally ill people who think that they can force us to call them by their ‘preferred pronouns.’”
  18. Defense of Freedom Institute: “President Biden’s new Title IX rule is a textbook example of how extremists in the administration have hijacked the law to force radical changes in American society through its schools, colleges, and universities.”
  19. Eagle Forum: “While the Biden Administration has punted on clarifying the impact of their redefinition of sex to sports, there is no doubt these regulations will undermine women’s and girls’ privacy rights, athletic prospects, and educational opportunities.”
  20. Eagle Forum of Alabama: “While saying out of one side of its mouth that it must follow science, this administration with its new Title IX Regulation redefines the scientific definition of male and female to suit its radical agenda.”
  21. Families Advocating for Campus Equality: “FACE is deeply disheartened to see this Administration roll back crucial due process protections that Americans believe everyone is entitled to, and that will inevitably lead to more false accusations, more unjust findings of responsibility, and more lawsuits.”
  22. First Liberty Institute: “The Biden administration’s new rule puts thousands of students and teachers with religious beliefs that disagree with the Left’s definitions of sex and gender at risk.”
  23. Girls Deserve Privacy: “The revised Title IX regulations threaten the safety of girls and women who will be forced to share private spaces with biological males.”
  24. Greenwich Patriots: “All of the battles women have fought to achieve equality with men are being erased by the Biden Administration, which apparently thinks men make better women than women.”
  25. Heritage Foundation: “It’s an exceptional feat for an executive agency to publish a rule that simultaneously manages to violate constitutional law, civil rights law, and administrative law, but the Department of Education has managed to do it with its patently illegal Title IX.”
  26. Independent Women’s Forum: IWF is “preparing to sue the Biden administration to enjoin this unlawful action.”
  27. Katartismos Global: “Katartismos Global is anchored in reality – the reality of men and women – and as a Christian ministry, we denounce these devastating changes to Title IX, dangerous to the identity bestowed upon every girl and boy by a loving and all-wise God.”
  28. Law Offices of Barry S. Jacobson: “These proposed revisions are a testament to a process not only devoid of any concept of fundamental fairness and due process protections afforded to the accused, but of a systematic program that is an attack and an affront to the principles of American jurisprudence.”
  29. Law Offices of Philip A. Blyer: “The Biden Administration’s omnibus Title IX regulation is an alarming unconstitutional abuse of executive power aimed at enforcing by bureaucratic fiat, totally alien to our constitutional republic, a radical re-definition of Title IX without congressional legislation.”
  30. Less Government: “Title IX will now mandate that men can dominate women and this seems fair like just what its authors had in mind.”
  31. Middle Resolution: “The changes made by the President to Title IX are designed to eliminate the differences between men and women, which is effectively a direct blow to women’s rights.”
  32. Mission America: “The Biden administration’s unauthorized invention of law will have far-reaching, harmful effects in the lives of America’s children.”
  33. Moms for Liberty, Harford County, MD: “Biden hates girls, women, parents, free speech, due process, and America.”
  34. National Association of Scholars: “Congress never intended Title IX to become a weapon of fringe sexual politics and a due process disaster. But that’s what the Biden Administration is making it.”
  35. Palm Beach Freedom Institute: “These intrusive new rules are so absurd that the time has come to abolish the wasteful Department of Education, which has from its unconstitutional inception done nothing but harm students and learning in America.”
  36. Parents on the Level: “Protecting the family worldview in regard to our Creator is our highest priority.”
  37. Rhode Island Center for Freedom & Prosperity: “The Left’s assault on American families continues and every candidate this year must be asked to go on record to log their support or opposition to this egregious destruction of Title IX.”
  38. Salt & Light Council: “Biological women have a right to demand respect, privacy, and autonomy for their God-given birthright.”
  39. 60 Plus Association: “Women sports are important to universities and young women in general, and they should not be worried about young men playing against them as so-called girls, or using their locker rooms and showers.”
  40. Tennessee Eagle Forum: “The proposed Title IX regulation contributes to the transformation of America’s families, including the blurring of the important distinction between male and female, husband and wife.”
  41. Texas Eagle Forum: “The Biden Administration’s Title IX rewrite not only erases equal opportunity for women in education, it is the unconstitutional taking of free speech, due process, and parental rights, among other constitutionally guaranteed rights.”
  42. Texas Values: “We will fight this re-write of Title IX every step of the way in Texas.”

 

  1. Utah Citizens for the Constitution: “The Constitution delegates no power to the federal government in regard to education; in light of these radical changes to Title IX, it is time for states to take control of their education systems.”

 

Citations:

  1. https://titleixforall.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Unofficial-version-of-the-final-regulations.pdf
  2. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/network/
  3. https://edworkforce.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=410473
  4. https://www.nationalreview.com/news/biden-administration-sidesteps-trans-athlete-policy-in-new-title-ix-rules/
  5. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/abolish-doe/
  6. https://www.saveservices.org/2023/07/plan-to-abolish-or-overhaul-the-u-s-department-of-education/
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 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
Department of Education Due Process Free Speech Gender Agenda Gender Identity Office for Civil Rights Press Release Title IX

National Outrage Over Biden Title IX Plan

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

National Outrage Over Biden Title IX Plan

WASHINGTON / February 28, 2024 – America is witnessing a seismic shift in popular views about President Biden’s Title IX plan to expand the definition of sex to include “gender identity.” (1) Such a change would impose dramatic changes on women’s sports, gender transitioning, parental rights, free speech, due process, and more (2).

The following events took place during a five-day period in mid-February, revealing a historic shift in the national mood:

  1. February 13: St. Louis Park Schools in blue-state Minneapolis agreed to allow six Somali-American families to opt out of instruction that featured “LGBTQ-affirming” books (3).
  2. February 14: Florida Governor Ron DeSantis boldly announced, “The Biden Administration is plunging ahead with a radical re-write of Title IX, seeking to impose gender ideology on K-12 schools all across the country….In Florida, we will not abide by it.” (4)
  3. February 17: Democrat-turned-Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced, “I don’t think somebody who is born a biological male should be competing in consequential women’s sports.” (5)

The issue that has generated the strongest public reaction is women’s sports, which are now imperiled by policies that allow biological males to compete against women.

In early February, Collegiate Charter School in Massachusetts played a basketball game against the KIPP Academy. The KIPP team had a member who was a 6-foot tall, biological male who identified as female. During the first half of the game, the male injured three of the Collegiate players, depleting the team’s roster and forcing the coach to forfeit the competition (6).

The incident went viral on social media and sparked public outrage. Retired University of North Carolina coach Sylvia Hatchell charged, “I don’t care if you had an operation or took hormones or what. Having to play against a transgender is not fair and it’s not equal.” (7)

The Collegiate Charter School incident was not the first time that a female was injured under similar circumstances.

Last November, a field hockey player for Dighton-Rehoboth Regional High School in Massachusetts had her teeth knocked out and suffered facial injuries when a Swampscott High School male player who identifies as a female hit the ball directly at her face.

In North Carolina, volleyball player Payton NcNabb suffered head and neck injuries and a concussion after a transgender player spiked the ball at her.

After USA Boxing announced it was going to admit biological males to compete against biological women, attorney Jenna Ellis accused the organization of wanting to “get women killed.” (8)  Rep. Lauren Bobert (R-Colo.) denounced the scheme as “pathetic and disgusting.”

Numerous opinion polls show a strong majority of Americans opposes the Biden Gender Agenda (9). SAVE urges persons to submit testimony to the federal Office of Management and Budget to record their strong opposition to the new Title IX regulation.

Instructions how to schedule the testimony are available online: https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/abolish-doe/

Links:

  1. https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-releases-proposed-changes-title-ix-regulations-invites-public-comment
  2. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/network/
  3. https://firstliberty.org/media/minnesota-school-district-grants-opt-out-from-sexual-curriculum-to-somali-american-families/
  4. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/saraharnold/2024/02/16/desantis-biden-sneaks-plan-to-impose-gender-ideology-on-k-12-schools-n2635363
  5. https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/robert-f-kennedy-jr-says-transgender-athletes-shouldnt-compete-against-biological
  6. https://www.gazettextra.com/news/nation_world/massachusetts-interscholastic-athletic-association-comments-on-viral-girls-basketball-game-after-player-injury-ignites-transgender/article_fd35ae9e-7eb0-569d-8196-f0b7269a9881.html
  7. https://www.ntd.com/two-high-school-girl-basketball-players-in-massachusetts-injured-by-transgender-player-from-other-team_975406.html
  8. https://twitter.com/JennaEllisEsq/status/1741520837688115592
  9. https://www.saveservices.org/2024/02/public-opinion-polls-reveal-growing-public-opposition-to-policies-driven-by-gender-agenda/